{"@context":{"@language":"en","AIPUUID":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierAIP","AggregatedSourceRepository":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider","AlternateTitle":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/alternative","CatalogueRecord":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isReferencedBy","Collection":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isPartOf","Creator":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator","DateAvailable":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","DateIssued":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","DigitalResourceOriginalRecord":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO","FileFormat":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/elements\/1.1\/format","FullText":"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note","Genre":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType","Identifier":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/identifier","IsShownAt":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt","Language":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language","Provider":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider","Publisher":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher","Rights":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights","SortDate":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/date","Source":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/source","Title":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title","Type":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type","Translation":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description"},"AIPUUID":[{"@value":"f7d3d536-a68a-4295-89a0-fa6e7d95b170","@language":"en"}],"AggregatedSourceRepository":[{"@value":"CONTENTdm","@language":"en"}],"AlternateTitle":[{"@value":"ROYAL COMMISSION--VICTORIA MUNICIPALITY.","@language":"en"}],"CatalogueRecord":[{"@value":"http:\/\/resolve.library.ubc.ca\/cgi-bin\/catsearch?bid=1198198","@language":"en"}],"Collection":[{"@value":"Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia","@language":"en"}],"Creator":[{"@value":"British Columbia. Legislative Assembly","@language":"en"}],"DateAvailable":[{"@value":"2014-11-14","@language":"en"}],"DateIssued":[{"@value":"[1892]","@language":"en"}],"DigitalResourceOriginalRecord":[{"@value":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/collections\/bcsessional\/items\/1.0063298\/source.json","@language":"en"}],"FileFormat":[{"@value":"application\/pdf","@language":"en"}],"FullText":[{"@value":" 55 Vict.\nRoyal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality\n481\nROYAL   COMMISSION.\nIN  THE   MATTER   OF   AN   INQUIRY  INTO   THE   CONDUCT   OF   THE\nAFFAIRS   OF   THE   MUNICIPAL  COUNCIL  OF   VICTORIA.\n25th February, 1892.\nSir :\nWe beg to enclose for the information of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor our report\nin the above matter.\nThe shorthand writer's notes of the evidence taken before us are, as we understand, already\nin your possession.\nSome tabulated statements furnished to us by the Municipal Council have already been\nhanded to the Attorney-General.\nWe have the honour to be,\nSir,\nYours obediently,\nMATT. B. BEGBIE,\nHon. Jno. Robson, M.P.P.,\nProvincial Secretary.\nM. W. TYRWH1TT DRAKE, j\nCo\nmmissioners.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 483\nROYAL   COMMISSION\nTo enquire into the Affairs of Victoria Corporation.\nREPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSIONERS.\nBy virtue of the Commission to us directed, dated 17th October, 1891, we have caused\nan enquiry to be made into the conduct and management of the municipal affairs of the\nCorporation 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\nthrow any light on the subject were examined and cross-examined by counsel for the\npetitioners and for the municipal authorities.\nThe charges and the formal answers will be found in the Appendix, Part 1, and in Part 2\nthe evidence which was adduced before us.\nThe Municipal Council admitted most of the complaints made, but only differed as to\ndetails.\nExcessive Expendituee.\nThe first charge, of excessive expenditure beyond the ordinary current revenue, in fact\ncovers the greater portion of the complaints made. This charge was not only admitted, but, as\nwe think, established beyond the degree charged.\nSection 98 of the \" Municipal Act\" provides that no municipal council shall have power to\nincur any liability beyond the revenue for the current year, and the revenue for the use of the\ncouncil shall commence on the first day of the year until the end of the year.\nThis limitation is, of course, subject to the power to raise by way of loan such sums as may\nbe deemed necessary for extraordinary purposes in any year. But the ordinary revenue is not\notherwise to be exceeded.\nYet we find that not only has the annual revenue been habitually\u2014it can hardly be said\nsystematically\u2014exceeded (for no sort of system appears to have been followed), but we find\nalso that loans raised for special purposes have, in one instance, been misapplied, and often\ncarried 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\nextent from the time and mode in which the regular income is raised and received by the\nCorporation.\nThe city revenue is derived chiefly from water rates, real estate tax, licenses and fees.\nThe real estate tax, the main source of supply, is payable at the end of the year, and\nconsequently there can be no knowledge, but merely an approximate estimate, of the amount\nwhich the Corporation can expend. But as the expending commences at once, the Corporation\nis driven into incurring debt, even from the first days when it comes into office. The\nnecessary funds are naturally and easily obtained by an over-draft at their bankers, to be\nmade good . when the rates come in in November. The result of this facile accommodation\nshows that the Council for some years past have, at the end of their term of office, left a large\nand annually increasing balance due to the bank for the in-coming Council to meet. This\ndeficit for the year 1891, amounts, according to the auditor's estimate, to $113,000. This is\nan indebtedness incurred beyond the year's income, and is, in fact, money borrowed without\nthe sanction of any by-law or any of the safeguards provided in the \"Municipal Act.\" It would\nseem, therefore, to have been illegally incurred, and not recoverable against the Corporation,\n 484 Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nNo Council has ever had the power to bind the corporate property for the repayment of loans\nof this character. Successive Councils appear to have persistently ignored the provisions of the\nstatute in this respect. But owing to the laxity which has hitherto prevailed in observing the\nstatutory safeguards, the Commissioners think it would be inexpedient, perhaps harsh, that\nthe bank should be made the losers of this large sum. The over-draft seems to have been\nincurred and the money to have been expended with the full knowledge and acquiescence of\nthe ratepayers, who have had whatever benefit has been derived from a large part, at all events,\nof that expenditure.\nWhen the expenditure of the city for the last few years is examined, it is apparent that\nthe system of raising money by by-laws for special purposes is gradually exhausting the\nrevenue by the charges for interest and sinking fund.\nIn the year 1889 these charges amounted to |31,594\n,,    1890 \u201e \u201e \u201e     50,284\n\u201e     1891 \u201e \u201e \u201e     61,340\nBut this does not disclose the total amount which the city may be called upon to pay.\nThere are sundry by-laws showing a contingent liability which may any day be converted into\nan actual liability.    This subject is referred to later on.\nNot only has the annual revenue raised and spent by the Corporation increased with this\nalarming rapidity; not only have its future tax-bearing capacities been thus pledged and\nanticipated at a constantly increasing ratio, but it is of still deeper interest to note the rate at\nwhich the capital debt has been accumulating.\nAccording to a return furnished to us by the Corporation, the earliest loans amounted to\n1150,000\u2014in 1874 and 1875 for water works purposes. These were followed in 1877 and\n1878 by $40,000 more for the same purposes; in all, $190,000 raised for this one purpose, which\nwas admittedly a perfectly legitimate object of a loan. Then followed a period of seven years\nduring which the Corporation expenses were defrayed by the ordinary annual revenue, and no\nloan was made. In 1885 and 1886 $146,000 more was raised, partly for electric light plant\nand water works, but, as to $50,000, nominally for \" street work ;\" a somewhat indefinite\nphrase, which does not, however, appear to include anything justifying a loan. After 1886\nthere was a short pause. But in 1888 there commenced a much more liberal era. Between\nAugust, 1888, and last year, in a little more than three years, no less an aggregate\nthan $797,500 has been raised by way of loan. And to this there must be added the\nvery considerable bonus to the Saanich Railway, guaranteeing $20,000 per annum for\ntwenty-five years, the present worth of which probably exceeds $300,000. It is true\nthis is only a contingent liability, but the company must be a bond fide company, or no\nsuch guarantee would ever have been given ; and being a bond fide company, the contingency\non which the bonus is payable will certainly arise. Nor is this by any means all the capital\nwhich has been used up in the last three years. Various bonuses include an exemption of the\nfavoured recipients from all taxation of their stock and real estate, and unlimited grants of\nwater, free of all price or stint, for manufacturing purposes, &c, the money value of which can\nhardly be ascertained. But it is evident that every $1,000 per annum of taxation which the\ncity thus abandons, is exactly equivalent to raising a capital sum of $20,000 at 5 per cent, and\nbestowing it on the privileged individuals. Under such circumstances it seems probable that\nthe resources qua capital of the Corporation have been diminished or burdened in the last\nthree and a half years to the extent of at least $1,200,000 (for the reasons above given, it is\nimpossible to calculate, within a few scores of thousands of dollars, the amount for which the\ncorporation is or may become liable). This is at least six times as much as in any previous\nquadrennial period This enormous increase of capital obligation has been concurrent with an\nequally liberal augmentation of annual taxation, whicli again has been overstepped in a\nconstantly increasing ratio by the ordinary annual expenditure. The ordinary revenue from\ntaxation of real estate, water rents, fines and fees, and other annual sources, amounted in 1877\nto $50,000 or $60,000. In 1888 it amounted to about $133,000 ; in 1889, to about $186,000 ;\nin 1890, to about $202,000; and 1891, to about $315,000, while the interest on overdrafts\nduring the last four years, showing how far even this increasingly augmented income has been\nexceeded without the authority of any by-law, has in 1888 amounted to $1,538.67; in 1889,\nto $1,780.85 ; in 1890, to $2,970.08, and in 1891 to $8,737.12. And other expenditures\nseem to have been advancing in a similar ratio, whicli is neither arithmetical nor geometrical,\nbut something more progressive than either.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 485\nThe expenditure of the city on other heads has been increased from $228,736 in 1888 to\n$954,069 in 1891. This enormous increase has by no means been expended on reproductive\nworks. For instance, the expenditure on streets, a very important portion of the Council's\nduty, has only been increased comparatively in a slight degree. In 1888 the amount was\n$44,772 ; in 1891, $75,816, of which sum about $13,000, in round numbers, was derived from\nthe sale of the gravel pits, making the actual amount expended out of revenue $55,816 in 1891,\nor an increase of $18,000 only; while on non-reproductive matters, including objects of mere\nornament and luxury\u2014Alderman Lake, two or three wolves and deer and their keepers, the\nentertainment of visitors, entertainments in which the members of the Council found it\nnecessary to take a part\u2014the expenditure amounted to far more than the additional\nexpenditure on streets.\nMisappropriation of Loans.\nIt is acknowledged that the loans raised from time to time have been paid into general\nrevenue, instead of being placed to separate accounts, and these amounts have thus become\nliable to the general banker's lien in respect of advances made to the Corporation on their\ngeneral account.\nIt is admitted that in 1889 the overdraft due to the bank was repaid by appropriating to\nthat purpose the balance in hand of certain loans raised for the special purposes of the water\nworks and fire department, amounting in the aggregate to $62,000 ; the consequence was that\nthe incoming Council had little or no money in hand, and had to borrow from the bank the\nfunds necessary to carry out the works for which these loans were ostensibly raised.\nPremiums on Loans.\nIn 1889, five loans were raised, amounting to $215,000, on which premiums amounting to\n$4,567 were received. These premiums were expended as part of the current revenue, and not\ntreated as being, what in fact they were, moneys forming part of the capital fund raised on the\ncredit of the by-law, and bound to be wholly appropriated, therefore, to the objects for which the\nmoney was raised ; and in at least one instance, that of the moneys produced by the sale of the\ngravel pits, which were the property of the Corporation, nearly two-thirds of the whole has\nbeen 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.\nTemporary Loans.\nThe Corporation, in the years 1888, 1889, 1890, and 1891, passed by-laws for temporary\nloans, without carrying out the formalities required by the money by-law, alleging as an excuse\nfor this omission that these by-laws contemplated the repayment of the loan within the current\nyear; but in no one case were these loans repaid within the current year, nor, apparently, was\nthe least attempt made to repay them, or to convert the temporary into a permanent loan. It\nseems to us that these loans have been raised by evasions of the Act.\nSince April, 1891, the Council have proceeded to borrow for current expenses moneys to\nbe repaid within the year; and by-law after by-law has been passed, gradually increasing the\nsuccessive amounts, the stipulated amount being continually overstepped, and each successive\nby-law being delayed until the amount due to the bank was greatly in excess of the amount\nsanctioned by the previous by-law. This shows at least great irregularity and miscalculation\nin the manner of conducting the financial operations of the city, and resulted in raising the\namount paid for interest to the bank on overdraft to nearly $9,000.\nSinking Fund.\nThe sinking fund has not been invested according to the Act, and is lying at the bank\ncarrying 3 per cent, interest to an amount in excess of $100,000, and, practically, this sum has\nbeen lent to the Corporation at 6 per cent, interest. Thus the Corporation have been paying\n3 per cent, for the use of their own funds.\nPerhaps, indeed, there never was a case which more distinctly exemplifies the mischiefs\nalleged by political economists to be inherent in the whole system of a sinking fund. The\nCorporation have never been able to borrow at less than 5 or 6 per cent. They pay that\namount, therefore, for their sinking fund, upon which, when collected and deposited, they never\nget more than 3 or 4 per cent,    This operation is now affecting a sum of $138,000,\n 486 Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nSewerage.\nThe debentures issued by the Corporation for this purpose amounted to $300,000, bearing\n4 per cent, interest nominal. It was anticipated, whether well founded or not, that these\ndebentures could be readily disposed of on favourable terms; but owing to the stringency of the\nmoney market these anticipations were disappointed. The Corporation had in the meantime\nentered into a sewerage contract, on which payments became due, which they were called upon\nto pay. To meet these, an arrangement was made with Mr. Robert Ward for an advance, and\nthe debentures were pledged as security. The terms of this arrangement are set out in pages\nxxxix and xl of the evidence. The Commissioners, under the circumstances, consider that the\nCorporation acted for the best. They have been informed since the enquiry opened that the\ndebentures have been since sold at 91.    It is possible that if the debentures had been issued at\n5 per cent, there would have been little difficulty in disposing of them at par.\nWith regard to charge 6, sub-section (a), it is admitted that the Sewerage Commissioners\nwere appointed on the third day of September, 1890, and that their appointment was not\nrenewed, as required by the Act, section 96, sub-section (96); but we think that their acts\nduring the time they were acting without authority should, if necessary, be confirmed.\nWith regard to the contract for pipes : The contract was given to a local company which\nhad put in the lowest tender; but it is clear that the contractors, at the time they tendered,\nhad not the necessary plant for carrying out the works, and the larger pipes have been, in fact,\nall 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\npowers for rejecting inferior pipes, and has apparently exercised that power from time to time.\nBut it is to be remarked that Mr. Hunter, one of the aldermen, is a large shareholder in and\na 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.\nThere appears to have been considerable delays in delivering pipes, and the sewerage\ncontractor may claim compensation from the Corporation for delays. If such is the case, the\nPottery 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\nexpress no opinion.\nGravel Pits.\nThe Corporation sold six acres, called the Gravel Pits, which realized in gross $23,235.29.\nThe petitioners allege that this was valuable property of the Corporation, and ought not to\nhave been sold, as future Councils will have to purchase gravel elsewhere. A great deal of\nevidence was adduced on this subject, the present members of Council alleging that it was, in\nfact, cheaper to contract for gravelling roads than to supply the contractors with gravel. On\nthe whole of the evidence the Commissioners do not offer any opinion as to the prudence or\nimprudence of the sale of this property; but the money realized ought, according to the terms\nof the by-law, to have been expended, after realization, on the streets. This has not been\ndone, 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.\nThe balance of the purchase money, $10,083.52, was paid into the bank as current revenue,\nand has, somehow or other, been absorbed. The amount due to that institution has been\nreduced pro tanto. In point of fact, the proceeds of the sale ought to have been treated as\ncapital, and not as forming part of the year's ordinary revenue at all.\nThe by-law passed 19 th August, 1891, authorizing the sale of these gravel pits, contains a\nclause for the appropriation of the proceeds to the improvement of the streets of the city.\nThis clause probably was a very strong inducement to the ratepayers to pass it; but it has\nbeen, at all events partially, ignored, the Corporation having charged against the amount\nrealized other moneys expended by them for streets prior to the sale. But it is not clear that\nthis method of converting capital into income is within the powers of a by-law under the\n\"Municipal Act.\"\nIllegal Diversion of Loan Moneys.\nThe evidence shows the balance required for completion of Johnson Street sewer, $7,675,\nwas not taken from the amount raised under the Sewerage By-law, but was paid out of current\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 487\nrevenue, and was, in our opinion, correctly so paid. It was pointed out to us that some of the\nloan by-laws were for more objects than one. This may operate viciously in two ways : A\nvoter may be so much in favour of one object, A, that he will vote for the by-law, though he\nwould, if he could, veto object B ; or he may feel so strongly against object B as to veto the\nwhole by-law, though he would have approved of A, standing alone. In neither case would\nthere be a true expression of opinion on the by-law. In some instances the money raised for\nseveral objects has been expended on only one of them. We think that each loan by-law\nshould be confined to one distinct object.\nReckless Conduct of Municipal Affairs.\nThis is a general charge of over-expenditure, and appears to be fully borne out by the\nevidence.\nIn February, 1891, the Corporation passed a by-law (No. 132) authorizing an expenditure\nof $235,417. What the sum actually expended has been cannot be ascertained, because the\nbooks have not been made up; but the expenditure had already, at one of our early sittings,\nexceeded the estimated amount, and the sum due to the bank at the end of the year was by the\nAuditor, in his evidence, estimated at not less than $113,000.\nThe aldermen are divided into committees, and these committees appear to carry on their\nduties and authorize expenditures without the least regard to the requirements of the other\ncommittees or to the by-law limiting the total expenditure to the annual income. For instance,\nthe total amount allotted to be expended on streets for 1891 was $9,000. The amount actually\nexpended was in excess of $75,000.\nThe Council seem to consider that as long as they can get credit at the bank they may\nexpend as ordinary revenue the money thus obtained. They have persistently ignored the Act,\nand have expended large sums which the current revenue is entirely unable to meet.\nThe expenditure on salaries, $75,522, seems a large amount for administering a revenue\n(in 1891) of $311,000. From this, however, the police and fire departments, together $35,000,\nought to be excluded; but $40,000 is expended in payments under the head set out in\nSchedule A.\nThe superintendence of streets alone absorbs $8,820, to control an expenditure of what in\nthe estimate of expenditure amounted to less than $10,000 (page xxxiv., Evidence). These\n$8,820 are apparently for permanent salaries, and go on whether there is work to be done or\nnot.\nAmong 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.\nThe present auditor's duties seem to be merely to check the accounts and examine vouchers.\nHe is not an auditor in the ordinary sense of the word, and his supervision is merely that of a\npaid 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\nliteral wording of the Act, they antedated the cheques so that they appeared as having been\ndrawn in the month of December, although in fact they were drawn between the 31st December\nand the date of the new Council coming into office ; and yet the auditor passed, and perhaps\nwas 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.\nWe wish it to be fully understood that nothing in these remarks, or in the evidence before\nus, impugns in the least either the integrity or the ability of the present so-called auditor.\nWe only wish to insist that there is not any audit or auditor with proper powers.\nMiscellaneous Accounts.\nIn examining the Accounts for 1890, the following items appear under the head \"Miscellaneous \" :\u2014\nQueen's Birthday Celebration  $775 00\nDominion Publishing Company  150 00\nAgricultural  500 00\nEntertaining Farmers' Delegates  233 00\nEdition (special) of \" Times \" ,  570 00\nOmaha visitors  125 00\n 48g Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nAnd in the year 1891, the following:\u2014\nSecret service    $500 00\n500 copies of \" Colonist\"      300 00\nFleet Ball      498 00\nAddress to Mayor      100 00\nEmpress of India (presentation of plate)      262 00\nTrades and Labour Club      250 00\n24th May celebration 1,426 00\n\" Victoria IUustrated \"    2,000 00\n\" North Western Review\"      989 00\nThe Commissioners fail to discover any legal authority for these expenditures. Not one\nof them would have been allowed by an independent auditor, and many of them should be\nborne by the councillors who authorized them, and not by the ratepayers.\nIt 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\nCorporation for it, although he was at the time the paid servant of the Corporation, employed\nby them for the purpose of arranging the purchase. It does not appear that his right to such\ncommission was or could be sanctioned beforehand. It evidently made it for his interest that\nthe price should be as large as possible.\nAny individual ratepayer could probably have obtained redress for the sums misapplied\nas mentioned in this and the preceding paragraphs.\nExpenditure on Public Market.\nOn this building and land the sum of $100,000 has been expended, but that amount has\nbeen sanctioned by the rateyayers. Whether the money thus raised has been usefully expended\nwe do not express any opinion.\nIt is to be remarked that Mr. Coughlan, an alderman and one of the market committee,\nholds the controlling interest in a company called the Pacific Asphalt Co., and is its managing\ndirector. As alderman, he had a voice in deciding that the floor should be of asphalt. As\ncommitteeman, he had a voice in awarding the contract, and approving the execution. This\ncompany had the contract for laying down an asphalt floor. It was further shewn that all\nthe woodwork for the building, amounting to over $12,000, was executed in the shop of another\nalderman, Mr. A. J. Smith. In both cases the statute and their oaths of office have been ignored\nby these gentlemen. In neither case, however, was it attempted to be shewn that the Corporation suffered loss, or that the work was imperfect.\nSewerage and Water Works.\nThere remains two most important matters, both of which were largely discussed before\nus, but upon which we feel quite incompetent to give any opinion. However, we think it\nproper to say this much :\u2014\nAs to the Sewerage system, the Corporation appear to have sought the advice and\nassistance of the most competent men within their reach ; nor has the system actually adopted\nbeen impeached at all by anybody, we think, as faulty in theory, if duly carried out. Defects\nhave been alleged, and as hotly denied, in the execution. The methods of working, trenching,\n<fec, have been attacked as extravagant, and defended as economical. If there be anything\nfaulty under either of these heads, the contractor will have to make it good before he receives\npayment. The quality of the pipes laid has, we think, not been impeached even by hostile\nwitnesses ; though this is due to the vigilance of the Engineer, and not to the sagacity of the\nCouncil, in ensuring their supply. Some delay has been caused by the inadequate supply, but\nthis is all that can be alleged.\nThe Johnson Street Sewer seems $40,000 thrown away.\nWater Works.\nBy the Victoria Water Works Act, the revenue, after payment of the current expenses,\nis appropriated to the general purposes of the City.\nThe Water Commissioner ought to be an Engineer experienced in this class of work, and\nhe should have the sole control and sole responsibility of the works, the Council supplying the\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 489\nneedful funds.    The late Engineer resigned because the control of the hydrants was removed\nfrom him, whilst he was expected to continue responsible for the efficiency of the system.\nAs to the Water Works, the Corporation seem to have acted on the advice, at least in\nthe first instance, of a regular scientific Engineer, and to have adhered to his plans with a fatal\ntenacity. We have been favoured, by the courtesy of the Mayor, the Honourable Robert\nBeaven, M.P P., with a copy of Mr. Bulkley's original report. A large part of the preamble\nis occupied by demonstrating the superiority of soft water over hard, for domestic purposes ;\nand Elk Lake water, both before and after entering Beaver Lake, is very soft. Chiefly with\nthe view of securing as large a reservoir as possible, and an extended basin of supply, Mr.\nBulkley recommended that the water should be taken into the pipes at the lower end of Beaver\nLake, where he proposed to place filter beds, to eliminate any impurities, Elk Lake being\npure and limpid, and Beaver Lake being little better than a morass of peaty formation. But\nit had been overlooked that his early praises of soft water were chiefly due to its extreme\npower as a solvent. By the time the limpid water of Elk Lake has passed over the\nthree-quarters of a mile of peaty bed it is still quite clear, but it has absorbed extract\nof peat so that it is of the colour of tea. And it would be as futile to attempt by\nfiltering to restore the contents of the teapot to its former condition, as to try to get\npure water by filtering Beaver Lake. We think that it is time that this should at length\nbe recognized, and that the complaints of the consumer of the strong flavour of morass, which\nnot even boiling will completely cure, should be attended to. This can only be done we think\nby taking the water direct from Elk Lake. This will involve, no doubt, a further considerable\noutlay. What is suggested to us is to abandon Beaver Lake altogether ; to have a dam to rise\nsix or eight feet above the surface of Elk Lake, for which it is said there is a favourable place ;\nand a mile of new pipe laying. It is suggested that this dam will provide an additional stratum\nof water, beyond the present natural supply, of about 400 acres, six feet deep, or about 640\nmillions of gallons; a supply of 60 gallons per day for 50,000 people for 200 days without rain.\nIt is proposed to take this supply midway between the bottom and the surface of the lake ;\nself-filtered water, since organic impurities float towards the surface, and inorganic impurities\nsink to the floor. It is proposed to have at the lake a tower 50 feet high, and by steam power\nto pump it to the summit, so as to serve the highest points of the city by gravitation ; this in\nsubstitution for the present steam pumping apparatus in Victoria, which has to drive the water\n150 feet high. It is said that this scheme can be carried out for $100,000. Upon this scheme\nwe offer no opinion, except that much money has been spent for objects of less immediate or\npractical utility.\nCemetery.\nFrom the evidence, it appears that some painful mistakes have been made, but these are\nnot likely to occur again, as they appear to have arisen more from misconception of duty than\nwilful carelessness or neglect. As to the charge that the Corporation are likely to lose the\nland purchased, owing to an incumbrance affecting the property, we do not think there is any\ncause for alarm.\nBonuses.\nWe do not think it within our province to offer any opinion as to the general policy of\ngranting bonuses to individuals or companies in order to induce them to establish industries or\nmeans of communication in the city. Assuming this to be desired, there yet remains much to\nbe considered as to the form and manner in which they are granted.\nIt seems the admitted policy of the Legislature that the power of thus pledging the\nrevenues and corporate property of the city should not be vested in the Council alone, but that\nthe whole body of taxpayers should have an opportunity of judging of the expediency of the\nresolutions to which the Council have arrived. But it seems obvious that, in order to form a\njudgment, the- by-law submitted to the popular vote should state, or enable the voters to\ncalculate, what it is they are voting about. And inasmuch as a large portion of each bonus\nhitherto granted\u2014perhaps, in most cases, the larger portion\u2014is quite unknown and incapable\nof being estimated, it is clear that the voters must be very much in the dark. We allude to\nthose provisions in most of the bonus by-laws which undertake to provide gratis all the water\nwhich the grantee may think fit to take, and which exempt all his stock and improvements\nfrom taxation, along, perhaps, with a cash grant of $10,000 or $20,000. Many manufactories\npould, without difficulty, take all the water coming through the pipes,    As a matter of fact,\n 490 Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nMr. Yale and Dr. Peers did establish mills on the stream which included all the water from\nElk and Beaver Lakes, and found it insufficient during a large portion of the year, so that\nthose mills were abandoned. This was long before the city water works were thought of. But\neven since the introduction of water into the city, we have been informed that it has, on more\nthan one occasion, been used as a source of mechanical power. Now, the supply at present, for\ndomestic and residential purposes, is no doubt ample, and we believe it might easily and\ncheaply be doubled; but so may the population of Victoria, in a very few years, be much more\nthan doubled. And the unlimited right to use any material or product, without measure and\nwithout price, naturally leads to waste.\nBut suppose that no inconvenience or restriction results to private inhabitants, (who,\nhowever, have surely the first and preferential right to be accommodated), other considerations\noccur to us. The water rate occasionally charged, already, to private individuals is not less than\n$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\nwould, at five per cent per annum, enable the Corporation to support a loan of $20,000. The\ngrant of free water, therefore, apart from all other consideration, involves an addition to the\nbonus of that amount. Is this fully understood by tho voters when their opinion is asked as\nto 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,\nwould not be less than $100,000. The taxation upon that would, at the ruling rates, amount\nto another $1,000 per annum, the remission of which, in fact amounts to the gift of another\n$20,000 bonus in cash. It may by questioned whether the voters have always been aware of\nthis.\nAll bonuses ought to be in cash and nothing else. Upon these alone can an intelligent\nvote be given. If the petitioner for a bonus knows the value of what he demands, he ought\nnot to refuse to state it; and if he urge, as he probably may urge with truth, that he cannot\ncalculate beforehand what the value of the water may be, or what the value of his stock and\nmanufactory, he surely cannot expect that the voters can know. And it seems useless to\nexpose the absurdity of two parties agreeing to something when neither of them know the\nmeaning or effect of the subject matter of the agreement.\nWe have already remarked upon the Saanich by-law, which has always been treated as a\nmerely 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\nyears is equivalent, at five per cent., to rather more than $280,000 cash, and, at four per cent.,\nto rather more than $300,000 cash. This, in addition to free water without limit, and\nexemption from taxation of all their stock and buildings.\nThe manner in which by-laws are passed appears to us also to require revision. When\nthis Saanich Railroad Company Bonus By-law was submitted to the popular vote there were\nupwards of 1,800 voters on the list; but there were not 500 in all who voted upon the by-law,\nwhich was carried by a majority of 3. In other words, this enormous liability was fixed upon\nthe whole body of taxpayers by three voters only.\nIt is quite possible that even this majority was entirely composed of the seven promoters\nand proposed donees of the bonus.\nThe Legislature evidently contemplates every description of loan, whether for a bonus or\nany other object, as something apart from the ordinary business powers of the Council, which\nare confined to raising and spending the year's income. When any special or exceptional\noperation is proposed in an ordinary joint stock company (and a municipality is in effect\nmerely a joint stock company, of which the Council are the directors), the general rule is that it\nmust be carried by a certain proportionate majority of those entitled to vote. We suggest\nthat instead of its being possible for three men to place a liability in their own favour of\nupwards of $300,000 on the city, no loan should be legalized except by the assent of a clear\nmajority of the voters on the list, voting in proportion of at least three to two at the ballot\nboxes.\nCollection of Taxes.\nThe Commissioners have already pointed out that the present system of collecting the\ntaxes at the end of the year renders it difficult for the Council to ascertain what money they\nare entitled to expend. If the Council on entering on their duties could have the taxes in\nhand they would be able to control their expenditure, and save the heavy payment  of interest\n 55 Vict Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 491\non overdraft, which has already been referred to. And the consciousness of a practically\nunlimited power of overdraft tends to improvident expenditure, just as the consciousness of a\nlimited supply of ready money tends to economy of administration. The evil might be curbed\nif the Council were authorized at the beginning of each year to overdraw for the average\namount of property tax during the previous three years, and not more. The inconvenience is,\nor should be, limited to the revenue derived from the property tax (were it not from the large\narrears demanding instant attention habitually left by each expiring Council to its successor).\nThe water rates, fines, dues, &c, come in monthly. We think a limited power of overdraft is\nmore convenient and economical than changing the time of payment of taxes from the end of\nthe year (at present in November) to January or February. But under the present system it\nis unavoidable that either a debt should be incurred or that the necessary work of the\nCouncil should be prevented from advancing. We have to notice another point, which is of\nimportance.\nContracts by Outgoing Councils.\nIt appears that it is the custom of the outgoing Council to let contracts at the end of the\nyear without any by-law as required by the Act, leaving their successors to pay or reject the\nobligation. The successors have hitherto paid and not rejected these contracts. We think\nthat in this respect both the outgoing and incoming Council have acted contrary to the Act.\nBy-laws Reducing Rates on Loans.\nOur attention was also drawn to a series of by-laws, 91 to 110, inclusive, reducing the\nspecial rates which were to be levied under the original by-laws, and on which rates the\ndebentures were issued and sold, to the amounts mentioned in the new by-laws (which, however,\nrequire the sanction of the Lieutenant-Governor, which they have not yet received). These\nby-laws were passed under section 101 of the Act of 1891. This section is taken from section\n350, of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, chap. 174. But on reference to that Act the Council\nthere can only reduce the rate for the single year next following, and then only in case there\nare sufficient funds in hand to pay the interest and instalment of sinking fund, and certain\nimportant recitals are necessary, showing the original special rate, the balance in hand of such\nrate, and the surplus income derived in such year from any temporary investment of sinking\nfund None of these safeguards are contained in the British Columbia Municipality Act, and\nthe reduction is to be for all future years. And if the rate be once reduced there is no power\nto restore it, even if from circumstances the reduced rate be subsequently found insufficient.\nThis mode of dealing with municipal securities is calculated to impair the credit of the\nMunicipality, and, in fact, authorizes the Council to diminish the security of their creditors,\nand 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.\nExtension of City Boundaries.\nIt is very probable that the heavy rate of taxation complained of in the memorial, and\nthe continued increase of that rate, is due to the large and continual extension of the city\nboundaries. When new districts are annexed, the Corporation acquires, it is true, the right to\nlevy rates on the additional lands, but it becomes liable to correlative obligations. The new\nenrolled citizens all expect prospectively to enjoy the advantages- already possessed by the old\ncitizens, including the use of the works and machinery and experience which the earlier body\nhave acquired at great expense to themselves. And they all immediately have votes in the\nelection of delegates to assert and enforce those expectations. The expense on any street,\nof police, watering, laying sidewalks, sewerage, lighting, and perhaps some other matters, varies\nvery nearly in proportion to the length of street accommodated. But an owner on Government\nstreet pays rates on an estimated value of $1,000 or $2,000 per front foot. An owner in one\nof the newly annexed districts is rated at $10 or $15 per front foot. He contributes for his\nlot perhaps less than one-hundredth part as much as is charged to the Government street lot;\nbut he expects, or at least asserts a claim to, a larger outlay than is devoted to Government\nstreet. If the City of Victoria had remained within its original limits as when first\nincorporated, there is no doubt but that to-day a much lower rate than 1 per cent, would amply\nmeet all her ordinary requirements. But as to the newly annexed districts the present rate of\n1 per cent., or even a rate of  10 per cent, per annum on them alone, would not suffice to\n 492 Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nfurnish them with conveniences, apparatus, &c, equivalent to those which the original\nCorporation has already procured for itself. So long, therefore, as the policy is to provide by\nmeans of the general revenue for the street-laying and sidewalks, water-pipes and lighting,\nconnection, &c, in the outlying districts, it is necessary to tax the proprietors of the original\ntownsite thus heavily, so as to provide beyond their own requirements a surplus which can be\napplied for the improvement of the newly annexed lots. We submit that as the taxpayers of\nthe older portions of the city have provided these things for themselves wholly out of their own\nresources, so the making of new streets, the laying of proper water-pipes, lighting connections,\n&c, if desired by the owners in the annexed districts, should be wholly borne by them, either\nby special rate, or in such other manner as may be found expedient, and not out of the general\nrevenue of the city, nor by a general loan, the weight of which would fall mainly on the owners\nof the original townsite, nor perhaps (except as to sidewalks) until the newly annexed citizens\nexpress such desire. They would still obtain great advantages in being admitted as co-owners\nin such matters as the water works, police and fire departments, &c, as organized. It would\nbe difficult or impossible for them to obtain water elsewhere; and separate fire and police\nestablishments would certainly be more expensive, and probably less efficient, than those already\nexisting. Ten or fifteen years ago, all sidewalks were paid for, not out of general revenue, but\nas here suggested, by the owners of the lots accommodated.\nThe, municipal accounts for the year 1891 have been published in the newspapers, but not\nbrought officially to our attention, nor has any evidence been given concerning them, or any\npart of their contents. We have thought it, however, within our duty to peruse them, but\nwithout any skilled assistance. There are two or three matters which appear of interest.\n1st. It does not appear who made the estimate of the municipal assets, or whether that estimate\nhad been checked in any way. The signature of the so-called Auditor, of course, merely means\nthat the items in the accounts correspond with documents or estimates laid before him; not that\nhe has formed any opinion of his own as to value. Yet the water works are set down as an\nasset worth exactly $1,000,000. In December, 1889, they had been valued at $484,116. In\nanother compartment of the accounts for 1891 the whole construction account is set down at\n$513,974. It might be interesting to ascertain the motive of this sudden rise of $516,000\nabove 1889, representing nearly the entire estimated surplus of the municipal assets over\nliabilities ($530,183). There does not appear any authority, even by by-law, to expend $500\non \" Secret Service \" ; or $300 for 500 copies of a 5-cent paper ; or for several other items\nwhich were nevertheless set out, it must be said, without any attempt at concealment. It is\nnot clear how the Corporation have received $300,000 from the Sewerage Loan, and also\n$239,181 from the British Columbia Corporation Company, Limited. If there be any error\nhere, or in the sudden and enormous rise in the value of the water works, it may be difficult to\nretain the estimate of the value of the city assets above the city liabilities. But these questions,\nwhich probably are capable of immediate explanation, are not necessary to be dealt with in a\nreport under our present Commission.\nMATT. B. BEGBIE, \\r\nM. W. TRYWHITT DRAKE. } -<   ^ <\n 55 Vict.                 Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality.\n493\nSCHEDULE  A.\nLIST  OF   SALARIES.\n$2,000 00\nAldermen, nine at $200\t\n1,800 00\nPolice.\nSuperintendent\t\nTwo Sergeants, at $1,080\t\n1,800 00\n1,200 00\n2,160 00\n6,300 00\n5,040 00\n3,120 00\n840 00\nSeven Constables, at $900\t\nSix Constables, at $840\t\nFour Constables, at $780\t\nMagistrate\t\n90 460 00\n2,400 00\nFire.\nChief Engineer   \t\n1,320 00\n360 00\n1,920 00\n3,360 00\n840 00\n720 00\n3,672 00\nTwo Engineers, at $960\t\nFour Drivers, at $840\t\nOne Tillerman   \t\nThree Foremen, at $240\t\nSeventeen call men, at $216\t\nStreets.\nClerk, J. Matthews\t\nStreet Commissioner, W. A. Lynn\t\nTwo Foremen. Matthews and Dewsnap\t\nEngineer of Jumbo, Martin\t\nTeamster, Cameron   \t\n12192 00\n1,800 00\n1,080 00\n1,500 00\n1,800 00\n960 00\n780 00\n900 00\nCarpenter, Cox\t\nPark Keeper, Deakin\t\n8,820 00\n900 00\n1,800 00\n1,350 00\n1,080 00\n360 00\nElectric Light.\nElectrician, R. B. McMicking\t\nEngineer, Shepherd\t\nFireman, Roberts\t\nBoard of Health.\nHealth Officer, Dr. Milne\t\nSanitary Officer, B. Bailey\t\nCarried forward.\t\n4,590 00\n1,800 00\n720 00\n1,080 00\n154,962 00\n 494\nRoyal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality.\n1892\nBrought forward $54,962 00\nWater Works.\nWater Commissioner  1,800 00\nForeman, Preece    1,200 00\nCaretaker at Dam, Ede  720 00\nEngineer, Pump, Devoe   , 360 00\n \u2014      4,080 00\nSundry.\nTreasurer, C. Kent ,  2,000 00\nCity Clerk, Dowler  1,800 00\nWater Collector, Partridge  1,500 00\nAuditor, J. L. Raymur  1,000 00\nAssessor, Northcott  1,800 00\nAssistant Assessor, Scowcroft  1,200 00\nAssistant Clerk, E. C. Smith    1,080 00\nAssistant Water Collector, A. Borde  900 00\nAssistant Clerk (City Clerk), Humphreys  300 00\nType Writer, Wilby  600 00\nLibrarian, Jas. McGregor  900 00\nAssistant Librarian, Miss Noble  420 00\nPound-keeper, A. Shaw  840 00\nCemetery-keeper, J. Thomas  900 00\nJanitor, Jno. Creed  720 00\nRoad Tax Collector, Dearberg  600 00\n 16,560 00\nApril 1st,\nMay 20th,\nMay 15th,\nOctober   1st,\nAugust 25th,\nAugust 1st,\nAugust 1st,\nWater Works Loans.\n1874 $100,000 @ 7 per cent.,\n1875  50,000\n1877  20,000\n1886  75,000\n1888  20,000\n1889 ,  70,000\n1889  60,000\n$75,602 00\n7 per cent.,\n25 years.\n7\n20     \u201e\n8\n25     \u201e\n5        ,,\n30    \u201e\n5\n40     \u201e\n5\n30     \u201e\n5\n30     \u201e\nTotal $395,000\nIn 1877, debentures of $100,000 issue of  1874,  amounting to $7,500,  were redeemed,\nleaving a total amount current of $387,500.\nWater Rents received to 30th November, 1891.\nYear   1876 $ 1,300 00\n1887  13,137 33\n1878  17,543 50\n1879  19,366 40\n1880  19,7^4 22\n1881  19,428 91\n1882  22,396 35\n1883  25,044 10\n1884  29,514 00\n1885-86 (2 years)  69,997 95\n1887..........  38,663 43\n1888  41,785 18\n1889  42,054 54\n1890  43,603 76\n1891 (to 30th November)  46,457 30\n$450,036 97\n 55 Vict.\nRoyal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality.\n495\nJanuary\t\nFebruary 21\nMarch 25\nApril 30\nMay    26\nJune   28\nJuly 34\nAugust 17\nSeptember 10\nOctober 11\nNovember 17\nDecember 14\nMen on Streets\u20141890.\nAverage number of men.                      Average rate of wages.\n, 14 men $2.25 per day.\n2.50\n2.50\n2.37J\n2.37|\n2.35\n2.30\n2.35\n2.00\n2.121\n2.121\n2.10\nMen on Streets\u20141891.\nAverage number of men.\nAverage rate of wages.\nJanuary 16 men $2.15 per day.\nFebruary 26\nMarch 29\nApril 38\nMay    37\nJune   44\nJuly 25\nAugust 23\nSeptember 26\nOctober 26\nNovember 24\n2.30\n2.25\n2.35\n2.30\n2.30\n2.45\n2.40\n2,15\n2.15\n2.30\nAppointments by By-Law, 1890-91.\nAssessor, Building Inspector, and Superintendent Public Works\u2014By-Law 78; February\n19th, 1890.\nWater Works Foreman\u2014By-Law 79; February 26th, 1890.\nStreet Commissioner\u2014By-Law 136; June 5th, 1891.\nPolice Magistrate\u2014By-Law 141 ; August 12th, 1891.\nSalaries of following were increased by Estimates By-Law, 1891 (No. 132), February 14th,\n1891:\u2014\nChief Engineer, drivers, engineers, call-men\u2014Fire Department.\nSuperintendent, No. 1 Sergeant\u2014Police Force.\nAssistant surveyor, sanitary officer, librarian, assistant librarian, pound-keeper.\nAppointments other than by By-Law, 1891.\nAssistant Assessor\u2014Appointment made and salary fixed by the Assessment Committee.\nClerk and type-writer in City Clerk's office\u2014Appointment made and salaries fixed by Hall\nCommittee.\nPark-keeper's salary raised by Park Committee.\nStreet Commissioner appointed acting Water Commissioner at increased salary of $25 per\nmonth, by resolution of Council,\n 496\nRoyal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality.\n1891\nStatement of Bonus By-Laws.\nNo. 50.\u2014-Street Rai\nway Guarantee.\nGuarantee of interest on $40,000 @ 5 percent, for 20years.     \"\n^\"ot yet claimed, and in\nall probability never will be.\nVotes cast-\n\u2014ayes, 315; noes, 25.    Majority, 290.\nNo. 67.\u2014Victoria, S\n>aanich and New Westminster Railway Interest Bo\nnus.\nBonus of interest on $500,000 @ 4 per  cent,  for  25\nyears.\nNot\nyet claimed, and\nanother by\n-law to be introduced repealing it and provid\ning for another bonus.\nVotes cast\n\u2014 ayes, 275; noes, 272.    Majority, 3.\nNo. 72.\u2014Rice Mill Bonus.\nTo give Victoria Rice Mills immunity from taxation and free water for 15 years.\nVotes cast-\n\u2014ayes, 384; noes, 123.    Majority, 261.\nNo. 73.\u2014Flour Mill Bonus.\nTo bonus flour mill to the amount of $10,000, and give\nimmun\nitv from taxation and\nfree water for 15 years.    Bonus of $10,000 paid over to Mount Royal Milling Co.\nVotes cast\n\u2014ayes, 359; noes, 120.    Majority, 239.\nNo. 74\u2014Paper Mill Bonus.\nTo bonus p\naper mill to extent of $15,000, and give immunity\nfrom\ntaxation   for   10\nyears.     By\n-law lapsed, paper mill not being in operatior\non July 1st\n, 1890.\nVotes cast\n\u2014ayes, 399 ; noes, 123.    Majority, 276.\nNo. 75.\u2014Sugar Refinery Bonus.\nTo bonus sugar refinery to amount of $40,000, and give\nimmunity fi\nom taxation and\nfree water for 15 years.    Promoters  have  until   1st  January\n1893\n, to take up this\nbonus.\nVotes cast\n-ayes, 396 ; noes. 115.    Majority, 281.\nNo. 136.\u2014Agricultural Association Bonus.\nTo give Association  $25,000 to assist  in erecting ex\nribition buildings.    Owing to\ndefects in\nnode of taking votes on this by-law, a fresh one is now before  the  people\nto take its\nplace.\nVotes cast\n\u2014ayes, 215; noes, 151.    Majority, 64.\nStatement of Loans.\nAmount.\nRate.  Years.\nSpecial Rate.\nApril 1st, 1874,\nWaterworks,                                    $100,000\n7%\n25\n115\/1,000 of 1%.\nMay 20th, 1875,\n50,000\n7%\n20\n63\/1,000 of 1%\nMay 15th, 1877,\n20,000\n8%\n25\n1\/10      of 1%\nJune 2nd, 1878,\nTo pay off outstanding liabilities,       20,000\n7%\n20\n1\/10      of 1%\nSept. 30th, 1885,\nElectric Light Plant,                              16,000\n6%\n20\n1\/32      of 1%\n11                 ))\nDrainage Plans,                                        5,000\n6%\n20\n1\/100    ofT%\nOct. 1st, 1886,\nWater Works,                                        75,000\n5%\n30\n1\/10      of 1%\n3.                  53\nStreet Work,                                           50,000\n5%\n50\n1\/18      of 1%\nAug. 25th, 1888,\nWater Works,                                      20,000\n5%\n40\n1\/40      of 1%\nJohnson Street Sewer,                          30,000\n5%\n40\n1\/29      of 1%\nJune\"28th,\"l889,\nStreet Work,                                        45,000\n5%\n30\n1\/18      of 1%\nAug. 1st, 1889,\nWater Works,                                      70,000\n5%\n30\n8\/100    of 1%\n11                 ? 3\n60,000\n5%\n30\n7\/100    of 1%\n11                 J J\nBeacon Hill Park,                                25,000\n5%\n30\n3\/100    of 1%\n\">)                 3)\nFire Department,                                   15,000\n5%\n30\n1\/55      of 1%\nMarch 18th, 1890,\nCity Hall Building,                             35,000\n5%\n30\n1\/36      of 1%\nJi                 jl\nCemetery,                                                 12,500\n5%\n30\n10\/1,000 of 1%\nJuly 1st, 1891,\nFlour Mill Bonus,                                10,000\n5%\n20\n9\/1,000 of 1%\nNov. 30th, 1890,\nSewerage,                                            300,000\n4%\n50\n164\/1,000 of 1%\nDec. 24th, 1890,\nMarket Site,                                         45,000\n4%\n50\n24\/1,000 of 1%\n3)                 11\nMarket Building,                                 55,000\n4%\n50\n27\/1,000 of 1%\n33                 3)\nCrematory,                                               10,000\n5%\n30\n8\/1,000 of 1%\nDec. 9th, 1891,\nAgricultural Association,                   25,000\n5%\n20\n21\/1,000 of 1%\nSugar Refinery Bonus,                        40,000\n5%\n20\n37\/1,000 of 1%.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 497\nCOMMISSION.\n[Seal.] HUGH NELSON.\nTheodore Davie,\nAttorney-General.\nVictoria, by the Grace of God. of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and\nqf the Colonies and Dependencies thereof, Queen, Defender of the Faith, dec, &c, dec.\nTo the Honourable Sir Matthew Baillie Begbie, Knight, Chief Justice,\nand\nThe Honourable Montague William Tyrwhitt Drake, one of the Justices of the Supreme\nCourt of British Columbia.\nWHEREAS by the \"Municipal Act, 1891,\" it is, among other things, provided that it\nshall be lawful for the Lieutenant-Governor in Council at any time to cause an enquiry\nto be made into or concerning the good government of any Municipality, or into the conduct\nof any part of the public business thereof, or the administration of justice therein, and that\nfor the purposes of such enquiry the provisions of the \"Public Enquiries Act\" shall apply;\nAnd Whereas communications have been received by His Honour the Lieutenant\"\nGovernor in Council, signed by several of the ratepayers of the City of Victoria, stating that\nthey have reason to believe that great extravagance exists in connection with the transactions\nof the Municipal Council of the City of Victoria; that the annual expenditure of the said city\nis not kept within the annual revenue; that portions of the proceeds of loans raised under the\nauthority of by-laws for specific objects have been used by the Corporation to pay debts\nincurred before the by-laws were approved by the voters of the city; that such loans have not\nin every instance been expended as the by-laws authorizing them required; that moneys have\nbeen voted and spent by the Municipal Council for other purposes than those sanctioned by\nthe Municipal Acts; that in consequence of the Corporation having diverted moneys received\nfrom the sale of cemetery lots to other than cemetery purposes, the sum of $10,000 paid for\ncemetery extension is liable to forfeiture, as the Corporation cannot complete the purchase of\nthe cemetery lands required to make good what has been sold; that the whole case of the\nJohnson Street Sewer requires investigation, as another sewer is about being built alongside\nof it; that grave irregularities were connected with the letting of the contract for the sewering\nof the City of Victoria, and that enquiries should be made as to whether the Mayor or any of\nthe City Aldermen were in any way interested in any of the tenders for the sewer or any\nother contracts, or in matters involving payments by the Corporation; that the taxation of\nthe city amounts to over $15 per head of the population within its boundary, and is yearly\nincreasing, besides that from Provincial and Federal, thus discouraging settlement; and that\nunder the head of \"wages\" and donations in the accounts of the year 1890, the large sum of\n$22,727 appears, exclusive of salaries and water works ;\n 498 Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nAnd Whereas by an Order in Council of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, it is\ndirected that an enquiry be made into the matters hereinbefore referred to and into any other\nmatter touching the government of the City of Victoria, which the persons commissioned to\nhold the enquiry may see fit to enquire into and which may be brought before them by any\nratepayer.\nNOW KNOW YE that, reposing especial trust in your loyalty, integrity and ability,\nWe do hereby confer upon you, the said Sir Matthew Baillie Begbie and Montague William\nTyrwhitt Drake, jointly and each of you separately, the power of making enquiry into all and\nevery of the matters aforesaid, together with the power of summoning before you or either of\nyou, any party or witnesses, and of requiring them to give evidence on oath, orally or in\nwriting, or on solemn affirmation (if they be parties entitled to affirm in civil matters), and to\nproduce such documents and things as you, or either of you, may deem requisite to the full\ninvestigation of the matters aforesaid, and We empower and direct you the said Commissioners,\nor either of you, to report the facts found by you, in writing, to Our Lieutenant-Governor of\nOur said Province of British Columbia, immediately, or as soon as conveniently may be, after\nyou shall have concluded such enquiry, together with the views which you, or either of you,\nmay have formed in relation to the matters aforesaid as a result of the said enquiry, and that\nyou do and perform all those matters and things in and about the taking of the said enquiry\nas by law in that behalf you are authorized to do.\nIn Testimony Whereof, We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent and\nthe Great Seal of the Province of British Columbia to be hereunto affixed :\nWitness the Honourable Hugh Nelson, Lieutenant-Governor of Our said\nProvince of British Columbia, in Our said City of Victoria, this Seventeenth\nday of October, in the year of Our Lord One thousand eight hundred and\nninety-one, and in the fifty-fifth year of Our reign.\nBy Command.\nJNO. ROBSON,\nProvincial Secretary.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 499\nIn the Matter of the \" Municipal Act, 1891,\" Section 265,\n AND\t\nIn the Matter of an Enquiry thereunder into the Good Government and\nConduct of the Public Business of the City of Victoria.\nPRELIMINARY LIST OP CHARGES.\nThe Petitioners, in pursuance of the allegations contained in their petition, submit the\nfollowing particular acts of extravagance and misconduct for the consideration of the\nCommissioners herein :\u2014\n1\u2014 EXCESSIVE  EXPENDITURE.\nBy section 98 of the Municipal Act, it is proviced that no Municipal Council shall have\npower to incur any liability beyond the revenue for the current year, and that the revenue for\nthe use of every Council duly elected shall commence with the legal collections from the first\nday of the year in which the said Council was elected until the end of the year.\nNevertheless, the Municipal Council of the City of Victoria have, in violation of this\nenactment, for several years past, expended during each year sums largely in excess of the\nannual income for such years respectively.\nIn  the  year   1888,  the  Council  incurred   liabilities beyond  the\nmunicipal revenue for the current year, amounting to about. .   $27,000 00\nIn the year 1889, about      20,000 00\nIn the year 1890, about      60,000 00\nThe expenditure for the present year is not complete, but in the report of the Auditor for\nthe Municipality for the first nine months of the year, ending the 1st day of October, 1891, it\nis estimated that on the 31st day of December there will be a shortage of $92,050.73.\n2.\u2014EXCESSIVE USE OF BORROWING POWERS BEYOND ABILITY TO REPAY.\nUnder the provisions of sub-section (133) of section 96 of the Municipality Act, the\nCouncil may pass by-laws authorizing the borrowing of such sums as may become payable out\nof the annual revenue, before the revenue for the year becomes payable by the taxpayers, but\nit is also provided in the said sub-section that the money so borrowed shall be repayable and\nrepaid on or before the 31st December, in the calendar year in which it is so borrowed, and\nthat the money so borrowed shall be a liability payable out of the municipal revenue for the\nthen current year.\nIn order to meet the deficits created by the large excess of expenditure over revenue\nreferred to in paragraph one hereof, the Municipal Council of the City of Victoria have\nimproperly used the borrowing powers conferred by said sub-section (133) of section 96 of the\nMunicipal Act in the following manner :\u2014\nDuring each of the years 1887, 1888, 1889, and 1890, the said Municipal Council passed\nby-laws, ostensibly in accordance with, and for the purpose authorized by, the said sub-section,\nbut the sums so borrowed were not, in any of the years mentioned, repaid, or capable of being\nrepaid, out of the current revenue, as the by-law required.\nAt the end of the year 1887, there was due to the Bank of British\nNorth America, on account of moneys borrowed as aforesaid,\nand unpaid out of the current revenue, the sum of    $ 7,205 75\nAt the end of the year 1888, there was due to the Bank, on account\nof sums so borrowed and still unpaid out of current revenue,\nthe sum of      33,691 07\nAt the end of the year 1889, there would have been due to the\nBank, for sums so borrowed and still unpaid out of current\nrevenue, the sum of (about)      48,000 00\n 500 Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nBut, by means of a misapplication of a sum of about $60,000.00 (the unexpended balance\nof the proceeds of special loans raised during the said year), this bank debt was liquidated,\nand at the end of the year about $12,000.00 stood at the credit of the general revenue account\nof the Corporation at the Bank, but the Council were still liable, for some unpaid accounts.\n3.\u2014ILLEGAL  DIVERSION  OF LOANS.\nYour Petitioners also allege that the Council have, on many occasions, diverted moneys,\nvoted by the ratepayers for special works, to the liquidation of liabilities which should have\nbeen paid out of the ordinary current annual revenue.\nAmong the special loans, portions of which were appropriated and expended otherwise\nthan as provided by the by-laws authorizing the same, are the following, as shewn in the cash\nstatement of the Corporation of the 31st December, 1889 :\u2014\nBank of B. C, Special Deposit for Water Works  $ 10,000 00\nBank of B. N. A., Water Works Extension Account  10,179  14\nWater Works Extension Loan  70,000 00\nWTater Works Loan ,  60,000 00\nFire Loan  15,000 00\nA total of    $165,179 14\nOf which was expended during 1889 :\u2014\nOf $70,000 00 loan   $68,756 30\nOf $60,000 00 loan      21,665 35\nOf $15,000 00 loan      12,654 15\n  103,075 81\nLeaving a balance of $ 62,103 33\nwhich balance should have been on hand at the beginning of 1890, for the incoming Council\nto expend for the special purposes for which the loans were raised; but, instead, all that was\nleft of this large sum was $0.39, at the Bank of British North America. The sum of\n$62,102.94 was diverted from the loan funds, and appropriated by the Council to pay its debt\non current account at the Bank, which, under its by-law, it had agreed, by the 31st December,\nto pay out of its current revenue for that year.\n(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\nimprovements, and in enlarging the area of Ross Bay Cemetery. No portion of this amount\nwas expended for one of the special purposes for which it was raised, viz. : enlarging the area\nof Ross Bay Cemetery.\n(bj By a by-law, finally passed on the 24th day of July, 1889, the Council obtained\nauthority to raise $25,000.00 to improve and beautify the public pleasure grounds, Beacon\nHill Park, etc. The money raised under this by-law should have been expended on\npermanent improvements, whereas a portion of it was applied to such items as \"keep of\nanimals,\" and \" band,\" which should have been charged to current expenses.\n(cj    During the year 1889, there were five loans floated for specific objects, as follows :\u2014\nStreets, bridges, and cemetery $ 45,000 00\nWater Works extension  70,000 00\nWater Works extension  60,000 00\nPleasure Grounds  25,000 00\nFire Loan  15,000 00\nTotal $215,000 00\nFor these loans debentures were issued, and owing to the then good financial credit of\nthe city each loan was sold at a premium.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 501\nThe premiums obtained were as follows : \u2014\nOn the $45,000 00 Street, etc., loan  $1,575 00\nOn the $70,000 00 Water Works extension  1,232 00\nOn the $60,000 00 Water Works extension  1,056 00\nOn the $25,000 00 Pleasure Grounds  440 00\nOn the $15,000 00 Fire Loan  264 00\nBeing a total of $4,567 00\nwhich having been raised under special authority should, as well as the principal, have been\nexpended on the objects authorized ; but this sum, like all others available, was diverted from\nthese purposes and appropriated by the Council as current revenue.\n4._BORROWING WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF BY-LAW.\nIn June, 1891, a by-law was passed authorizing an overdraft at the bank of $200,000.00.\nThe 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,\nobtained from the bank the sum of $226,475.73, being $26,475.73 in excess of the sum so\nauthorized by the June by-law.\nAlthough a by-law was subsequently passed ratifying this action of the city officials, and\nauthorizing an increase of the overdraft at the bank, amounting to the sum of $250,000.00 in\nall, the Petitioners allege that such proceedings are in direct violation of the spirit and\nprovisions of the law.\n5.\u2014ILLEGAL INVESTMENT OF SINKING FUNDS.\nBy section 119 of the Municipal Act it is provided that the amount of every sinking\nfund in hand shall be invested in Dominion or Provincial Government securities, or otherwise,\nas the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may direct. The City Council has habitually allowed\nsuch funds, which at the end of 1890 aggregated the sum of over $113,000.00, to lie on deposit\nat the Bank of British North America, although no Order in Council allowing of such a\ndisposition of the city's sinking funds has been passed.\nIt is of the greatest importance to the city that the sinking funds should be so invested\nas to be absolutely safe from interference.\nIn view of the heavy overdraft of this year's Council at the Bank of British North\nAmerica, amounting at present to nearly a quarter of a million of dollars, and the certainty\nthat on the 31st December, 1891, the Council will be in default to the bank $125,000 or more,\nthe Petitioners allege that under such circumstances the said sinking fund is in danger of\nbeing appropriated by the bank to the payment of the large debt owing to it by this year's\nCouncil on the Corporation current account.\nIt has been the custom of an incoming Council to take over the bank and other debts of\nan outgoing Council. The Petitioners submit that a new Council is not responsible for debts\nleft by an old Council, unless the old Council has left the new Council means to meet them ;\nthat a Council is limited in its expenditure to the amount of the revenue of the year and of\nsuch loans as it may raise during its term of office, and to the amount of such balances of\nloans as may have been handed over to it by the preceding Council.\nThe Petitioners submit that the Council for 1892 will not be liable to repay the large\namount of overdraft which the Council for the present year will leave unpaid at the Bank of\nBritish North America.\n6.\u2014SEWERAGE.\nFor the purpose of carrying out the scheme of sewering the city a by-law was passed\nwhich authorized the Mayor to dispose of $300,000.00 worth of debentures at par, bearing\ninterest at the rate of four per cent, per annum. Money has been raised upon them, but\ncitizens generally, and several of the Aldermen, are in complete ignorance as to whether they\nhave been sold or pawned.\nThe Petitioners believe and allege the fact to be that money has been raised upon them,\nthat a rate of interest double that authorized by the by-law is being paid for such advances,\n 502 Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nand that unless redeemed within a limited time the Mayor has agreed  with the persons who\nhave made such advances to sell them the said debentures at eighty-five cents on the dollar.\nThe Petitioners submit that the conditions contained in the by-law are such that the\n$300,000.00 of debentures cannot be sold for less than $300,000.00, and that a higher rate of\ninterest than four per cent, can not be paid, and that if the arrangement above mentioned,\nwhich represents a loss of $45,000.00, has been made, it is invalid.\n(a.)\u2014The Control of the Sewerage Works to be Vested in Three Commissioners.\nThe Petitioners allege that the three Commissioners appointed last year have ceased to\nbe Commissioners, that anything they have lately done, or are now doing, is therefore illegal.\nUnder sub-section (97) of section 96 of the \"Municipal Act, 1891,\" Sewerage Commissioners,\nwhether elected by the ratepayers or appointed by the Council, can hold office for one year\nonly. The term of one year of the three Commissioners having expired, and no appointment\nby by-law, or election by the ratepayers having been held, the city is at present without\nCommissioners, by whom the Municipal Act contemplates the Sewerage Works should be\ncontrolled.\n(6.)\u2014Sewerage Contracts.\nThe tender for Doulton's first-class pipe was rejected in favour of a local concern, in\nwhich the Petitioners believe and allege the fact to be that several Aldermen are financially\ninterested.\nThe Petitioners also allege that a large percentage of the pipes turned out by the local\nconcern are so defective that they are unfit to be used in the sewers. Delays in the delivery\nof the pipes of the quality required have hindered and delayed the contractor, who has claims\nfor extras in consequence.\nThe Petitioners allege that a searching enquiry into everything connected with the\nsewerage contracts will be of benefit to the city.\n7.\u2014GRAVEL PITS.\nThe Validity of their Sale Questioned.\nThe 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\nproperty as may not be required for corporate purposes.\"\nThe gravel pits have supplied the gravel for the streets of the city for many years past,\nand the supply is far from exhausted.\n(aj\u2014Violations of Condition of Sale.\nSection 2 of the \" Gravel Pits Sale By-law \" authorized the City Assessor to sell by\npublic auction. The lots were advertised to be sold by the City Assessor, but in consequence\nof a proposition to sell from Mr. Joshua Davies, the Council, by resolution, instructed Mr.\nJoshua Davies to sell the said lots.\nSection 3 of the by-law requires that the consideration for the sale of the said lands shall\nbe either in money or real property. The said lands were sold partly for money and partly on\nlong time.\nSection 4 of the by-law requires that the money to arise from such sale or sales shall be\nwholly devoted to and expended in and about the improvement of the streets of the City of\nVictoria.\nThe Council entered into an agreement with the said Joshua Davies that 5 per cent, of\nthe proceeds of such sale should be paid to the Provincial Jubilee Hospital.\nThe Petitioners submit that these violations of the by-law invalidates the sale of the\ngravel pits.\n(bj\u2014The Proceeds of the Sale mis-applied.\nIn the City Auditor's report of the 7th October, 1891, in the estimated receipts for\nOctober, November, and December, appears \" Sale of Gravel Pits, $20,000.00.\"\nIn estimated expenditure for the same ]Deriod this sum of $20,000.00 from the sale of the\ngravel pits for street improvements does not appear, and the Petitioners allege that the\nCouncil does not intend to expend the proceeds in the manner defined in the by-law.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 503\nThis view of the Council's action is confirmed by its proceedings at a recent meeting since\nthe sale. As reported in the daily papers, seventeen out of the twenty-seven men employed\nupon street work were ordered to be discharged, upon the ground that the Council had no\nmoney for street work, although it has received a portion of the proceeds of the sale of the\ngravel pits.\nWith ten men only employed this expenditure on streets cannot exceed $750 per month,\nor, to the end of the year, $1,500.00, whereas the gravel pits sold for over $23,000.00.\nFrom the statement of the Auditor of 7th October it appears that this sum (or his\nestimate of it prior to sale, $20,000.00) is being applied in paying off old debts, instead of the\nspecific purpose defined in the by-law.\n8.\u2014ATTEMPT TO ILLEGALLY DIVERT LOAN MONEYS.\nThe Petitioners believe and allege the fact to be that in several instances the Council\nhave expended sums of money in anticipation of the authorization of loans for the same, but\nit is impossible to trace particular instances in the condensed summary of expenditure\npublished annually, as no dates are given.\nThe following circumstance shows the disposition of the Council to act in this improper\nmanner:\u2014\nIn the year 1888 a sum of about $30,000.00 was raised for the construction of the\nJohnson street sewer. The Auditor's report for the year 1890 shows that in addition to this\na sum of $7,675.22 was taken from the current revenue and also expended in the same work.\nTo 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\ninasmuch as the funds at the disposal of the Sewerage Commissioners have been raised\nespecially for the purpose of carrying out the Hering system, which is entirely separate from\nthe Johnson street scheme, the Council had no right to apply to the Sewerage Commissioners\nfor such refund.\n9.\u2014RECKLESS CONDUCT OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS DURING 1891.\nThe by-law of the Council, No. 132, (February, 1891,) authorized an expenditure of\n$235,417.00, based on an estimated revenue of the same amount, in which the real estate tax\nis put at $125,000.00.\nThe expenditure up to the 31st September, 1891, has amounted to $239,535.62, which is\nmore than the by-law authorized for the whole year.\nThe Petitioners allege that much of this expenditure is unauthorized by the estimates.\nThe Auditor's estimate of revenue and expenditure for October, November, and December, 1891, is:\u2014\nExpenditure $337,050 73\nReceipts    245,000 00\nEstimated shortage on December 31st, 1891 $ 92,050 73\nThe Petitioners allege that the above estimate of receipts is inaccurate, since  it  includes\na sum of $20,000.00, proceeds of the sale of the Gravel Pits, which sum under the terms of\nthe by-law, must be devoted exclusively to street improvements.\nThe Petitioners also allege that in accordance with the  experience of former years,  at\nleast $25,000.00 of the real estate tax will remain uncollected at the end of the year.\nThese sums should be added to the Auditor's estimate of shortage, giving the following\nresult:\u2014\nGravel Pits sale $ 20,000 00\nArrears of real estate tax      25,000 00\nAuditor's estimate      92,050 73\nProbable shortage, December 31st, 1891 $137,050 73\nThis shortage would be still greater if the Council had not raised the taxes on real estate\nto the highest limit authorized by the Municipal Act. By this means a sum of $65,000.00 in\nexcess of the estimate of $125,000.00, stated in the said Revenue By-law, has been added to\nthe revenue of the present year.\n 504 Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\n10.\u2014EXPENDITURE ON PUBLIC MARKET BUILDING.\nThe expenditure for the new market has been very great, and the Petitioners request that\nenquiry be made into the particulars of the purchase of the land, and the construction of the\nbuilding. That the Council be called upon to pi'oduce the different tenders together with the\nplans and specifications respectively received for the building, and for the brick and carpenter\nwork, etc. The expense has been very heavy, and there seems to be a very small prospect of\nreimbursement to the taxpayers.\nThe Petitioners allege that on the Market Building Loan, the Council are paying a higher\nrate of interest than the by-law authorizes.\n11.\u2014WATER WORKS.\nFrom the meagre accounts published, and the muddled way in which the Water Works\naccounts have been kept in past years, exact figures cannot be arrived at, but the Petitioners\nallege that the Corporation has taken at least $150,000.00 of Water Works income and applied\nthe same to revenue purposes.\nHad this large sum been applied to needed extension of the Water Works, instead of\nyear after year going into the Corporation current revenue, loans from time to time raised for\nWater 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.\nMore 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\na large portion of one of the Water Works loans, has recently been obliterated, and turned\ninto the roadway of Pandora Street Extension.\nThe discreditable state of the filter beds is apparent to those who, with more courage\nthan discretion, drink the city water without boiling it. The city water has the reputation of\nbeing the most impure supplied to any city on the Pacific coast.\nThe City Council has frustrated the efforts of the Water Works Engineers to reform and\nimprove the affairs of the Water Works. The examination of Mr. Summerfield would throw\na great deal of light on Water W'orks mismanagement.\n12.\u2014ILLEGAL SUBSCRIPTION TO CHARITABLE PURPOSES.\nThe Petitioners allege that on several occasions, portions of the city funds have been\napplied to charitable donations, such as the subscription to the sufferers by reason of the\nSeattle fire. The Petitioners submit that, however deserving may be the object for which\nsuch moneys were appropriated, the Council, as the custodian of the funds of the taxpayers,\ncould not legally apply them to any purpose not specified in the Municipal Act. The Petitioners\nsuggest that in the future the system of private subscription in vogue in other cities, where\nthe Mayor and Aldermen in their individual capacity head the list, ought to be adopted.\n13.\u2014EXTRAVAGANCE AND MISMANAGEMENT GENERALLY.\nA 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.\nIn 1888, with receipts from real estate tax of about $56,000.00, and a total revenue of\nabout $114,000.00, there was expended on streets and sidewal.ks, over $42,000.00. In 1891,\nthe Revenue By-law of 14th February, shows estimated receipts from real estate, $125,000.00,\nand a total revenue of $235,000.00, of which only $8,190.00 is available for street work.\nBy the Auditor's report of the 7th October last, it is shewn that a great proportion of the\ncity revenue is used in paying salaries of city officials. It appears that for three months,\n$20,000.00 is required for that purpose alone, or in other words, that salaries are an annual\ncharge of $80,000.00.\nThe Petitioners submit that the expenditure on salaries should be largely reduced, and,\nthe expenditure on streets proportionately increased.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 505\nA 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.\n(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\nthe office, as there were clerks enough.    Council ordered it paid.\n(6.) Bill of $415.50 presented  by  tram  line  contractor for loss  through a change by\nCouncil on the line on Pandora Street, given by City Surveyor.    Council ordered\n$365.50 paid.\nWere it not for the water rents taken into revenue, there would not be a dollar available\nfor streets and sidewalks.\nThe Petitioners submit that unless the municipal expenditure is made in the future with\nmore intelligence and less extravagance than in the past few years, not only will there be no\nmoney available for city improvements, but the taxation of persons and property will  have to\nbe increased in order to make both ends meet.\nDated the 10th day of November, 1891.\nBODWELL & IRVING,\nSolicitors for the Petitioners.\nTo Messrs. Eberts & Taylor,\nSolicitors for the City Council.\nANSWERS   TO   CHARGES.\n1.\u2014EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE.\nIn reply to the charge of \"Excessive Expenditure,\" the Council of 1891 say, as to paragraph 1 :\nThat section 98 of the \"Municipal Act, 1891,\" is incorrectly quoted by Petitioners ; it\nreads as follows :\u2014\n\" 98. No Municipal Council within the Province, ' save as otherwise provided,' shall\n\" have power to incur any liability beyond the municipal  revenue  for  the  current year.\n\" And the revenue for the use of every Council duly  elected shall commence  with  the\n\" legal collections from the first day of the year in which  the  said  Council  was elected\n\" until the end of the said year.\"\nThe Municipal Councils for the years hereunder written expended sums in excess of\nrevenue for the amounts set opposite the years, and not the amounts alleged by the Petitioners,\nnamely :\u2014\nFor 1888   $25,888  21\n\u201e   1889         8,864 22\n\u201e   1890       23,524 10\n$58,276 53\namounting in all to $58,276.53, and not $107,000.00 as charged by Petitioners.\nThe report of the Auditor for 1891, shows an estimated excess of expenditure over\nrevenue for this year, 1891, of about $20,000.00, and not $92,050.73 as alleged ; such sum of\n$92,050.73 being the total amounts for previous years added to this year's estimated excess of\nexpenditure, against which certain valuable properties acquired should be credited as assets.\n2.\u2014EXCESSIVE USE OF BORROWING POWERS BEYOND ABILITY TO REPAY.\nIn reply to the charge of \" Excessive use of borrowing powers beyond ability to repay,\"\nthe Council of 1891 say, as to paragraph 2 :\nBy sub-section (133) of section 96, of the \" Municipal Act, 1891,\" the Council is authorized\nto borrow such sum of money \" as may be required to meet the current legal expenditure of\nthe Corporation,\" which becomes payable out of the annual revenue, before the revenue becomes payable by the taxpayers,\n 506 Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nSuch money so borrowed is repayable and should be repaid on or before the 31st day of\nDecember in the year in which it may have been borrowed out of the municipal revenue for the\nyear of such borrowing, but the amounts in excess of the revenve for the years 1887, 1888,\n1889 and 1890, were expenditures arising from various contingent expenses for each of such\nyears, the details of which are in the public accounts for each of such years.\nThese amounts are as follows :\u2014\nFor 1887   $ 7,205 75\nFor 1887 and 1888    33,691 07\nFor 1887, 1888 and 1889    52,586 56\neach of such amounts including all amounts for previous years, and being the total amount\ndue at the end of each year. There being then a total amount due at the end of 1889 of\n$52,586.56, as appears by the public accounts for such years.\nIn 1889, in order to prevent interest accumulating on such amount, at the overdraft rate\nof six per cent., instead of depositing on account current at a much smaller rate, the Council\nof 1889 liquidated such debt out of a portion of the proceeds of special loans, namely :\u2014\nWater Works $70,000 00\n    60,000 00\nFire Department    15,000 00\nleaving $11,894.49 still at the credit (of the general revenue account) of the Corporation for\nthe year 1889. The sums so taken from the proceeds of special loans as aforesaid, and\nexpended in liquidating such debt as aforesaid, were subsequently, in the year 1890, taken\nfrom the general revenue for such year and expended for the purposes authorized by the said\nspecial loans.\nThe amounts so taken aggregate $62,103.34.\n3.\u2014ILLEGAL DIVERSION OF LOANS.\nIn reply to the charge of \"Illegal Diversion of Loans,\" the Council for 1891 say, as to\nparagraph 3 :\u2014\nThat the figures set forth in the first part of this charge are the basis of and the details\nof the previous charge of \" Excessive use of borrowing powers beyond ability to pay.\"\nThe special deposit for Water Works account $10,000 00\nThe Water WTorks Extension account      10,179  14\nbeing the unexpended amounts of such special loans, were placed to a special deposit account\nwith the Bank, and subsequently expended for the special purposes for which such sums were\nborrowed.\nAs to sub-section (a) :\nThe moneys raised under by-law passed by the Council of 1889, $45,000, referred to in\nclause (a), were insufficient for the purposes for which they were raised, namely, \" Enlarging\nthe area of Ross Bay Cemetery,\" the same having been exhausted in street and bridge\nimprovements, as appears by the public accounts of such year.\nAs to sub-section (b):\nThe Council of 1889, as appears by the Corporation accounts for that year, expended out\nof the moneys realized from the $25,000 Loan By-Law for Park Improvements the following\nsums:\u2014\nFor keep of animals in Beacon Hill Park Gardens $43 21\nFor Band    8 00\nThe amount of the estimate for Park General Revenue for the year 1889 having been\nexpended for general park purposes, the above two items were charged to the Loan Account\nAs to sub-section (c):\nThe premiums obtained from the loans referred to in the Petitioners' charge appear by\nthe Corporation books to have been entered by the Council of 1889 in General Revenue\nAccount, and paid out thereunder; the amounts thereof aggregating $4,567.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 507\n4._BORROWING WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF BY-LAW.\nIn reply to the charge of \" Borrowing without authority of By-Law,\" paragraph 4, the\nCouncil of 1891 say :\u2014\nThat 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\nsettled for the current year.\n5.\u2014ILLEGAL INVESTMENT OF SINKING FUNDS.\nIn reply to the charge of \" Illegal investment of Sinking Funds,\" paragraph 5, the\nCouncil of 1891 say:\u2014\nThat previous Councils, as far back as 1874, as appears by the public accounts, have\nallowed the Sinking Funds to remain on deposit, bearing interest at 3 per cent., compounded\nannually, at the Bank of British North America, but credited to Special Trust Account in\nrespect of each of the loans.\nThe Sinking Funds for the year 1891 have not yet been collected.\nThe Corporation will probably owe the said bank $92,000 at the end of the year 1891,\ninstead of $125,000, as alleged, of which amount $71,675 is in respect of debts accumulated\nprior to 1891, and against which certain valuable assets should be credited.\n6.\u2014SEWERAGE.\nIn reply to the first part of the charge relating to \" Sewerage,\" paragraph 6, the Council\nof 1891 say :\u2014\nThat, owing to the financial crisis occurring at the time the $300,000 worth of debentures\nwere in the market for purchasers, the best arrangement the Council could make for the sale\nthereof, in their opinion, was a conditional offer of 85c. on the dollar therefor, which was\naccepted by the Council upon the condition that if, within twelve months from such purchase,\na better offer could be obtained, the purchasers should re-sell the debentures to the Corporation,\nreceiving the amount they had advanced therefor, with debenture interest for the period\nthe purchasers had held same, and the rate of 4 per cent, per annum on the amount advanced,\nfrom the time of such advance to the time of redemption.\nThe Council of 1891 further say that no higher rate than called for by the debentures is\nto be paid, but the Council have the privilege and option, upon payment of a 4 per cent,\nbonus, as aforesaid, to take advantage of any increased amounts they may obtain for such\ndebentures -within one year.\nThe sewerage works being matters of great public necessity, delays in construction would\nhave been inexpedient, and the Council of 1891 made the best arrangement that, in their\nopinion, could be made in the premises, having regard to the necessities of the city and the\nstate of the financial markets and the low rate of interest provided in the by-law.\nAs to clause (a) of such charge, the Council of 1891 say:\u2014That it is true that they have\nnot formally passed a by-law re-appointing the Sewerage Commissioners for this year specially,\nbut such Commissioners have, nevertheless, exercised a supervision and inspection of all\nmatters pertaining to sewerage works, and now are acting as such, and the Council, at the\nbeginning of the municipal year 1891, did pass a resolution re-appointing all corporate officers\nfor this year.\nSewerage Contract.\nIn reply to the charge relating to \" Sewerage Contracts,\" clause (b), paragraph 7, the\nCouncil of 1891 say :\u2014\nThat the Council of 1890 accepted the lowest tender for sewer pipes.\nThat with regard to the condition of the pipes supplied, the Council of 1891 say that the\nquestion of the acceptance or non-acceptance of same, such question is within the competence\nand list of duties of the Sewerage Commissioners, and the Council believe that no pipes of\ndefective quality have been received or accepted.\n 508 Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nThat there have been no delays in the delivery of the pipes, so hindering or delaying the\ncontractor as to entitle the contractor to any claim for extras or otherwise, under the\nSewerage Contract.\nSo far as the Council of 1891 is aware, no member of the Council of 1890 was interested\nin the sewer pipe contract, which was awarded to an incorporated company; but even if any\nof the Aldermen of the Council of 1891 were shareholders in the incorporated company to\nwhich such contract was awarded, such action is authorized by virtue of sub-section (2) of\nSection 27 of the \" Municipal Act, 1891,\" which reads as follows :\u2014\n\" That no person shall be held to be disqualified from being elected a member of the\n\" Council of any Municipal Corporation by reason of his being a shareholder of any\n\" incorporated company having dealings or contracts with the Council of such Municipal\n\" Corporation; but no such shareholder shall vote in the Council on any question\n\" affecting the company.\"\nSuch Aldermen, if any, of 1891 were not members of the Council of 1890, when the\ncontract was awarded, and did not vote upon any matter affecting said contract in 1891.\n7.\u2014SALE OF GRAVEL PITS.\nIn answer to the charges in connection with the sale of the Gravel Pits, paragraph 7,\nthe Council of 1891 say :\u2014\nAs to clause (a):\u2014That the Council of 1891, in the due exercise of the discretion vested\nin them, considered that the Gravel Pits were not any longer required for Corporation\npurposes, and accordingly directed a sale thereof for divers good and sufficient reasons, and the\nratepayers of the city approved and assented thereto, in accordance with the statute in that\nbehalf\u2014sub-section (72), section 96, Municipal Act.\nAs to clause (b):\u2014The 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\nMr. Davies in connection with the sale by auction, the City Assessor having no experience as\nan auctioneer, and Mr. Davies being a skilled auctioneer of great experience, and offering his\nservices gratuitously, upon condition that the amount of commission usually paid for such\nservice and assistance as he rendered should be devoted to the Provincial Royal Jubilee\nHospital. The Council of 1891, conceiving that through Mr. Davies' efforts a sum would be\nrealized from such sale which, after deducting the five per cent., would still leave the balance\ngreater than if sold without his assistance, acted as aforesaid. By this means a greater sum\nwas realized from such sale, and the Council were enabled to grant a certain amount of aid to\na charitable institution, a power expressly granted the Council by sub-section (15) of section 96,\n\" Municipal Act, 1891.\"\nThe Municipal Act, sub-section (72) of section 96, requires the Council to accept as payment for such lands either money or real property.\nAt the auction referred to, all purchasers paid a cash deposit and signed agreements to\npay the balance in cash on or before the 31st day of December, 1891, with interest in the\ninterim after the rate of six per cent, per annum. No other arrangements have ever been\nentered into with the purchasers, and the whole of such consideration is payable wholly in\nmoney, in accordanoe with the Act in that behalf; and the Council of 1891 believe that a\nmuch larger sum was realized from such sale by reason of the foregoing arrangements than\nwould have been realized otherwise.\nThe Proceeds of the Sale Misapplied.\nIn answer to the chaage that \"the proceeds from the sale of gravel pits have been misapplied,\" the Council of 1891 say :\u2014\nThat the net proceeds thereof received to date have been expended for street improvements, and the balance will be, as soon as received.\nThe policy of retrenchment of expenditure adopted in street work being considered\nnecessary by the Council of 1891, in view of the state of the revenue, it would appear that\nany effort to make reduction of expenditure in any direction does not meet with the approval\nof the Petitioners, notwithstanding that they charge extravagance generally, there being a\ngreat number of petitions for repairs of sidewalks, a great number for extension of streets, and\n 55 Vict Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 509\na great number for new roads or streets in 1891, and a great number for water extensions and\nother works, upon some of which petitions the names of some of the Petitioners herein appear.\nClause (c.):\u2014This clause,  being merely an expression of the opinion of Petitioners, not\nan allegation of fact, the Council of 1891 do not consider it necessary to reply specially.\n8.\u2014ATTEMPT  TO  ILLEGALLY  DIVERT  LOAN  MONEYS.\nIn answer to the charge of \" Attempt to illegally divert loan moneys,\" paragraph 8, the\nCouncil of 1891 say :\u2014\nThat 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,\nbetween Blanchard Street and Victoria Harbour, and such other sewers as might be necessary\nto construct along such streets as intersect Johnson Street.\nThe amount raised under such by-law was expended in accordance with the purposes\nthereof. 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\nrevenue the sum of $7,675.22. During the year 1890, the Sewerage Commissioners paid to\nthe Council the sum of $4,400.50 for the following items in connection with sewerage works,\nindependently of the Johnson Street sewer :\u2014\nBonus for Mr. Mohun's plans    $2,000 00\n100 contour maps for Mr. Hering         140 00\nAdvertising for plans, publishing by-laws, etc         260 00\nMr. Hering's expenses      1,500 00\nSinking trial holes         500 00\n$4,400 50\nThe Sewerage Commissioners have not repaid any portion of the said sum of $7,675.22\nout of the $300,000.00 Sewerage Loan, or otherwise.\n9.\u2014RECKLESS  CONDUCT  OF  MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS  DURING 1891.\nIn answer to the charge of \" Reckless conduct of Municipal affairs during 1891,\"\nparagraph 9, the Council of 1891 say : \u2014\nThat the Auditor's estimate includes the real estate tax uncollected at end of year,\nestimated at $25,000.00, and the proceeds of sale of Gravel Pits is likewise included, the\nexpenditure on street improvements being included in the general expenditure account.\nThe total estimate of shortage being $92,050.00 instead of $137,050.33, and including all\ndebts left by previous Councils, and also including arrears of real estate taxes and other\ncharges to date. This is the same charge mentioned in paragraph 1, and repeated in subsequent\nparagraphs.\nThe Council have not raised the taxes on real estate to the highest limit, but have, by\nvirtue of the Municipal Act, distinguished, under the term \" real estate,\" between \" land \" and\n\" improvements upon land,\" and have taxed land at one and one-half of one per cent., and\nimprovements upon land at half the limited amount, namely, three-quarters of one per cent.,\nagainst which amount of taxes a rebate of one-sixth thereof is allowed if paid on or before the\n31st December.\n10.\u2014EXPENDITURE  ON  PUBLIC  MARKET  BUILDING.\nIn answer to the charge of \"Expenditure on Public Market Building,\" paragraph 10, the\nCouncil of 1891 say :\u2014\nThat the same arrangement has been made with reference to the Market Building Loan\nDebentures as stated in regard to the Sewerage Debentures.\nThe Council of 1891 are now, and always have been, willing to afford any information as\nto 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\nfar as the Council are aware, no such requests have been made prior to this enquiry.\nOne by-law authorized a loan of $45,000.00 for the land, and another by-law authorized\na loan of $55,000.00 for the buildings. The sum of $42,000.00 was paid for the land, and the\nremainder for expenses incidental to clearing the land, etc., the details of which are as\nfollows:\u2014\n 510 Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1892\nSite.\nLand .$42,000 00\nClearing land         712 45\nInterest      1,675 38\nPrinting and advertising  127 50\n$44,515 33\nOf the $55,000.00 for the buildings, $34,435.50 has been paid the contractors on account,\nand  the balance  will  be paid so soon as the buildings are completed.    The following are the\ndetails to date :\u2014\nBuilding.\nContractor, on account $34,435 50\nArchitect's fees      1,450 00\nInterest         136 66\nAdvertising and printing         105 75\n$36,125 91\nThe, remaining portion of this charge is a matter of opinion, upon which the ratepayers\nhave already passed their assent.\n11._WATER WORKS.\nIn answer to the charge relating to \"Water Works,\" paragraph 11, the Council of\n1891 say :\u2014\nThat a sum, aggregating about $152,000.00, has been received by the Corporation during a\nseries of years from the water works, and applied to current revenue account. It was the\nduty of the Corporation to so supply such sums by virtue of section 34 of the \" Water W7orks\nAct, 1873,\" which reads as follows :\u2014\n\" 34. That, after the construction of the works, all the revenues arising from or out of\n\" the supplying of water, or from the real and personal property connected with the said water\n\" works, acquired by the said Corporation or Commissioner under this Act, shall, after\n\" providing for the expenses attendant upon the maintenance of the said water works, be\n\" paid over to and deposited monthly with the Clerk of the said Corporation of the City of\n\" Victoria, as hereinbefore provided, and shall make part o* the general funds of the Corpora-\n\" tion, and may be applied accordingly.\"\nWith regard to the expenditure on the reservoir at the head of Pandora Street, this\nexpenditure was incurred in the year 1887, by the then Council, of which one of the Petitioners\nwas a member, and approved of same. While the work was in progress, Peter Summerfield, a\nprofessional engineer, was appointed Water Commissioner. Mr. Summerfield disapproved of\nthe work as useless, and the Council thereupon declined to spend any further moneys upon\nsuch reservoir. The amount spent prior to such time was $28,080.15 for land, reservoir, etc.\nThe rest of the charge is merely an expression of the opinion of Petitioners, to which the\nCouncil do not consider it necessary to reply specially.\n12.\u2014ILLEGAL SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.\nIn answer to the charge of \"Illegal Subscriptions to Charitable Purposes,\" paragraph 12,\nthe Council of 1891 say:\u2014\nThat by sub section (15) of section 96 of the Municipal Act the Council are authorized to\ngrant aid to charitable institutions, and for the relief of the poor. Such grants of aid as have\nbeen made for charitable objects, outside of the Municipality, have been of small amounts,\nand the Council of 1891 have not been called upon, nor have they granted any such aid, with\nthe exception of the sum of $500.00 granted to the sufferers by the Springfield coal mine\nexplosion in Nova Scotia, the amount being sent to the Mayor of Halifax. The donation to\nthe sufferers by the Seattle fire was made in 1889.\n13.\u2014EXTRAVAGANCE AND MISMANAGEMENT GENERALLY.\nIn answer to the charge of \" Extravagance and Mismanagement Generally,\" paragraph\n13, the Council of 1891 say :\u2014\nThat they have spent up to the end of 30th day of September, 1891, on streets the sum\nof $56,131.36, the same being a necessary expenditure,\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 511\nThe salaries of the city officials aggregate as follows :\u2014\nPolice Department   $20,100 00\nElectric Light Department  4,260 00\nGeneral Department  18,552 00\nBoard of Health Department  1,800 00\nWater Works Department  4,080 00\nSurveyor and Engineer and Streets  14,880 00\nFire Department   11,976 00\nMayor  2,000 00\nAldermen  1,800 00\n$79,448 00\nUpon examination of the particulars of the above items it will be apparent that no\ndeduction can be fairly made from the amounts of such salaries and yet have an efficient\npublic service.\nAs to the item of $438.00 for a map of cemetery lots, the only map of such lots in the\npossession of the city was an old map in bad condition, and which was thought to be inaccurate.\nTo remedy this it was deemed advisable to have a new and corrected map, and the same was\naccordingly ordered. Owing to the duties devolving upon the City Engineer it was impossible\nfor him personally to prepare such map. The City Engineer had but one clerk in his office,\nand such clerk was not a draughtsman. For these reasons the map was prepared by Mr. T.\nS. Gore, D. L. S.     The work was well done and worth the amount charged.\nAs to the item of $415.50, in respect of which $365.50 has been paid, such payment was\nmade by reason of the following facts :\u2014\nThe National Electric Tramway and Lighting Company (Limited Liability) had located\ntheir proposed line in Pandora street at a certain distance from the sidewalk on one side\nthereof. The City Engineer disapproved of such location and required same to be constructed\nat a greater distance from the sidewalk. This change of line was approved of and assented\nto 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\nPandora street to the Council to have the line placed at a still greater distance from the\nsidewalk, in order to have greater space for a carriage way between the line and the sidewalk,\nthe Council decided to change the location, and the sum of $365.50 was paid to the contractor\nas compensation for the extra expenses to which he had been put by reason of such change as\naforesaid. The tramway lines have not been located in the centre of other streets, for the\nreason that the sewers are to be laid in the centre of the streets in order to equalize the\nexpenses of those persons making connections from the lots on either side of the street.\nThe Council of 1891 do not admit any of the allegations contained in the Petitioners'\npreliminary list of charges, except such as are herein specially admitted and answered, and\nsubmit that such list of charges consist in great part of mere matters of opinion, the arguments\nof the Petitioners founded thereon, together with such conclusions of law as the Petitioners\nwish to be deduced therefrom.\nCONCLUSION.\nThe Council of 1891 beg .to represent that the funds available to the city for municipal\npurposes, as the law now stands, are not sufficient to answer the requirements of this growing\ncity. In the Province of Ontario the municipalities receive all the taxes on personal property\nand income, in fact all  direct taxes ; whereas in this  Province  the  Provincial Government\ntake all taxes on personal property and income.    These taxes aggregate about $\t\nso far as gathered from within the limits of the Municipality of this Corporation. In addition\nto these amounts, further charges are now made upon the Municipality of this Corporation in\nthe nature of school taxes, for salaries, maintenance, etc., aggregating about $15,000.00 per\nannum, the only return for which is a return of one-half of the Provincial Revenue Tax to be\nreceived in the future. A large area of territory has been recently included within the limits\nof the Municipality. The revenue derived for this year from taxes within such area has\nbeen received by the Government, out of which the Government propose to pay to the city\nthe sum of $4,000, to be expended upon main trunk roads in such area to the satisfaction of\nthe Government.\nSo far as the increased expenditure of this year is concerned, it was to a great extent\ncaused by reason of such extension of the Municipality in connection with preparing new\n ol2 Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nofficial maps of the city as enlarged, the construction of streets and sidewalks in such area,\nthe extension of the water system therein and otherwise, and various and sundry other items\nof expense. These expenses would, had the city received the taxes therein for this year, have\nbeen repaid almost wholly, and will ultimately prove a remunerative investment.\nThe Council of 1891 conceived such expenditures to be judicious in view of the fact that\nthe property owners within such limits had their property pledged as a security for all city\nloans, past, present, and future, and such expenditures were only just and equitable in return\nfor such proportionate assumption of the city's liability, irrespective of the benefits ultimately\nto accrue to the city by way of the increased amount of taxable property, rates, etc., by such\naddition.\nDelivered this 16th day of November, 1891, by Eberts and Taylor, 30 Langley street,\nVictoria, Solicitors for the Corporation of the City of Victoria.\nTo Messrs. Bodwell & Irving,\nSolicitors for the Petitioners.\nSUPPLEMENTARY CHARGES.\nPURCHASE OF LAND FOR EXTENSION OF CEMETERY.\nOn the 4th day of March, 1890, a by-law was passed authorizing a loan of $12,500 for\nthe purpose of procuring additional ground for cemetery purposes. In accordance therewith\n$12,000 of the said loan was laid out in purchase of certain lands known as sections 80 and\n81, Fairfield Farm Estate. The said lands, were, however, included with other lands in a\nmortgage by way of underlease in favour of the late Augustus Frederick Pemberton, and\nalthough the whole of the moneys raised were paid out over a year ago, the city have not yet\nobtained a marketable title to the said land. The sum of $500 was spent out of the said loan\nmoneys in fencing, but the lands fenced were not the said sections and did not belong to the\ncity.\nGrave irregularities have characterized the disposal of lots in the old cemetery, which\nhave created great scandal and annoyance to many of the citizens.\nELECTRIC   LIGHT.\nThe 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.\nBY-LAWS REDUCING RATE FOR SINKING FUND.\nIn August, 1890, a number of by-laws were passed reducing the rates for sinking funds\non various loans, but the said by-laws are not in accordance with the statute, and the Petitioners claim that the same are invalid.\nLETTING CONTRACTS AT CLOSE OF YEAR.\nThe Petitioners allege that the practice of letting contracts near the end of the year, for\nwhich funds must be provided by the incoming council, as in the case of the city hall contract\nin 1889, the sewerage contract, 1890, and the recent purchase of water pipes, is illegal and\nhighly prejudicial to the interests of the ratepayers.\nCONTRACT WORK FOR CITY EXPENDITURE.\nThe Petitioners claim that the contract system for the carrying out of city works should\nbe applied in a much greater extent than the accounts show for several years past.\nDated this 2nd day of December, A.D. 1891.\nBODWELL & IRVING,\nTo Messrs. Eberts \u00a3 Taylor, Solicitors for the Petitioners.\nSolicitors for the City Council.\nVICTORIA, B.C.:\nPrinted by Richard Wolfenden, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality\nMINUTES   OF   PROCEEDINGS   AND   EVIDENCE   TAKEN\nUNDER   THE   COMMISSION,\nThe Royal Commission was opened at the Court House on 2nd November.\nThe Commission was read by Mr. Moore, the Clerk.\nThe Petitioners were to deliver by Friday next (6th inst.) the charges they intended to\nproceed with. On Monday, the 16th, the City were to deliver their reply; on Wednesday,\nthe 18th, the Commission was to proceed.\nOn the 18th November the reply having been insufficient, Mr. Bodwell asked for further\nparticulars to be sent in by following Monday, and both parties joined in asking for a shorthand reporter.\nEvidence began to be taken on Monday, the 23rd November.\nMonday, 23rd November, 1891.\n7.\u2014GRAVEL PITS.\nMr. Bodwell, for the petitioners, proposed to take up the question of the Gravel Pits\nsale, paragraph 7. He said :\u2014The charge with reference to that, as your Lordships will see\nby the preliminary list of charges, is that the City Council disposed of the property here\nwhich was of use to the city, and therefore did not fall within the provisions of the statute.\nThe statute upon the point is the \"Municipal Act, 1891,\" section 96, sub-section (92).\nThe Court : The charge is one that is very far-reaching. If your contention is sustained\nhere, then the Corporation had no right to make the title of that property, and thus these lot-\nholders have bought nothing.\nMr. Bodwell : Our contention is that if the property is useful for the purposes of the\ncity, then the Corporation had no right to sell that property. The sale took place on the 12th\nOctober; the by-law for the sale was finally passed on the 19th August, 1891. The fact of\nthe sale is admitted, my Lords, in the answer of the city.\nMr. 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\nby-law authorizing the sale had to be submitted to the people, and they voted upon it. I do\nnot wish to ask your Lordships to sit in judgment on the vote of the ratepayers.\nThe Court held that the ratepayers could not make legal any action of the Corporation\nthat was not legal.\nPlans of property, got out for the sale, also terms and conditions of sale, were handed in\nand marked \"A\" and \"B.\"\nWilliam Henry Snider was the first witness examined:\nBy Mr. Bodwell\u2014Your full name ?\nA.\u2014William Henry Snider.\nQ.\u2014You reside where 1\nA.\u2014Victoria City.\nQ.\u2014What is your occupation?\nA.\u2014Contracting; building streets and roads.\n Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014How long have you been in that business 1\nA.\u2014About twenty years.\nQ.\u2014Have you had contracts in the city of Victoria?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014Are you familiar with the condition of the streets and roads of the City of Victoria ?\nA.\u2014Yes; I'm pretty well familiar with them.\nQ.\u2014Can you state whether or not gravel is required for the purposes of the streets and\nroads of the City of Victoria ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; I think it is.\nQ.\u2014For what purpose, and where would it be used ?\nA.\u2014It would be used in crossings and for streets where there is not much heavy traffic.\nIn streets where there is not much heavy traffic it is a great deal cheaper than using metal.\nQ.\u2014Are you speaking now theoretically, or from experience ?\nA.\u2014I am speaking from experience.\nQ.\u2014For how long, to your knowledge, has the city been using gravel for street purposes ?\nA.\u2014Well, I think ever since the gravel pit has been opened.\nQ.\u2014You are familiar with the location of these gravel pits, are you not ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; I live close by them.\nQ.\u2014Will you explain to the Court how they are located, and how many there are ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014Looking at this exhibit, marked \"A,\" will you explain to the Court the location of\nthese gravel pits ?\nA.\u2014The old gravel pit lies between Cedar Hill Road and Queen's Avenue, and divides\nabout half-way between Queen's Avenue and Pembroke Street.\nQ.\u2014And the new gravel pit lies, where ?\nA.\u2014That lies right in this block, between Princess Avenue and South Road.\nMr. Charles D. Green was called to prove the maps of the pit.\nQ.\u2014What is your occupation ?\nA.\u2014Draughtsman to the E. & N. Railway and civil engineer.\nQ.\u2014Graduate of what association?\nA.\u2014I am not a graduate of any association.    I was articled as C. E. in England.\nQ.\u2014How long have you been in this country ?\nA.\u2014I have been in this country for about three years, and have been assistant engineer\nto two railways\u2014the S. & O. and Victoria and Saanich Railway.\nQ.\u2014Did you make a plan and survey of the property known as the city gravel pits ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Where did you get your information from as to the location ?\nA.\u2014From Mr. Pearse.\nQ.\u2014Did you have any document given you ?\nA.\u2014Yes; I had that map given to me (copy of exhibit \"A\").\nQ.\u2014In copying the names of the streets, did you make Chatham for Chambers ?\nA.\u2014Yes; that is a misprint. I meant that to be Chambers. I took that plan and\nmade cross-sections from it.\nQ.\u2014Do I understand you to say that the profiles in the sections marked \"A\" and \"B\"\nand \"C\" and \"D\" represent the outlines of the gravel as it appears on the face ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Did you make an examination of the quality of the gravel 1\nA.\u2014It is a very fair gravel up to where I marked on the plan as ending.\nQ.\u2014But where you marked \"partly worked out,\" what do you say to that?\nMr. Richards objected, stating that the Court had nothing to do with the propriety of\nthe sale, which had been sanctioned by the ratepayers. The evidence now is tending to show\nthe quantity and quality of gravel there, and we, the defence, contend that the sale having\nbeen sanctioned by the ratepayers\t\nThe Court\u2014We quite understand that.\nMr. Bodwell (continuing): Did you see any gravel in what is known as the old gravel\npits?\nA.\u2014No.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. iii.\nQ.\u2014That is where you marked \" worked out.\" Did you make any estimate of the quantity dug?\nA.\u2014I estimated about 15,000 yards.\nQ.\u2014Can you give us an estimate of the quantity of gravel shown on sections A and B,\nassuming there is gravel there ?\nA\u2014About 15,000 yards.\nCross-examined by Mr. Richards : That is the estimate you make ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Did you make any test?    Did you sink any holes there?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014You say that north of Queen's Avenue it is all worked out ?\nA.\u2014Yes; it appears to be worked out.\nQ.\u2014Then north of Princess Avenue ?\nA.\u2014Apparently worked out there.\nQ.\u2014Then, can there be any more got there?\nA.\u2014I suppose so.\nQ.\u2014What do you suppose is the reason of going out so far here if gravel can be got so\nmuch easier?\nA.\u2014I couldn't say.    Perhaps the quality was not so good here.\nQ.\u2014There is a difference in gravel, then ?    Did you test the gravel at all ?\nA.\u2014No ; not at all.\nQ.\u2014What gravel do you know they like best ?\nA.\u2014Gravel that will set well.\nQ.\u2014That is red gravel ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How much is it cut down on the south side of Princess Avenue ?\nA.\u2014About five feet.\nQ.\u2014Does it show gravel all along ?\nA.\u2014No; on lots 27, 26, and 25 it does not show any gravel.\nQ.\u2014And what are the signs on the other, the south side ?\nA.\u2014Just the same; but there is gravel all along there.\nQ.\u2014You are quite sure of that?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Is that gravel fit for street-making ?    Did you make any test to see ?\nA.\u2014No.    I kicked at it, and it seemed very fair gravel.\nQ.\u2014There is a very deep hole there below the level of the adjoining road. How deep is\nthat hole 1\nA.\u2014About twenty feet, I should say.\nQ.\u2014The whole thing is unsightly looking, is it not ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; very.    I should think so.\nQ.\u2014It would be still worse if this property were dug 20 feet deeper ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014If you were living there, as an owner of property, would you not prefer to have it\nall built upon than as it is now ?\nA.\u2014I should want it fenced in properly.\nQ.\u2014You would not want it there at all. Would it not depreciate the property round\nthere ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; probably.\nQ.\u2014Have you any doubt about it ?\nA.\u2014No ; I don't think I have.\nQ.\u2014Don't you think it is fair to the owners of property round there to sell that, and if\nthe city wants gravel to get it somewhere else ?\nA.\u2014I am hardly competent to give an opinion on that.\nQ.\u2014At all events I understand you to say that if you were a property owner there you\nwould not like, if you lived there, to have these pits open and gravel taken out 1\nA.\u2014I think not.\nThe Court pointed out that there was nothing in the conditions of sale that prevented\nthe purchasers of the lots from working so many pits.\n v. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nMr. Snider recalled :\nBy Mr. Bodwell:   Are there any indications of gravel in the Princess Avenue lot 1\nA.\u2014Yes.    It runs right through a bed of gravel.\nQ.\u2014As a contractor, what would you say the quality of that gravel is ?\nA. \u2014It is first-class gravel.    You can't get any better for road purposes.\nQ.\u2014Looking at the face, as shown by exhibit \" D,\" what character of gravel is shown ?\nA.\u2014It is very good.\nQ.\u2014Does it run all the way round 1\nA.\u2014Yes, and the quality is good.\nQ.\u2014Is there anything to show that there is no more gravel there 1\nA.\u2014I don't think so. That is as far down as they have got, and there is indication of a\nstill greater depth.\nQ.\u2014What are the surface indications of the unworked portion?\nA.\u2014I should judge there is gravel down to about lots 36 and 41.\nQ.\u2014But in the old portion ; are there no indications of gravel still there\u2014between\nQueen's and Princess Avenue?\nA.\u2014There is, sir.    On the lots 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, on Princess Avenue, on the north side.\nQ.\u2014You have been accustomed to taking gravel from these pits.\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Have the Corporation any other gravel pits that amount to anything ?\nA.\u2014Not that I know of.    I believe they  have a lot  or two on Beacon Hill;   I  don't\nknow how much.\nQ.\u2014How about gravel generally in Victoria ; is it easily obtained ?\nA.\u2014I should judge it is getting a pretty scarce article.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell us anything about the price of gravel ?\nA.\u2014Charge $1.50 a load.\nQ.\u2014What is a load ?\nA.\u2014A load is about a yard.\nQ.\u2014That is a cubic yard ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014That price is for gravel delivered ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What is it worth excavated at the pit ?\nA.\u2014Well; I couldn't say. I believe at the old pit a few years ago, when it was working,\nthey used to charge two bits a load to people who wanted gravel. It is worth now at least\nfour bits a yard at the pit's mouth.\nQ.\u2014Is this an easy or a difficult pit to work ?\nA.\u2014It is a very fine pit to work.\nQ.\u2014Is there any trouble getting in or out of it ?\nA.\u2014No trouble at all.\nQ.\u2014There is considerable cost attending the opening of a new gravel pit; is there not ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nBy Mr. Richards : There are some gravel pits beside your house ?\nA.\u2014Some sand pits, yes.\nQ.\u2014It makes it much nicer for you to have a big hole of a sand pit there ?\nA.\u2014I don't think it makes it any nicer.\nQ.\u2014Would you not like to have the land levelled down there 1\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Don't you think it would be much better for the people having property round there\nif this pit were not worked any more ?\nA.\u2014That depends.\nQ.\u2014Would it not be an advantage\u2014is it not a great injury, a nuisance, as it now stands,\nto the adjoining property ? If I lived there I would prefer to have that property all built up\nthan as it is now.    How far down have you got to go before you get gravel ?\nA.\u2014There is gravel right to the surface.\nQ.\u2014This part of the city is growing, building up quite rapidly, and the tram is going to\nwithin a block of the south road, is it not ?\nA.\u2014Just a block.    It stops at the Fernwood Road.\nQ.\u2014There is business enough there to warrant the tram being constructed out there ?\nA.\u2014I could not say that.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. v.\nQ.\u2014This is a pretty rough looking place here north of Princess Avenue 1\nA.\u2014It looks right enough.\nQ.\u2014Gravel pit worked out; eh ? How does it look along here between Queen's and\nPrincess Avenue.    You say there is gravel there ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Is the city using much gravel now ?\nA.\u2014I couldn't say.\nQ.\u2014How much do you think they have dug out of the gravel pits this year ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014Don't you know that the principal work of the city now is in stone ; the gravel will\nnot stand on the main streets?\nA.\u2014I have seen them using broken stone a great deal.\nQ.\u2014Then you say that gravel can be bought for a quarter of a dollar a load ?\nA.\u2014I did not say so. I spoke of some years ago when the old pit was working. The\npresent price is a dollar and a half a load to private parties.\nQ.\u2014Have you drawn any lately ?\nA.\u2014No ; not lately.\nQ.\u2014It is not your business selling gravel. Your business is working on roads for the\nGovernment; and at election times you are also contracting ?\nA.\u2014The same as usual.\nQ.\u2014When you are making roads in the country, I suppose you get your gravel for\nnothing ?    The law allows you to go into a man's land and take what gravel you want 1\nA.\u2014Sometimes I get it for nothing, and sometimes I have to pay for it.\nQ,\u2014Is there not plenty of gravel anywhere in this country ?\nA.\u2014I am in a position to answer that question if any man is, because I have prospected\nfor gravel more than any other man in Victoria, between here and Saanich, and I find gravel\na very scarce article.\nQ.\u2014You have done work on the road between here and Saanich ; and you find gravel\nplenty ?\nA.\u2014No ; you do not.\nQ.\u2014There is plenty round the Jewish cemetery ?\nA.\u2014No ; it is pretty well worked out.\nQ.\u2014Then along by the Cadboro Bay Road, is it not gravelly there ?\nA.\u2014No, sir ; it is not.\nQ.\u2014Going west, along the Esquimalt Road, is it not gravelly there ?\nA.\u2014You might get a wheel-barrow full.\nQ.\u2014And along the Burnside Road ?\nA.\u2014No, there is not.\nQ.\u2014How many years have you been employed by this Government ?\nA.\u2014I have been working for them a number of years.\nQ.\u2014How long for the Robson Government?\nA.\u2014Ever since they have been in power.\nQ.\u2014How much money have you received from them ?\nThe Court : I think you are at cross purposes with the witness, Mr. Richards. As far\nas I understand the witness is not employed by the Government in the least. He is a contractor under the Government.\nMr. Richards : How much money did you receive from them under contract ?\nA.\u2014I could not say.    Probably $5,000.\nQ.\u2014Had contracts every year ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Had any this summer ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Under the Smithe Government?\nA.\u2014Yes\nQ.\u2014Every year 1\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014How much money did you receive from the Smithe Government ?\nA.\u2014I could not say exactly.\nQ.\u2014About election time I suppose you get contracts ?\nA.\u2014You are judging me by yourself now.\n vi. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nThe Court: There is no politics in this, Mr. Richards.\nQ.\u2014You were a candidate this year for alderman ?\nA.\u2014Well, I was.\nQ.\u2014Did you go to the polls ?\nA.\u2014No; there was something wrong in the qualification, and I did not go to the polls.\nQ.\u2014Who found that out ?\nA.\u2014The man is dead and gone now, and I do not see any use in speaking about it. It was\nAbel Beswick. But I don't know that this has anything to do with the case; I have nothing\nagainst the corporation.\nQ.\u2014You have not had any work from this Council this year ?\nA.\u2014Not that I know of.    I have not applied for any.\nQ.\u2014In other years have you done any ?\nA.\u2014Yes.    I think I did a job at the Outer Wharf for the city last year.\nQ.\u2014Why did you not do any this year ?\nA.\u2014I was too busy besides. I believe I did tender with another man for one job; that\nout at the Saanich Road. I didn't tender in my own name; my partner tendered for both of\nus.\nQ.\u2014Why didn't you get that work ?\nA.\u2014Because I suppose we were not the lowest tenderers.\nThe Court : Both the Government and the city employ a great many persons for a great\nmany different purposes, and I hope they pay thBm honestly ; but that is no reason why the\nmotives of every person should be impugned.\nThe Court here adjourned for luncheon.\nOn re-assembling at 2 o'clock p.m. W. Archibald Robertson was called.\nBy Mr. Bodwell: Where do you live ?\nA.\u2014Spring Ridge.\nQ.\u2014What is your occupation ?\nA.\u2014Blacksmith.\nQ.\u2014How long have you been in Victoria ?\nA.\u2014Since the beginning of 1865.\nQ.\u2014Have you been at any time a member of the Municipal Council ?\nA.\u2014I was a member for three years.\nQ.\u2014What years ?\nA\u2014The years 1884-85 and 86.\nQ.\u2014Were you ever on the Board of Works ?\nA.\u2014I was chairman the last year.\nQ.\u2014Do the working of the gravel pits and the repairing of the streets and roads come\nwithin the jurisdiction of that committee ?\nA.\u2014Yes, certainly.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell us then from your experience what uses these gravel pits were put to ?\nA.\u2014We put the gravel on the roads to \" bind \" the macadam, and we gravelled the new\nstreets and crossings.\nQ.\u2014Is that work finished in the City of Victoria ?\nA.\u2014No, I should think not.\nQ.\u2014Where was the gravel obtained from for this purpose ?\nA.\u2014The last year I was there it was obtained from the gravel pits.\nQ.\u2014Is that the gravel pit situated near Princess Avenue and the South Road.\nA.\u2014Yes ; there is only one corporation gravel pit.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell us the quality of gravel in that pit ?\nA.\u2014The gravel there is very good, and there is considerable that is not good.\nQ.\u2014There is a quantity of gravel there that is first-class ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Have you examined these gravel pits lately ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014About what quantity is there ?\nA.\u2014Of the best quality there is probably about ten thousand yards. Of the other\nquality probably about five or ten thousand.    It is pretty hard to estimate.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell us anything about the price of gravel ?\nA.\u2014As far as I know it is $1.50 a load where they haul it.\nQ.\u2014Had the city sold any gravel while you were a member of the Council ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ._Why ?\nA.\u2014They always calculated to use it themselves.\nQ.\u2014As a citizen have not you taken an interest in the proceedings of the Council for\nsome years ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; I take an interest in everything that is public.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell us any other places where gravel can be obtained ?\nA.\u2014I know of no other gravel, except what belongs to private parties. Mr. Beswick\nhad some gravel; he sold some to the Corporation in 1885.\nQ.\u2014Then they bought gravel from other parties ?\nA.\u2014I understood they did so. Mr. Thomas Earle was chairman of the streets committee\nat the time.\nQ.\u2014You don't know what they bought it for ?\nA.\u2014I do not.\nQ.\u2014You say gravel costs $1.50 delivered. Can you tell us a fair price for it at the pit's\nmouth ?\nA.\u2014A dollar is generally charged for hauling it, so that would make it fifty cents at the pit.\nCross-examined by Mr. Richards : Do you know why, owning that property, the Corporation got gravel elsewhere ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Do you know how much they paid for it ?\nA.\u2014I suppose the regular price.\nQ.\u2014What street do you live on ?\nA.\u2014Chatham street.\nQ.\u2014Is the tram line going to be run on that street ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014I suppose that is a pretty rough looking place (showing the map) ?\nA.\u2014Yes, it is rather a rough looking spot.\nQ.\u2014They are disgraceful to a city like this?\nA.\u2014I don't know that they are disgraceful.\nQ.\u2014The people are building up there rapidly ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014This property is a very unsightly looking place ?\nA.\u2014It could be made very nice if it was all levelled down after the gravel was worked\nand made into a park.\nQ.\u2014You signed a petition to have it turned into a park ?\nA.\u2014No ; I wrote against their selling it.\nQ.\u2014You wanted it turned into a park ?\nA.\u2014Eventually, after the gravel was all worked out.\nQ.\u2014What would you do with these pits after they had been worked out 1\nA.\u2014Fill them up.\nQ.\u2014That would cost a good deal ?\nA.\u2014 Oh, yes ; but it would not cost the Corporation any more than it would private\nparties.\nQ.\u2014There is a very unsightly hole up there, at Spring Ridge ?\nA.\u2014You mean where the gravel was taken out ? Yes ; unsightly to some people, but it\nis easily filled up.\nQ.\u2014Do you think the people who bought lots there paid enough for them, or did they\nget them cheap ?\nA.\u2014I reckon some of them thought they could make more out of the gravel than they\npaid for the lots.\nQ.\u2014Do you know how much gravel the Corporation has been using for some years back ?\nA.\u2014I could not exactly say.\nQ.\u2014But you see that unsightly hole that has been dug out within the last two or three\nyears ; how much is there in it ?\nA.\u2014There are several thousand yards in it any way.\n viii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014Gravel on the top of this macadam makes mud ?\nA.\u2014That can't be helped, they have got to bind the macadam.\nQ.\u2014You say you wrote an article against selling these gravel pits ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; they were very foolish to sell them.\nQ.\u2014Is it not plain that they are an injury to the adjoining property ?\nA.\u2014Well, the people who bought them took chances of that.\nQ.\u2014The people who bought them are going to build, and in a short time the whole of\nthat place will be built upon ?\nA.\u2014I expect so. But I do not think it would be an improvement to have this property\nbuilt upon at all. I think it would be a greater improvement if it was turned into a park.\nI would rather have it remain as it is until all the gravel is worked out and than have it\nlevelled and turned into a park.\nQ.\u2014Supposing the city of the day concluded to sell that property, you would not have\nany park then ?\nA.\u2014It would be very foolish of them to do it.\nQ.\u2014You don't know what was paid for this property originally ?\nA.\u2014-No.\nQ.\u2014You say you were a member of the Council during the years 1884-85-86 ?\nA.\u2014Yes; I was there in 1886.    I was three years in the Council.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell how much gravel was used during your time ?\nA.\u2014No; I could not. In 1885 it was said that there was no gravel in the pit. Mr.\nStyles and I were on the Street Committee, and we said we would find out if there really was\nany gravel in the pit. We sent some men there to sink pits, and we found there was plenty\nof gravel.    That gravel was taken out and that large hole has been made since then.\nQ.\u2014Did you find any west of that hole\u2014Chatham street ?\nA.\u2014We did not look any further. We found what we wanted, and there was no necessity\nto look anywhere else.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell how many loads were taken out to be used on streets ?\nA.\u2014I don't know ; they were hauling all the summer.    I could not give an estimate.\nQ.\u2014Do you know how much they have taken out within the last two or three years ?\nA.\u2014I haven't paid any attention to it for the last three or four years, but they have\nbeen drawing gravel all the time.\nSamuel Thomas Styles, being sworn, was examined by Mr. Bodwell.\nYour occupation ?\nA.\u2014I am a builder, and have followed the building trade for a number of years.\nQ.\u2014Were you ever a member of the City Council ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I was a member of the Council in 1886.\nQ.\u2014Were you a member of the Board of Works ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Had you anything to do with the gravel pits ?\nA.\u2014I opened one of the gravel pits in 1886.\nQ.\u2014Which one was that ?\nA.\u2014The one marked \"deep gravel pit,\" in Exhibit \"D.\" It was reported to the Council\nthat there was no more gravel left in it; but I went up there with three or four men, and\nfinding that there was more gravel in it I instructed the foreman to open it.\nQ.\u2014Have you any idea of the amount of gravel that has been taken out of that pit ?\nA.\u2014No, I have not.\nQ.\u2014What condition are those pits in to-day ?\nA.\u2014Very good.\nQ.\u2014Having been on the Board of Works Committee I suppose you take an interest in\nthe condition of the streets? Will you state your opinion as to the necessity of gravel for\nthese streets ?\nA.\u2014I think it is essential to the city that the streets should have gravel. I was one who\nvoted against the selling of the pits.\nQ.\u2014-Is there any reason to believe that the necessity for using gravel on the streets has\nbeen done away with ?\nA.\u2014No, I think they require it more than ever now.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. ix.\nQ.rtrt_Why?\nA.\u2014Because, principally, of the additions that we have to the city. Gravel makes an\nexcellent road, but were there is any heavy traffic gravel is no good.\nQ.\u2014Have you any idea of the price of gravel ?\nA.\u2014The last I bought I paid $1.25 for. I have bought some since from Mr. Beswick,\nbut I don't know what the price of that is yet, as I haven't paid for it.\nQ.\u2014Is gravel likely to advance in price ?\nA.\u2014I should think it very likely.    It is very scarce.\nMr. Richards, cross-examining, asked\u2014\nWon't you find gravel in these hills round here anywhere ?\nA,\u2014I do not think so.\nQ.\u2014Take Cadboro Bay Road and the Jubilee Hospital property, don't you think there is\nplenty of gravel there ?\nA.\u2014I could not say.    I have never prospected there.\nQ.\u2014Do you know how much gravel is used now ?\nA.\u2014I could not tell you that.    They use a great deal, but I could not say how much.\nQ.\u2014You haven't been in the Council since 1889?    Do you know how much was used then?\nA.\u2014I could not remember, even if I knew at the time.\nQ.\u2014Do you think it is economy to keep $22,000 worth of property there simply to\nfurnish gravel for the city ?\nA.\u2014I don't know about that; I think gravel is of great value to the city. The great\nquestion to my mind is whether the gravel is not a great deal more valuable than the land\nitself.\nQ.\u2014Queen's Avenue and Cedar Hill Road has been worked out, has it not?\nA.\u2014I think not. I would not be afraid to venture that there are eleven or twelve feet\nof gravel in the old pit to-day. The reason why I think they abandoned it was simply because\nit was down to the level of the road.\nMr. John Kinsman, sworn:\nMr. Bodwell\u2014You are a contractor and builder in Victoria ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I have been.\nQ.\u2014Can you give us any idea of the value of gravel to the cubic yard?\nA.\u2014I don't know that I can give you any information beyond what I have heard\nalready given\u2014$1.25 to $1.50 a load.\nQ.\u2014Do you know anything about the city gravel pits ?\nA.\u2014I have seen them, but have not been round there lately. I don't know whether\nthere is any more gravel there or not, but I suppose there is.\nMr. Bodwell stated that this was all the evidence he proposed to submit on this point.\nMr. Bodwell, on the Court suggesting that he had better give his whole case on this\nquestion, proceeded to call\u2014\nMr. James L.  Raymur:\nQ.\u2014Your are the City Auditor ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And have been so for three years ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What were the gross proceeds of the sale of the gravel pits ?\nA\u2014$23,235.\nQ.\u2014That is the gross proceeds ?    How much was spent by the city in grading and preparing the streets in this property prior to the sale ?\nA.\u2014$2,184.66.\nQ.\u2014Including what ?\nA.\u2014Including advertising, grading, and surveying.\nQ.\u2014Those were all the expenses prior to the date of sale?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Were there any expenses connected with the sale\u2014that is, after the sale?\nA.\u2014Yes; there was the commission\u2014$1,161.75.\nQ.\u2014And about the conveyances ; were they paid for by the purchasers 1\nA.\u2014It was so stipulated.    At any rate we have not paid any so far.\n Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014What were then the net proceeds of the sale ?\nA.\u2014$19,888.29.\nQ.\u2014How much of that has been received up to date ?\nA.\u2014$10,531.48, up to date in respect of these sales.\nQ.\u2014To what account has that money been deposited ?\nA.\u2014Where?\nQ.\u2014In the Bank or wherever it is usual to deposit money so received ?\nA.\u2014It is deposited to the credit of the Corporation in the Bank.\nQ.\u2014General account?\nA.\u2014General account.\nQ.\u2014You made a report to the City Council on the 7th October ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Have you got a copy of that report with you ?\nA.\u2014I have a press copy of it in my letter book.\nQ.\u2014At that time how much had been spent on streets and bridges out of the general\nrevenue of the city ?\nA.\u2014The total expenditure to the 30th September was $56,111.36.\nQ.\u2014Was that spent out of the general revenue account of the city ?\nA.\u2014All, after the 3rd September, is chargeable to the gravel pits. The pit had not\nbeen sold then.    That sum had been spent up to the date of that report.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell us what has been spent on streets and bridges up to the 12th September?\nA.\u2014Not without referring.\nQ.\u2014This report gives to the 30th September. What is the total amount that has been\nspent up to the present ?\nA.\u2014I couldn't say now.\nQ.\u2014There was only one account kept on streets and bridges ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Then when was the gravel pits account opened ?\nA.\u2014Can't say.    It would have be opened sometime in October.\nQ.\u2014You say it was opened before these charges against the city were delivered?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How long?\nA.\u2014I could not exactly state.\nQ.\u2014You only keep one cash book ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ. \u2014Where ?\nA.\u2014In the Treasurer's Office.\nQ.\u2014And you don't keep a separate cash book yourself ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014How much have you charged since the by-law came into effect ?\nA.\u2014We have charged $13,833.69.\nQ.\u2014You would not have charged that before the 12th October?\nA.\u2014That is charged in October.\nThe Court\u2014You could not have opened your account until you had the money in hand.\nMr. Bodwell\u2014I think the best thing for Mr. Raymur to do would be to give us the\nfigures of how much has been spent since the 12th October on streets and bridges.\nMr. Raymur\u2014The November pay rolls have not yet come in. The pay roll in October\namounted to $6,090.89.\nMr. Bodwell\u2014There is in that pay roll an amount for teaming for $1,689. It is reported\nthat 17 out of 27 men working on street work have been ordered to be discharged; do you\nknow anything about that ?\nA.\u2014No, I don't.\nQ.\u2014What is the ordinary rate of wages according to the pay roll ?\nA.\u2014The average rate is $2 to $2.50 per day.\nQ.\u2014Would the pay roll show where men were working ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014There have been a great number of teams kept this year hauling water pipe ?\nA.\u2014That has got nothing to do with street work.\nQ.\u2014You are satisfied that all that is charged here is street work ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xi.\nQ.\u2014Have you any special instructions to prevent the bank from holding this $20,000 in\npayment of the overdraft ?\nA\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014The bank has a large overdraft, has it not 1\nA.\u2014Well, not now; we have given them a note for it.\nQ.\u2014What is the amount of the note 1\nA\u2014$200,000.\nQ.\u2014In your report of the 30th October you estimate the shortage at the end of the\nyear at $92,000. In that report you estimate among other receipts this $20,000 from the\nsale of the gravel pits ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014That report was adopted by the City Council ?\nA.\u2014I don't know what was done with it; I think it was referred to the Finance Committee.\nQ.\u2014Who is Chairman of that Committee ?\nA.\u2014Alderman Renouf.\nQ.\u2014Can you make us up a statement which will show the amount expended on streets\nand bridges since the 12th October?\nA.\u2014I think so. It will be rather hard to divide up the pay-roll on account of men\nbeing paid off in the month, so that the statement may not be correct within a few dollars.\nThe Court: I understand you to say that the sum mentioned as expended up to the 3rd\nSeptember has been actually expended and paid ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nCross-examined by Mr. Richards :\u2014Can you tell how much has been paid since the 3rd\nSeptember ?\nA.\u2014Not without figuring.\nQ.\u2014At the end of the year have you any idea ?\nA.\u2014It is very hard to say.    I have no idea at all.\nQ.\u2014Work going on all the time 1\nA.\u2014I think so. I really can't tell what is going on in the streets until the accounts\ncome into the office for payment.\nQ.\u2014You can't form any idea?\nA.\u2014No idea at all.    It depends entirely on the Council what work is done.\nQ.\u2014Do you know whether any portion of this has been spent on that portion of the\ncity recently taken in ?\nA.\u2014We have spent nearly $10,000 on the new limits in roads and bridges. The actual\nsum is $9,695.11.\nThe Court: How do you estimate the $92,000 at the end of the year ? Does that\ninclude the $20,000 received from the sale of the gravel pits ?\nA.\u2014I estimated the $20,000.\nThe Court : Was it prior to the sale that you made this estimate ?\nA.\u2014It was prior to the sale I made that estimate.\nMr. Bodwell : As a matter of fact the city paid this money into the general account.\nThere is no getting out of that; and now it is gone.\nMr. Richards: You have roads and bridges in the city\u2014\nMr. Bodwell: But you can't pay for them. It is estimated that there is due at the\nbank $92,000 at the end of the year.\nMr. Raymur: There is nothing owing now; they have a note. We paid one note of\n$50,000 last Saturday.\nThe Court: You are not so badly off as you make out. This $92,000 is mere calculation.\nIt was estimated sometime in September. On the 12th of October there is a sum, according\nto the estimate of Mr. Northcott, amounting to $20,000; and then Mr. Raymur says he\nestimates a deficit of $92,000.\nMr. Bodwell: $10,000 of this has been received and paid out, and there is $10,600 to\ncome, which if properly deposited may yet be saved. I don't propose to offer any more\nevidence on that point.\nMr. Richards: I understand, Mr. Raymur, that the bank has a note for $200,000 not\nyet due ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\n xii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014Have you your bank book here ?\nA.\u2014No.    It is made up to the end of every month.    It is made up to the 31st October.\nMr. Bodwell: That is my case on the gravel pits.\nAfter some argument Mr. Richards promised to take up his side to-morrow morning.\n3.\u2014ILLEGAL DIVERSION OF LOANS.\nMr. Bodwell: With reference to this charge the position we take is that the people\nvoted money to the city for a specific purpose. The City Council as trustee of that fund has\ndiverted it from that particular object. They are very much in the position of a trustee who\ntakes money from one trust and appropriates it to another trust account. The first amount\nI propose to go into is the 1886 loan for a reservoir for water works purposes.\nThe Court: This amount is not in the preliminary list of charges.\nMr. Bodwell: No, your Lordships. We ask leave to amend this to include this loan for\n$75,000.\nMr. Richards: Here is my learned friend going back to the acts of 1886. I ask your\nLordships to express some opinion as to how far back in antiquity you are going to take this\nmatter.    You see the men who are in the present Council were not there in 1886 or 1887.\nThe Court: But, Mr. Richards, we are not going to hold you responsible for what they\ndid ; but we may hold you responsible for adopting what your ancestors did.\nMr. Richards: We haven't had notice of this new charge.\nMr. Bodwell: That by-law was passed as an appropriation for a reservoir only and\nworks connected with the water-works. That by-law was passed in 1886. They could spend\nthe money on the reservoir, or in extending the distribution of the service, or improving the\n12-inch main. But I submit they had no right to expend it on the 16-inch main without the\nconsent 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\nin an incomplete state without referring to the inhabitants of the city, and then spend the\nbalance on the 16-inch main. The city voted a certain sum of money for the reservoir ; the\nCouncil spent $28,000 on a work which was condemned; they passed another by-law without\nreferring to the city, and then spent $22,000 on the 16-inch main ; but that money had not been\nvoted for that purpose. The annual report of 1887 shows that $25,000 of this loan appears\nto have been received that year. When the rest of the money came in does not appear from\nthe 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\nthat $75,000 loan was spent in distribution of the service, $28,000 on the reservoir, and that\n$22,477.15 was paid out of the same loan on account of the 16-inch main for material, right-\nof-way and excavation. Referring to the Water Commissioner's Report in the same year :\u2014\nThey raised $20,000 for distribution of the service and spent it. Pages 40-41, report 1888,\nshows the balance of this expenditure referred to by the Mayor ; the figures are not quite the\nsame, but it is the same expenditure ; there is no doubt about that. The estimates made on\nbehalf of the 16-inch main were down as chargeable to that loan. They paid $28,000 on the\nreservoir.\nThe Court: You have paid into the Bank of British Columbia, on account of the waterworks reservoir, $1,900 ?\nMr. Bodwell: The Annual Report of the year 1887 shows that out of the Water-works\nDebentures Loan they had spent $45,000 ; but it does not state where.\nThe Court: In the answer of the city it is stated that they had spent $28,000 on the\nreservoir.\nMr. Bodwell: The exact figures are $28,080.15. Then there is $22,477.15 on the 16-inch\nmain, and $6,000 for distribution. They say in their answer the balance of that, $36,713.66,\nwas placed, in 1888, on special deposit, so that at the beginning of the year 1889 they had on\nspecial deposit in the Bank of British Columbia $10,000, and in the Bank of British North\nAmerica $10,971.14. Part of these items, or part of both of them, was the remaining portion\nof that $75,000 loan.    I hope we are making this clear to your Lordships?\nThe Court: Have you the particulars of these two sums made out ?\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xiii-\nMr. Bodwell: I haven't had time. Proceeding : In the year 1889, if you refer to page\n147 of that book, the Annual Report, you will find they raised $70,000 for the purpose of\nbuilding a new 16-inch main and extending the city water-works. There is no doubt of the\npurpose for which that money was obtained. That by-law was passed on the 24th of July,\n1889. On the same day the city passed another by-law, that's on page 149, to raise $60,000\nfor the purpose of extending the general distribution of the water-works of the City of\nVictoria\u2014that 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,\non the same day, on page 153, they raised a loan of $15,000 for the purpose of purchasing a\nnew steam fire engine and other necessary articles in connection therewith. Then, going back\nto the previous month, on the 14th of June (referring to page 139) a loan of $45,000 was\nraised to be expended in bridge and street improvements inside the city, and enlarging the\narea of Ross Bay cemetery. If you will refer to page 78 of the report of 1889 you will find\nthe city received premiums on these loans, as follows :\u2014\nOn the $45,000 Street Loan, a premium of $1,575 ; on the $70,000 Water Works Loan,\n$1,232; on the $60,000 Water Works Extension, $1,056 ; on the $25,000 Beacon Hill Park,\n$440 ; and on the $15,000 Fire Loan, $294, making a total of $4,567. In fact, they are all\nset out in detail in the Statement of Claim of the List of Charges. In the cash statement of\nthe city of that year it is said that all these loaned moneys were received and paid into the\ngeneral account of the city; and by referring to page 36 of the balance sheet of that date we\nfind a credit in the Bank of B. N. A. to the water works account of thirty-nine cents. That\nis the state of the account at the end of the year. Looking at the statement of expenditure,\npage 83 of the same report, they have spent out of the $60,000 for distribution\nthe sum of $21,665.35. On water works extension, for which they had the following\nsnms, $70,000, $10,000, and $10,179, three sums, they spent $68,756.30. Take the Fire Loan.\nThey spent that year on the fire department $12,702.62. They did not buy any fire engine ;\nit does not appear on the fire account at any rate. They did not spend that loan at all. It\nwent to pay the overdraft at the bank. At any rate it was paid into the general account,\nand it does not appear how or where it was spent. The $45,000 loan was paid into the bank\nin the same way. On page 85 you will find that the streets and bridges expenditure amounted\nto $80,233.40, and in the Mayor's report of that year he says that Ross Bay cemetery has not\nyet been enlarged. \" This is a matter that should be seen to, as it will be found that some\nsteps will require to be taken in this direction in the near future.\" The by-law had been passed\nand the money all spent, as you will see, and yet no part of it had been used for enlarging\nRoss Bay cemetery.\nThe Court : There were two purposes in the by-law ; one for street purposes, and one for\nenlarging the cemetery.    They may have spent all of it in improving the streets.\nMr. Bodwell : They raised it for two purposes, and I tell you they had no right to use it\nfor one purpose only.\nThe Court: But they have done. The by-law does not specify how much they are to\nspend on Ross Bay cemetery.    It may be $25 only.\nMr. Bodwell: Here, in the accounts of the fire department, is an expenditure of $12,000\nand they had $15,000. They spent $12,000 and the rest went into the general account.\nThey started that year with an overdraft at the bank, as appears on the annual report of 1888,\npage 13, of $33,691.07, and in the cash statement for 1889, page 76, they had a credit of\n$11,894.49 on general account. In other words, they took $62,103.34 out of these loan\nmoneys and placed it to the account of their overdraft at the bank. This is admitted in the\nanswer of the city. All these amounts were used\u2014they diverted these loans from the purposes\nfor which they were voted and applied them to different purposes altogether. They admit\nthat they did it. We say it was illegal for them to do it. They take credit to themselves\nthat by so doing they saved interest on the overdraft; but we say they had no business to\nhave an overdraft at all. Their excuse is as good as no excuse at all. Our charge of the\nillegal diversions of loans is made out clearly from their own admissions.\nJ. L. Raymur was re-called. Examined by Mr. Bodwell: Witness said that special\ndeposit in the Bank of B. C. was $10,000 at the end of 1886.\nQ.\u2014Which one is that from ?\nA.\u2014That was from the $75,000 loan of 1886. They sold the debentures of that loan,\nand not requiring the money immediately it was placed in the bank on special deposit, bearing\n xiv. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\ninterest at 4 per cent., and drawn out as required. The second $10,000 is an amount which\nhad already been drawn from the Bank of B. C. and placed to the credit of the water works\naccount in the Bank of B. N. A.    The interest amounted to $3,681.37.\nQ.\u2014That is all of the loan of 1886 ?\nA.\u2014Yes. It was drawn out as required from the Bank of B. C. and placed to the credit\nof the water works account in the Bank of B. N. A., and that amount of $0.39 was remaining.\nQ.\u2014So that money had been actually spent that year ?\nA.\u2014In various ways.\nQ.\u2014These two amounts of $10,000 and $10,179 were all spent in 1889 on water works?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How do you keep the water works account ?\nA.\u2014We keep a separate bank account for it.\nQ.\u2014Are those amounts stated in the answer correct ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014The $70,000 loan and the $60,000 loan, were they paid into the general account?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014 And the $45,000 loan, and the $15,000, and the $25,000 for Park Loan, and the\npremiums on them, paid into the general account ?\nA.\u2014Yes, all of them.\nQ.\u2014Are these amounts stated in the answer correct ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How do you keep track of these if they are paid into the general account ?\nA.\u2014We keep separate accounts in the ledger of the various loans.\nQ.\u2014And are the vouchers marked in the same way ?\nA.\u2014Yes. The estimated revenue and expenditure is always balanced off by an appro\npriation for streets and bridges.\nQ.\u2014Was there a Bank Credit By-law passed in 1889 ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Have you looked through those loan by-laws ?\nA.\u2014Not lately.\nQ.\u2014Ts it the intention to exceed the appropriations every year ?\nA.\u2014I have no idea.\nQ.\u2014You can't explain how they estimate $18,000 for streets and spend $30,000?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Do they always make up the full amount estimated ?\nA.\u2014Generally.     We balance it off for streets and bridges.\nQ.\u2014You can't say why it is they double the estimates for street expenditure ?\nA.\u2014I have nothing to do with street work.\nMr. Bodwell : It is a curious fact that they always do.\nCross-examination. Mr. Richards : The money has all been spent in the public interest,\nhasn't it ?\nA.\u2014I think so.\nQ.\u2014And well spent, too ?\nA.\u2014I believe so.\nQ.\u2014You have read this answer here ? (holding up the City's reply.)\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014It is stated that a sum was paid into the bank in 1889 in order to prevent interest\naccumulating on the overdraft ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014The Council of 1889 liquidated such debt by a portion of the proceeds of special\nloans ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.-\u2014Leaving $11,000 odd to the credit of the City ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nMr. Bodwell: How much did you owe the bank at the end of the year 1890\u2014$71,000\ndidn't you?\nA.\u2014Yes, I believe we did.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xv.\nQ.\u2014In the beginning of the year you say that $71,000 was a credit of $11,894.49 ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nA.\u2014So that you increased the overdraft the difference between   those two amounts,\nsomewhere between $40,000 and $50,000 ?\nCourt adjourned until Monday evening.\nTuesday, 24th November, 1891.\nEvidence in re Gravel Pits Sale.\u2014Resumed.\nGeo. Stelly.    Examined by Mr. W. J. Taylor.\nQ.\u2014Your name is George Stelly ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You are a contractor living in Victoria ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Have you had much experience in the use of gravel, Mr. Stelly ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I sell a good deal of gravel.\nQ.\u2014You deal in it ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014For how long?\nA.\u2014 Ever since I am here, about 30 years ago.\nQ.\u2014What is gravel worth a load in Victoria ?\nA.\u2014Delivered, $1.25 ; and about two bits a load at the pits.\nQ.\u2014Do you haul much gravel ?\nA.\u2014Occasionally I haul a good deal.\nQ.\u2014Have you ever examined these Corporation gravel pits ?\nA.\u2014Not particularly. I have been near them many times ; but didn't examine them\nparticularly exactly.\nQ.\u2014Do you remember the time they were sold ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Did you look over them then ?\nA.\u2014I looked over some, because I had a notion to buy ; but didn't see much in it, and\ndidn't buy.\nQ._Why ?\nA.\u2014The gravel is hardly worth anything more than two bits a load. If a man pays you\nso much for a load, you have then got to haul other stuff to fill the place up again. That\nstuff would cost from five bits to a dollar, so I put it down that you get two bits for five bits.\nIf you take the stuff where they're making excavations for cellars, it may come cheaper ; but\nwhen you got to dig, it won't cost less than a dollar.\nQ.\u2014That's the reason why you didn't buy ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014This land is pretty full of holes up there generally ?\nA.\u2014Yes; I have done some work in my place, and I know from experience that the cost\nof filling up is a good deal.\nQ.\u2014What is your idea of the value of these lots ?\nA.\u2014They got a big price for them.\nQ.\u2014Is it more than you would give ?\nA.\u2014I didn't want to give that much.\nQ.\u2014Is gravel used as much now in making roads as formerly ?\nA.\u2014Well, gravel is good enough for a road where there is not much heavy traffic. No,\nit not used as much as formerly.\nQ.\u2014What is ?\nA.\u2014Broken stone.\n xvi. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014Which in your opinion is the better ?\nA.\u2014The stone, of course.\nQ.\u2014As regards cost to the city, about what difference is there?\nA.\u2014I don't know exactly.\nQ.\u2014How much would stone cost 1\nA.\u2014Well, the Corporation owns the crusher, and they could do the blasting themselves.\nQ.\u2014Now, in your opinion, about what difference would there be in the cost, taking the\nfacilities for getting rock and gravel ?\nA.\u2014About $2 to $2.50 a yard for rock, and the gravel a dollar and a quarter\u2014I think\nrock is worth about three times as much as gravel, because its lasts so much longer.\nQ.\u2014In arriving at your opinion about rock, upon what basis do you proceed ?\nA.\u2014It will wear longer, of course. If you put gravel on one of the streets down in the\nheart of the city, where there is so much traffic, you have got to scrape it off shortly after in\nthe shape of mud. It is good enough for the outskirts, where there is light traffic ; but not\nfor the town.\nQ.\u2014Do you know anything about the quality of these gravel pits ?\nA.\u2014Oh, yes ; it is good enough.\nQ.\u2014Do you know anything about the quantity there?\nA.\u2014I couldn't tell you how much. I don't say there's a very great quantity\u2014I would\nnot be able to say.\nQ.\u2014Is it a good easy pit ?\nA.\u2014Yes, there is some good leads in it, then some worse again, and when that's mixed\nup, there is some of middling quality; but it has some first-class quality ; but when they are\ndigging down, and they let the earth come down and mixes it up, it is not very good.\nQ.\u2014Does the gravel lie near or below the surface of the soil ?\nA.- The soil is on top.\nQ.\u2014Do you know anything about the cost of removing the soil to get at the gravel ?\nA.\u2014Generally, the soil goes into it.\nQ.\u2014W'hat is the cost of removing this earth per load ? Does it cost the same as the\nremoval of the gravel ?\nA.\u2014Yes, it costs about three or four bits a load.\nCross-examined by Mr. Bodwell.\nQ.\u2014Do you sell gravel now 1\nA.\u2014No, not much.\nQ.\u2014You can find men to buy what gravel you can get ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You don't find much trouble in selling gravel, you can sell all you want, in fact,\nthere is plenty of demand for it ?\nA.\u2014Oh, not so much.\nQ.\u2014How many gravel pits, about, are there in the city now ? Haggerty's is worked out,\nisn't it 1\nA.\u2014Haggerty's ?    I didn't know he had one.    He had a little sand place.\nQ.\u2014But that's been worked out, hasn't it ?\nA. \u2014I don't know ;  I haven't been round there.\nQ.\u2014Your gravel pit's at Spring Ridge, isn't it ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How much have you got there 1\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014Ten thousand yards ?\nA.\u2014I guess more than that.\nQ.\u2014Did you see the Corporation gravel pits ?\nA.\u2014I didn't look particularly at them.\nQ.\u2014You are not giving evidence now from anything you have seen lately ? You haven't\nbeen there specially to see what it is like, so as to give evidence at this enquiry ?\nA.\u2014No, no.\nQ.\u2014You say rock costs $2 a yard, and the amount to blast and crush it?\nA\u2014I say $2.50.\nQ.\u2014It costs just as much to haul rock as it does gravel, doesn't it ?\nA.\u2014Yes; but you've got lots of rock on the streets here where you could blast it out on\nthe spot.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality\nQ.\u2014But supposing I have to take it a distance from where I blast it, doesn't it cost as\nmuch?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You know some of the new streets that are going to be opened out ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Have you got rock to put. over those streets ?\nA.\u2014There's plenty of rock all over.\nQ.\u2014But the rock is on private property ?\nA.\u2014In a great many places.\nQ.\u2014Do you know where Oak Bay Avenue is ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Got any rock there which belongs to the city ?\nA.\u2014There's a big bluff right back from Higgins' house.\nQ.\u2014That's on private property. Is it not a fact that when you use rock you have got\nto haul it, and the cost of hauling is just the same as gravel, so that it is two bits against $2\na load, the relative cost of rock and gravel ?\nA.\u2014The city have always been in the habit of putting gravel on the streets where there\nis not much traffic, while the rock lasts a great deal longer.\nQ.\u2014But it has not been the custom to put gravel over macadam ?\nA.\u2014They used to do it.\nQ.\u2014Haven't they been doing it this year ?\nA.\u2014I don't know what they did this year.\nQ.\u2014You would always want gravel for crossings and sidewalks ? You would not advocate using rocks for that ?\nA.\u2014You don't want gravel for sidewalks; you make them of wood. Of course, for\ncrossings it would be good.\nThe Court: You know Senator Macdonald's place ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You know that road that goes through his place to Beacon Hill 1\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014There is a gravel pit up there?\nA.\u2014There is a small one there, but I don't think it is much. Besides, it is in the road.\nIt might go further back into private land; I don't know.\nMr. John Grant, Mayor of the City of Victoria, was the next witness. Examined by\nMr. Richards:\nQ.\u2014You are the Mayor of the city this year ?\nA.\u2014I am.\nQ.\u2014Does the Corporation own any gravel pits near Beacon Hill ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.___Where ?\nA.\u2014They are just back of what is known as the Caledonian Grounds; somewhere there.\nThe Court: What is the size of that lot ?\nA.\u2014The ordinary sized town lot, your Lordship.\nQ.\u2014They are north of Corrig College ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; somewhere there.\nMr. Richards : Do you know those lands called the gravel pits at Spring Ridge ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014They were sold this year by the Council ?\nA.\u2014A short time ago.\nQ.\u2014Do you know to what extent they have been used by the city for gravel purposes ?\nA.\u2014Considerable gravel has been taken out of them in times gone by, but not so much\nrecently.\nQ._Why 1\nA.\u2014It was found by experience generally that work could be done as cheap, if not\ncheaper, by giving the work out by contract and letting contractors find their own gravel.\nQ.\u2014Do I understand that the city, in gravelling streets, has had it done by contract ?\nA.\u2014Most of it, lately.\nQ.\u2014And the contractor furnishes his own gravel ?\n xviii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014In the new roads you use some gravel.\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014In the most frequented parts of the city what do you use, lately?\nA.\u2014Macadam.\nQ._Why ?\nA.\u2014For very good reasons. Some five or six years ago, when the central parts of the\ncity were graded, the person then in charge of the work was under the impression that it\nwould be in the interests of the road to put in two or three inches of gravel. It had not been\nthere long before we had to haul it away in the shape of mud. That was the experience, and\nall parties came to the conclusion that it would be wise not to use it at all. Once in a while,\nlately, a little has been put down for the purpose of binding the macadam; but it has been\nfound that it grinds up the macadam, and the Corporation has found that it would be very\nmuch to the advantage of the roads not to use gravel at all.\nQ.\u2014The city limits have been extended lately, and you say there are new roads to be\nopened out there ; gravel will be necessary there.    Is it to be found ?\nA.\u2014Any amount. Besides, aside from that, I do not approve of gravel pits inside the\ncity at all.\nQ.\u2014It is most objectionable ?\nA.\u2014I think, inside a city, a large hole or excavation is not a desirable thing to look at.\nI am sure I would not like to have it near my house.\nMr. Richards :  Especially if the hole were constantly enlarging ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014When you make excavations of that kind it depreciates the value of the property?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And to some extent the property adjoining it ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; most certainly.\nQ.\u2014If the Corporation makes an excavation in any part of the city, and anyone should\nhappen to fall into that hole, they would come against the city for damages 1 They have been\nknown to do that sort of thing ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Do you consider it in the interest and good government of the city that these lots\nshould be disposed of?\nA.\u2014I think so.\nQ.\u2014Do you think the lots have been bought by people who will build upon them ?\nA.\u2014I think so.\nQ.\u2014And not for the purpose of taking out gravel ?\nA.\u2014I think not.\nQ.\u2014The town is growing out there ?\nA.\u2014There is quite a little town growing up there, and I have no doubt in a very few\nyears it will be built up.\nThe Court: That is only supposition; that is all anticipation. We want reminiscences\nof the past, not prophesies of the future.\nMr. Richards : When was it you came to the conclusion to sell that property?\nA.\u2014In the early part of the year.\nQ.\u2014You passed your by-law and submitted it to the people ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014That by-law was carried ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You sold the property to the best advantage, did you not ?\nA.\u2014I think to the very best advantage.\nQ.\u2014You got the services of the most competent auctioneer, did you not 1\nA.\u2014The 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.\nQ.\u2014What was the result?\nA.\u2014The result was that we realized on the sale of that piece of property much more than\nany of us anticipated.\nQ.\u2014It cost something to grade those streets running through there ? Of course that is a\npermanent improvement ?\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xix.\nA.\u2014That is a permanent improvement.\nQ.\u2014You were acting in the interest of the city as its Mayor when you sanctioned the\nsale of this property?\nA.\u2014I did.\nQ.\u2014You got a large price ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Have you ever footed up the interest on this price, and the probable taxation the\ncity will get from the occupiers of this property ?\nA. \u2014I 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.\nLeech, the City Engineer, will give you fuller details than I can about this matter.\nMr. Bodwell, cross-examining : You were at the meeting of the Council at which this\nby-law was introduced ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You had a report of the Street Committee as to the quantity of gravel that would be\nrequired in future years ?\nA.\u2014No, I don't think so.\nQ.\u2014You had a relative estimate as to cost of opening the new gravel pit behind the\nCaledonian Grounds?\nA.\u2014They were already a gravel road, and all you had to do was to dig into it.\nQ.\u2014Did you have no estimate of the quantity of gravel there ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ. \u2014Do you know how much gravel there is there now ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Have you any estimate of the quantity of gravel used in Victoria in the year 1891?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ._During the year 1890 ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Nor before that ?\nA.\u2014I think Mr. Leech can give you all that data.\nQ.\u2014Is there nothing to show the quantity of gravel that has been used ?\nA.\u2014There are reports at the end of each year showing the statements of the different\ncommittees of the city.\nQ.\u2014Why were not all these things brought before the Council in the shape of reports at\nthe time this by-law was introduced ?    Were they produced ?\nA.\u2014No ; I can't say they were.\nQ.\u2014The quantity that had been used, and the quantity that would be required in the\nyears to come ?\nA.\u2014Nothing that I can remember.\nQ.\u2014And no estimate of the quantity of gravel that had been drawn from  Spring Ridge ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Or the quantity in the new pits behind the Caledonian Grounds ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014It is a fact, is it not, that gravel has been used constantly in the streets ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Did you state that it is the intention of the Council not to use much gravel ?\nA.\u2014I did.\nC.\u2014But the Council has only power to act for one year, and next year the policy of\ngravel may again go into effect, and the macadam to a large extent be eliminated.\nA.\u2014That is possible, I don't think it is at all probable.\nQ.\u2014Is there any probability that the Council will discontinue the use of gravel on the\nstreets of the city ?\nA.\u2014I do not think so, because there are certain things we want a little gravel for.\nQ.\u2014Then gravel will always be used ?\nA.\u2014I think so.\nQ.\u2014You say it has been found cheaper to have the gravel work done by contract, the\ncontractor finding his own gravel.    How have you found that out ?\nA.\u2014By calculating the price of gravel placed on the street, and comparing that with\nwhat it costs the city to haul it and place it on the street.\n xx. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014Does not that show something wrong in the state of things ? How is it : Here is a\ncity, owning gravel pits, and can get men as cheap as anyone else, finds it cheaper to give the\nwork out to contractors 1\nA.\u2014It is a well known fact, one that cannot be denied, that a corporation or government\ncan not get as much work out of men as a contractor can. I have made more miles of waggon\nroad than any man in British Columbia, and I know this for a fact.\nQ.\u2014If that is so, how do you account for the work that is being done in the city by day\nwork instead of contract 1\nA.\u2014There are certain kinds of work in a Corporation that it is not wise, in the public\ninterest, to put out to contract.\nQ.\u2014But, 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\ntake any penalties from the contractors ?\nA.\u2014Yes, it takes the security, and that binds them to the forms of the contract. But\nthere are many things in the general works that are only discovered after the contract time\nhas expired.\nQ.\u2014You have a Street Commissioner and City Surveyor whose duty it is to look out for\nsuch mistakes, and you hold the penalty of the contractor ; how do you account for the fact\nthat the contractor is not kept up to his agreement ?\nA.\u2014As I said before there are many things that will crop up that will not be discovered\ntill after the time of the contract has expired. But then there are works that, such as\nthe water-works and other permanent works, should be done only under the eye of the\nmen of the Corporation.\nQ.\u2014How do you make it out that the Corporation will never get as much work out of\nthe men as a private individual ?\nA.\u2014Men will never work as hard for a corporation as for a private individual. That is\na principle that all know.\nQ.\u2014Is it a possibility from which there is no escape?\nA.\u2014It is a general rule.\nQ.\u2014Can you not make an exception in the city of Victoria ?\nA.\u2014I don't think so.\nQ.\u2014Do you mean to say that as Mayor of the city of Victoria that this is a state of\nthings that is bound to exist ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I do.\nQ.\u2014Do you mean to say this is a state of things that is bound, and must of necessity\nexist in this city?\nA.\u2014It is.\nQ.\u2014And this city is no exception ?    It is not a necessity that they should exist ?\nA.\u2014It 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.\nQ.\u2014Is it the result of experience as taught that corporations can do better by letting\ntheir work by contract ?\nA.\u2014Such work as may be desirable may be let by contract.\nQ.\u2014I suppose that is a statement with considerable qualification?\nA.\u2014Certainly.\nQ.\u2014Then the theory is you can't do as much by day labour as by contract ?\nA.\u2014Sometimes. You can't do patching, and there are a great many other things that\nyou can't let by contract, for the simple reason that the parties who would tender do not care\nto go round to see what the work required is, and they would consequently allow for a very\nlarge margin of profit before tendering. That is why I say that you can't let such small\njobs such as patching and other small jobs by contract.\nQ._Why is that ?\nA.\u2014Because the quantities cannot be exactly estimated.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell us how much was expended for street repairs in 1887 ?\nA.\u2014Not exactly.\nQ._In 1888?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014In 1889 ?\nA.\u2014No.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xxi.\nQ.\u2014In 1890?\nA.\u2014No.    If you take any of the annual reports I think you will find that data in them.\nQ.\u2014We may take the annual reports on those points as correct ?\nA.\u2014I think so.\nThe Court : Are you not going rather into the question of general extravagance, Mr.\nBodwell?\nMr. Bodwell: You were at the meeting of the City Council of the 22nd October when\nthis by-law authorizing the City Assessor to make the sale was made ?\nA.\u2014I think so.\nQ.\u2014You say that the Council without changing the by-law allowed the sale to be made\nby Mr. Davies ?\nA.\u2014No. It was to be made by the Assessor ; but there was nothing in the by-law that\nsays he may not have assistance.\nQ.\u2014As a citizen reading that by-law you would imagine that it was to be a sale without\ncost to the city ?\nA.\u2014The by-law provides that it was to be sold under his management.\nQ.\u2014And then the auctioneer was afterwards appointed and the commission was paid.\nDo you think that was a proper thing to do ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And as Mayor of the city you thought you had not any other duty to perform than\nto allow this thing to be done ?\nA.\u2014I think the question came up, and it was the opinion that it was quite competent\nfor Mr. Northcott to get an assistant.\nQ.\u2014Is the City Assessor an executive officer of the city ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Then why was he authorized to make this sale ? Does not the by-law state that an\nexecutive officer has to attend the\u2014\nA.\u2014Because he was familiar with the taxation of the city property.\nQ.\u2014But if he is not an executive officer of the Corporation why was he named as the\nperson to conduct this sale ?\nA.\u2014I think he is just as much an executive officer of the city as Mr. Kent is.\nQ.\u2014There was no special reason for naming him as the person to sell the property ?\nA.\u2014No ; it was thought that he was the proper person.\nQ.\u2014You thought he was competent to do it ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Then why on earth did you get an auctioneer to sell the property ?\nA.\u2014For the simple reason that an auctioneer would get a much better price for the\nproperty than an ordinary individual.\nQ.\u2014What was Mr. Raymur's estimate of the probable receipts of the sale of the gravel\npits?\nA.\u2014It was something about $19,000.\nQ.\u2014Were there other estimates of the value of the property ?\nA.\u2014Yes, there were several; from $15,000 up to $20,000, $23,000, and $25,000.\nQ.\u2014You attended the sale ?\nA.\u2014No. I was somewhere else in the building engaged in some other municipal\nbusiness.\nQ.\u2014You don't know whether it was lively and spirited ?\nA.\u2014Only from hearsay.\nQ.\u2014You don't know how long it lasted ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Was this a very difficult property to sell ?\nA.\u2014No, not very.\nQ.\u2014It is in a part of the city that is being very rapidly built up ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And the tram line is expected to reach this place very shortly ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014So that the property required no very great energy to sell 1\nA.\u2014Perhaps not; but I think that a good auctioneer always pays for himself.\nQ.\u2014Then why did you name Mr. Northcott instead of Mr. Davies ?\n Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA.\u2014Because I think it is required in the Act somewhere.\nQ.\u2014Then why did not you put it in the by-law that he could get a competent auctioneer\nto sell the property ?\nA.\u2014That was a matter that was not thought of at the time. It has always been the\ncustom of the Corporation to sell in this way.\nQ.\u2014If the auctioneer will always pay for himself, why did not the city order the sale to\nbe made by the auctioneer ?\nA.\u2014He did provide for himself in this case.\nQ.\u2014Were you at the Council meeting of the 22nd October?\nA.\u2014I think so.    I am generally there.\nQ.\u2014Do you remember anything of this kind occurring :\u2014\" The residents of Hill street\npetitioned in favour of having that thoroughfare graded.\n\" Aid. Smith.\u2014We have got no funds, and we will do no work. We have not the means,\nwe are about to discharge six men, leaving just two men for James Bay Ward; two for\nJohnson Street Ward ; and two for Yates Street Ward.\n\" The Mayor said that if they were to do all the work they were asked to do the would\nrequire a great deal more money at their disqosal. There were 121 miles of streets and 200\nmiles 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\nof the city.    Bills to the amount of $128 were passed for payment.\n\" Aid. Smith announced that at a very early date it would be necessary to replank James\nBay bridge, and that would be a very expensive undertaking. The report was adopted.\"\nHow do you account for that state of things ?    Is that what occurred at that meeting ?\nA.\u2014Not exactly as it is mentioned there.\nQ.\u2014Was there a petition from the residents of Hill street ? And did Aid. Smith say\nthat they were going to discharge a large number of men ?    How do you account for that ?\nA.\u2014I am not stating that that is correct there.\nQ.\u2014Was there a petition ?\nA.\u2014I don't know. There are so many petitions that it would be hard to keep track of\nthem?\nQ.\u2014Is it correct, the report about what Aid. Smith said ?\nA.\u2014I don't think that is exactly as he said it; he may have said something meaning\nsomething like that.\nQ.\u2014The Sanitary Officer reported in favour of having a box drain repaired on View\nstreet, and could not have it done for want of funds. How much work could two men in\neach ward do on streets?\nA.\u2014Very little.\nQ.\u2014At the following week's meeting, the 29th October, Aid. Smith reported that ten\nteams and seventeen men had been discharged, and ten men and two teams retained. How\nmuch work could they do ?\nA.\u2014Very little.\nQ.\u2014Do you know whether any of these men have since been put to work again on the\nstreets ?\nA.\u2014A number of them have been put to work.\nQ.\u2014How many ?\nA.\u2014I don't know. I think inside of the next week some of the men were employed\nagain.\nQ.\u2014Does the city intend to give us accurate information on this point ?\nA.\u2014They will give you a statement of how the money has been expended.\nThe Court at this stage adjourned for one hour for lunch.\nThe Court having returned from lunchon, Mr. P. J. Leech, City Surveyor, was called:\nExamined by Mr. Richards\u2014You are the City Surveyor?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014For how long have you held that position ?\nA.\u2014The beginning of 1884.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xxiii.\nQ.\u2014Have you charge of the streets and sidewalks and the work done in the city in the\nengineering line ?\nA.\u2014I have.\nQ.\u2014Either by contract or day's work ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Do you know the gravel pits ?\nA\u2014I do.\nQ.\u2014For how long ?\nA.\u2014Several years.\nQ.\u2014Have you been using gravel lately on the streets ?\nA.\u2014More than I would like to use, but not so much as heretofore.\nQ.\u2014Still, there has been used more than you approve of as engineer?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Do you approve of gravel being used on these roads for certain purposes ?\nA.\u2014For crossings it may be used.\nQ.\u2014When you say that there is more gravel being used than you approve of, what do\nyou mean ?\nA.\u2014I do not approve of gravel being used on macadam.\nQ._Why ?\nA.\u2014Because it is condemned by the best authority. It prevents the macadam becoming\nfirmly packed, and being of a harder quality than the macadam it grinds it up. For this\nreason it is condemned by the best authorities on engineering.\nQ.\u2014As an engineer, what is the best way to make a road ?\nA.\u2014First to grade it; then to roll it; then to put a layer four inches thick of heavy rock;\nlay upon it a thin layer of coarse rock, finishing up with a layer of rock about two inches\nthick, and then finally roll it.\nQ.\u2014That makes the best road?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Does the city require much gravel?\nA.\u2014They should not require any gravel for making a road like that.\nQ.\u2014In what way has the city work been done where gravel has been used\u2014I mean by\ncontract or day's work ?\nA.\u2014In some cases we have not macadamized the streets in the outlying portions of the\ntown, but simply gravelled them.    This work has been done by contract.\nQ.\u2014Who furnishes the gravel ?\nA.\u2014The contractor.\nQ.\u2014Where does he get it ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014Is there any difficulty in getting gravel ?\nA.\u2014I suppose not; I never knew of a contractor having any difficulty in getting any.\nQ.\u2014There is no difficulty in getting gravel in this part of Vancouver Island ?\nA.\u2014I don't think so.\nQ.\u2014Was it found cheaper to let the work by contract than if the city had done it by\nday's work and have their own gravel pits ?\nA.\u2014I am sure of it.\nQ.\u2014In what way could the city use the gravel pits ?\nA.\u2014As I said before, simply in making crossings, and the little they use in blinding the\nmacadam.\nQ.\u2014What is the result of its being spread on the macadam ?\nA.\u2014It prevents the macadam from binding, and the gravel being of a harder rock it\nhelps to grind up the macadam quicker and thus forms mud.\nQ.\u2014Have you any idea of the quantity of gravel that has been used in the city ?\nA.\u2014We never kept an account.    We couldn't tell.\nQ._Who could tell?\nA.\u2014No one. We never kept an account. Our foreman might be able to tell you, but\nit would not be very accurate.    I am sure it would be only very widely approximate.\nQ.\u2014Can you not give the Commissioners any information on the subject ?\nA.\u2014I am afraid I could not.\nQ.\u2014Have you examined these gravel pits ?\n xxiv. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How is the gravel between Queen's Avenue and Cedar Hill Road ?\nA.\u2014There is no gravel there at all.\nQ.\u2014In what state are these lots?    Was there ever any gravel there?\nA.\u2014There never was any gravel taken out of there.\nQ.\u2014Take that part between Queen's and Princess Avenues ?\nA.\u2014A little has been worked out there.\nQ.\u2014How is it in here ?\nA.\u2014This down here is the Pound.\nQ.\u2014In lots 17, 15, 14, and 16?\nA.\u2014They have been worked out.\nQ.\u2014How about 10, 11, 12, and 13 ?\nA.\u2014There may be a little gravel, but hardly any. No, there is none there. There may\nbe a little in 12 or 13.\nQ.\u2014Did you work these streets through here ?    Have these been graded ?\nA.\u2014Princess Avenue and Queen's Avenue have been lately graded.\nThe Court : Have you made any profile or particular survey of these lots ?\nA.\u2014WTe have surveyed them into lots.\nQ.\u2014Now, Mr. Leech, suppose this land were to be worked out as this hole has been\nworked out, would it be any expense to fill it up again ?\nA.\u2014Of course it would. It would cost more to fill it up than it did to take the gravel\nout of it.\nQ.\u2014They say that gravel is so much a load there, but they will have to pay haulage, in\naddition to that they will have to pay for the earth to fill it up again ?\nA.\u2014Certainly.\nQ.\u2014Knowing the wants of the city with respect to gravel, if there are any such wants,\ndo you think the city made a good bargain by selling that property ?\nA.\u2014I think they did.\nQ.\u2014In getting rid of them ?\nA.\u2014In getting rid of them.\nMr. Bodwell, cross-examining : You say it would cost a great deal to fill those places up ;\nis there an obligation on the city to fill it up ?\nA.\u2014Certainly not.\nThe Court: The city has not proposed that.\nMr. Bodwell:  But my learned friend has.\nQ.\u2014What is the difference in the elevation between Chambers Street aud Spring Road ?\nA.\u2014I suppose the difference in the elevation between Spring Road and Chambers Street\nwould be about 21 or 22 feet.\nQ.\u2014That is a distance of what ?\nA.\u2014About 500 feet.\nQ.\u2014Down to what depth can you take a face as shown on this profile ?\n(After some calculation in the matter of grades)\u2014\nQ.\u2014Do you think it would pay ?\nA.\u2014No ; I don't think it would.\nQ.\u2014What do you think would be the expense of getting that gravel out and giving the\nplace a presentable appearance ?\nA.\u2014I could not say.\nQ.\u2014You say it is against the best engineering authorities to use gravel for blinding\nmacadam ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Who is your authority ?\nA.\u2014Rankin.\nQ.\u2014He speaks of limestone rock ?\nA.\u2014He says that some engineers to make a broken stone road have put a sprinkling of\nsand and gravel on it called binding. But he says that is bad practice, for the particles of\nsand and gravel work their way between the stones, and prevent them making as compact a\nmass as they ought to do. The reason, I think, for that is that the gravel and sand are a\ndisintegrated rock of a very hard character, and the macadam, which is a softer rock, is\nground up to be hauled away as mud.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xxv.\nQ.\u2014But he is talking more with reference to limestone rock than to this sort of rock\nhere? Does not your experience tell you that the majority of macadam used in England is\nmade of limestone rock ?    And Rankin is speaking of England ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; and I say the same principle holds good here.\nQ.\u2014Have you any authority ?\nA.\u2014There is an instance in the rock that is crushed by the crusher. It not only breaks\nit into pieces, but the pieces themselves are shaken and easily disintegrated afterwards.\nQ,\u2014Do you know the top of Yates Street ?\nA.\u2014I do.\nQ.\u2014What kind of a road do you call that ?\nA.\u2014Between Fernwood Road and Fort Street; is that the part you mean ?\nQ.\u2014Yes ; along by the Public School.    Do you call that a good piece of road ?\nA.\u2014I don't think there is a good piece of macadam road in the city, except the Dallas\nRoad ; I think that is the best.\nQ. \u2014 Speaking relatively, what do you say of that part of Yates Street, comparing it with\nother parts of the city ?    Do you say it is a very bad piece of road ?\nA.\u2014I do not say it is a bad road.\nQ. \u2014When was that made ?\nA.\u2014That was done in 1884.\nQ.\u2014Was there not a good deal of gravel put on that ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014Would you be surprised to know that there was a good deal of gravel put in there\nfor this blinding process ?\nA.\u2014It is very likely there was.\nQ.\u2014How does that coincide with your theory ?\nA.\u2014It would have been a better road without the gravel. There is a piece of road there\non Fort Street, from Douglas. When that was macadamized I believe there was no blinding\nput on it, and it is a better road to-day than any in the city.\nQ.\u2014As an engineer, you would not put a great deal of gravel on for blinding purposes 1\nA. \u2014No; I would not put any at all.\nQ.\u2014But supposing you were going to use that process you would not use a great deal ?\nA.\u2014As I said before, I would not use any at all ?\nQ.\u2014If your theory is correct, that blinding process helps to make mud?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014But what is going to fill up the crevices ?\nA.\u2014There are four inches first of large rock ; then about three inches of smaller rock ;\nthat is all rolled.\nQ.\u2014What is the effect of that ?\nA.\u2014The small rock makes a fine surface and fills up the interstices.\nQ.\u2014Won't gravel do that as well ?\nA.\u2014It will do a great deal more ; it does mischief.\nQ.\u2014How much do you think gravel is worth a load?\nA.\u2014To give you one case in point: there was a street in the city, a short time ago, that\nwas gravelled for $1.70 a yard.\nQ.\u2014That was the total cost ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Do you consider it economical to macadamize the country roads ?\nA.\u2014I would gravel them, and let the work by contract.\nQ.\u2014You have a great many of that class of roads to build in the city ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And a great many more to be built in the new limits. And you will want gravel\nfor this purpose. Supposing the city owned its own gravel pits, would it not be able to gravel\nthese roads cheaper than the contractor ?\nA.\u2014I am afraid that it would be too far to haul it.\nQ.\u2014But how does the contractor haul it and make it pay ?\nA.\u2014I don't know; that is his business.\nQ.\u2014Is there no good reason why the same profit should be made by the city as is made\nby the contractor ?\nA.\u2014I do not think I can tell you why; I only know that it is so.\n xxvi. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014Did you make any tests here to see whether there was much gravel ? Did you make\nno critical examination?\nA.\u2014I made no critical examination.\nQ.\u2014I understand you to say that there is no gravel here between Queen's and Princess\nAvenues ?\nA.\u2014There may be some, but not much.\nQ.\u2014Did you make any critical inspection of the surface ?\nA.\u2014It is thoroughly worked out. I have seen it often, but have never sunk any test pit\nto ascertain the quality of the gravel.\nQ.\u2014Did you sink any test to ascertain the quality of the gravel in the new pit ? Would\nyou be surprised to find that there are between 10,000 and 15,000 yards of gravel there?\nA.\u2014There might be.\nQ.\u2014Have you made any sidewalks this year of gravel ?\nA.\u2014We made two this year\u2014one of 700 yards on Michigan, and one on Phoenix Place\nof 240 feet.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell us how many men have been working on the streets since the 12th\nOctober ?\nA.\u2014I suppose there were 26 to 30 employed on the gravel pits then.\nQ.\u2014Well, then, you were actually working the gravel pits with 26 to 30 men?\nA.\u2014No ; those men were grading the streets.\nQ.\u2014What did you do with these men when that work was completed ?\nA.\u2014They were discharged.\nQ.\u2014Then these 26 or 30 men were simply employed in grading the streets for the purpose\nof selling this property ?    How many men have you working now ?\nA.\u2014In all about 10.\nQ.\u2014Then since the 12th October you haven't had more than 12 men working on the\nstreets ?    The average rate of wages is $2 a day ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What did you do with the gravel you took out of Princess Avenue in grading ?\nA.\u2014We put it on Queen's Avenue.\nMr. Richards : Take these new parts brought into the city, if roads were to be made you\nwould let the work by contract ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Would the contractors be able to get gravel in that locality ?\nA.\u2014I suppose they would be able to get gravel.\nQ.\u2014Have you any reason to suppose they would not ?\nA.\u2014 No ; I haven't.\nQ.\u2014You said a good deal about making roads, and you said there was one first-class\nroad.    Which one is that?\nA.\u2014Dallas Road.\nQ.\u2014Out there by the salt water ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014That is made in the way you think it ought to be made, is it not ?\nA.\u2014Not exactly.    There was some gravel put on that, but not a very great deal.\nQ.\u2014Plenty of gravel in that neighbourhood ?\nA.\u2014I think so.\nQ.\u2014Have you any idea as to the quantity of gravel the city will require ?\nA.\u2014No ; I have not.\nQ.\u2014Could it be got for $1,000 ?\u2014$500 ?\nA.\u2014I don't suppose all the gravel that would be wanted in the city in one year would\ncost\u2014well, it would cost less than $1,000, hauled and all.\nQ.\u2014Outside of contracts, $1,000 would pay for all the gravel the city would require in a\nyear?\nA.\u2014I think so.\nQ.\u2014What percentage do you allow at the pit's mouth for hauling? You say it is $1.25\ndelivered; what percentage of that enters into the hauling ?\nA.\u2014I should say about 75 cents or $1.\nMr. Bodwell: You say that it has been the practice to have this street work done by\ncontract ?\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xxvii.\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How do you account for the fact that out of the $80,233.04 spent on streets and\nbridges in 1889, $26,960.93 was paid for wages?    How do you account for that?\nA.\u2014We keep a number of men to do odd jobs about the streets.\nQ.\u2014And out of $47,000 the sum of $21,442.17 was paid for wages in 1890. Yet you\nsay that the majority of this work is done by contract. How do you get such a large expenditure for wages ?\nA.\u2014It so happened that there was not so much work done by contract with the work\nwe had.\nQ.\u2014But you say that the majority of the work is done by contract ?\nA.\u2014I said that when we want to make a street, camber, grade, and gravel it, we have\nthe work done by contract.\nQ.\u2014I understand you to say that one reason for disposing of the gravel pits was that\nyou could not work them at a profit ?\nA.\u2014No ; I didn't say anything of the sort.\nQ.\u2014Why have you found that a city owning its gravel pits cannot do work cheaper than\na contractor ? and how is it that you do not carry that principle into all departments of street\nwork ?\nMr. Richards : How many miles of streets have you to keep in order in the city ?\nA.\u2014Within 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\nsides.    There are about eight miles of street that are sidewalked only on one side.\nQ.\u2014How many bridges have you ?\nA.\u2014We have James Bay Bridge, Rock Bay Bridge, two bridges on the Gorge Road, and\none on the Burnside Road.\nQ.-\u2014Have you any wooden drains ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You have to expend money on them ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You are required to keep the sidewalks in order?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Are there not complaints made frequently by persons who say they fell through holes\nin the sidewalks ?\nA.\u2014Sometimes.\nMr. Bodwell: How much work can you do with ten men ?\nA.\u2014Very little.\nThe Court: There is a statement in the fixed salaries of the city officials, giving $18,000\na year.    Is that not a lot of bossing for ten men ?\nA.\u2014Those ten men are only on the streets. There are all the other departments, such\nas the water-works, the city electric light, and other branches.\nWilliam Lynn, examined by Mr. Taylor : What position do you hold in this city ?\nA.\u2014Street Commissioner of the City of Victoria.\nQ.\u2014How long have you held that position ?\nA.\u2014Since June 5th, last.\nQ.\u2014Have you ever examined those gravel pits ?\nA.\u2014No ; I have never examined them.\nQ.\u2014Have you had anything to do with the work of grading Princess and Queen's\nAvenues ?\nA.\u2014I did.\nQ.\u2014When was that work done?\nA.\u2014Some time last summer.\nQ.\u2014Can you form any idea of the value of those pits to the city for gravel purposes ?\nA.\u2014No ; I could not.\nQ.\u2014Do you know anything with regard to the advantages of the use of gravel in making\nroads ?\nA.\u2014For my part I would not use any gravel at all.\nQ._Why.\n xxviii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA.\u2014Because it grinds the macadam up.\nQ.\u2014Have you had any experience in making roads ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; I have made a good deal of roads both here, at home (in England), and in\nAustralia.\nQ.\u2014Is gravel used there to any extent ?\nA.\u2014We don't use any gravel.\nQ.\u2014How long has that idea prevailed for not using gravel ?\nA.\u2014I remember it for about two years.\nQ,\u2014It is a recent idea ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Have you formed any idea of the relative cost to the city of rock and gravel ?\nA.\u2014No ; I have not.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell us anything about the condition of these gravel pits ?\nA.\u2014When I got charge of them they were full of holes until I started to grade.\nQ.\u2014That was in June last ?\nA.\u2014No; that was in September, when they were offered for sale.\nQ.\u2014Did you examine the surface of the land there at all ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; but not particularly.\nQ.\u2014Was there gravel where this cut is ?\nA.\u2014There was a good deal of surface to dig off, and then there was gravel.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell us what proportion of it was gravel ?\nA.\u2014In some places, of course, there was hardly any ; for instance, you would have to go\nabout 200 feet up Chambers street before you would strike gravel. Then you would have to\ntake off two to two and a half feet of soil and boulders.\nQ.\u2014Were these stones of sufficient size to interfere with the easy use of these as gravel pits ?\nA.\u2014There were a great number of them.\nQ.\u2014Can you give us any idea of the quality of gravel there ?\nA.\u2014No; I never examined the gravel. I received my instructions from Mr. Leech to\nmake the road, and I did not bother my head about the gravel.\nQ.\u2014Did you examine the big cut there (Exhibit \" D \") ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014You could not say anything about the quality of gravel there, or the quantity ?\nA.\u2014No, I never examined it.\nQ.\u2014What means of communication had these people of Spring Ridge with this side prior\nto the construction of Queen and Princess Avenues ?\nA.\u2014They had to go back of that big hill and round to the South road.\nQ.\u2014It was a great convenience to the people there, the construction of these roads ?\nA.\u2014Certainly.\nQ.\u2014What effect will it have with regard to the value of property in that immediate\nneighbourhood ?\nA.\u2014I think it will increase the value of property there.\nBy Mr. Bodwell: This gravel was good enough to use on Queen's Avenue ?\nA.\u2014I had to fill in with it.\nQ.\u2014Did you put anything else upon it ?\nA.\u2014I put the boulders.\nQ.\u2014Haven't they been able to work the pit on account of those boulders ?\nA.\u2014I don't know anything about that; that was before my time.\nQ.\u2014There is the fact that the pit has been worked ?\nA.\u2014There are the boulders.\nQ.\u2014You stated that you did not know anything about the gravel. Does it run to the\nsurface, did you see ?\nA.\u2014It might run to the surface or close to the surface, but it does not run to the surface\non Princess Avenue.\nQ.\u2014How many men were you working there ?\nA.\u2014I was working at one time twenty-four.\nQ.\u2014About how many teams ?\nA.\u2014About, well I had eight, and seven on Saanich road.\nQ.\u2014What was the idea of having seven on the Saanich road ?\nA.\u2014Putting on metal. \t\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xxix.\n1.\u2014EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE.\nMr. Bodwell: Our contention with regard to this is that the city never had any authority\nat any time to expend any money beyond the current revenue of the year. That is the sum\nand substance of our contention; and yet they have done so.\nThe Court: Practically they admit your claim, Mr. Bodwell; but they dispute the\nfigures.\nMr. Taylor pointed out to the Court a mistake that had occurred in the printing on page\n13 of the city's reply with regard to the amount set down for 1889. That should have been\n$11,435.78 instead of $8,864.22, thus making the total $60,848.09.\nIn support of his contention Mr. Bodwell quoted section 36 of the Act of 1867, chapter\n172 ; section 11, chapter 94, of the Consolidated Acts; chapter 16, section 2, of the Act of\n1881 ; section 3 of the Consolidated Acts of 1888 ; section 99, chapter 18, of the Act of\n1889. The clause on which this contention is based is section 98 of the Municipal Act:\u2014\n\" No municipal council shall have power to incur any liability beyond the revenue for the\ncurrent year, and that the revenue for every council duly elected shall commence with the\nlegal collections of the first day of the year in which the said council was elected until the\nend of the year.\" That was the way in which the law stood with reference to this point\nuntil the year 1891, when the present Municipal Act was brought into force. In sub-section 133\nof section 98 of that Act it provides for the first time the power to raise money by borrowing\nin anticipation of the revenue of the year. Up to the year 1891 the Council had no authority\nto spend the revenue in excess of what came in during that year. We commence with the\nyear 1887, and we show the expenditure beyond the revenue in each year. I have a\nstatement here which will show your Lordships exactly how this is arrived at.\nMr. Richards : We have got the record in the list of charges as 1888, 1889, and 1890.\nMr. Bodwell : The only thing I will refer to in 1887 is the annual report, which shows\nthere was due at the bank at the end of that year the sum of $7,205.75 (page 9 of the\nannual report for 1887). In the beginning of the year 1888, if you will take the report for\nthat year and refer to page 15, you will-find that they had increased that balance to $33,691.07,\nan increase of $26,485. When you come to the year 1889 we find they transferred, as you\nwill see in the answer of the city, page 14, par. 3, loan moneys amounting to $62,103.33 in\npayment of the overdraft. But it appears that they transferred not only the loan moneys,\nbut the premiums on those loans amounting to $4,567. So that the total loans diverted were\n$66,670.33. From this must be taken the balance to the credit of the current account, as\nshown on page 76 of the reports of 1889, $11,844.49. Coming down to the year 1890 there\nis a statement in the annual report showing the overdraft to be $71,750.08. For the present\nyear we simply have to refer to the auditor's report, which estimates the shortage to be $92,000.\nThere was some argument as to the authority of the city to pass what is known as the\nBank Credit By-law.\nFriday, November 27th, 1891.\nMr. Raymur was called and examined as to the statement showing how the petitioners\narrived at the claim of excessive expenditure.\nIn answer to Mr. Richards, he said :\u2014The unpaid amounts have been charged to two\nCouncils; that is, they are charged against the Council that incurred them, and then the next\nyear they are charged against the Council that pays them. In the same way the unpaid\namounts of 1889 are charged against the Council of 1890.\nMr. Richards : Our statement shows the over-expenditure for 1888 to be $25,488.81, and\nthese amounts are charged in as part of the over-expenditure of 1889 ?\nA.\u2014Yes; they are included in the overdraft of the next year, and charged as over-\nexpenditure of that year, and not for the year in which they were incurred.\nQ.\u2014Is there any other error in this statement ?\nA.\u2014Yes, there is a mistake of $50,000 in 1890. There are $2,000 of unpaid amounts\ncharged against 1889 which will come in again in 1890.    In 1890 they have charged the whole\n Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\noverdraft up against that year, whereas there is only $20,000 chargeable against the year 1890-\nIf that amount had been paid in to the water works account, separate from the current\naccount, we would have owed the bank $50,000. Deduct that from $71,000, and it leaves\nabout $20,000, which is really the overdraft of 1890.\nThe Court: I understand Mr. Bodwell's objection is that the loan moneys ought to have\nbeen paid into the bank with the various accounts, as the moneys came in, to carry out the\nwork for which the loans were raised. I understand that the Corporation took these moneys\nfrom the proper object to simply pay the overdraft. You borrowed the money on the security\nof the water-works and applied it as though it had been out of the ordinary taxation of the\nyear. If the incoming Council takes the outgoing Council's debts, they ought to have credit\nfor them.\nMr. Richards: There is do doubt that we have overdrawn; all that we admit. But\nwhat we really want to show is the indebtedness of the city as it really is, and as we show\nhere, altogether $71,000 at the beginning of this year.\nThe Court: The petitioners claim $75,000.\nMr. Raymur : The Council of 1890 only incurred $20,000 of that on the current revenue.\nMr. Richards : Are there any outstanding taxes to apply against that ?\nA.\u2014Yes; there are about $20,000 at the end of the year.\nQ.\u2014Which the last Council left you to collect?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nMr. Bodwell: In your estimate to the Council to the 30th September, you estimate a\nreal estate tax of $190,000 ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How much did you calculate will not be collected out of that ?\nA.\u2014I calculated it would all be collected.\nQ.\u2014What is the gross amount of the tax ?\nA.\u2014About $210,000; and then the arrears from last year besides.\nQ.\u2014How much was that ?\nA.\u2014There have been about $20,000 to $25,000 every year.\nQ.\u2014But didn't this Council incur a liability of $20,000 as one of their first acts ? How\nmany bank credit by-laws were passed in 1891 ?\nA.\u2014Only one 1 think you will find.\nQ.\u2014How much did you spend in April ?\nA.\u2014$76,576.76.\nQ.\u2014And in May ?\nA\u2014$112,696.42.\nQ.\u2014The second bank credit by-law was passed on the 20th May ?\nA.\u2014I don't know when it was.\nThe 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\nto have raised the money under the ordinary borrowing powers; and then they could not do\nthat, for they can only contract a debt for matters in the jurisdiction of the Council; they\ncould not raise a debt to pay the liabilities of the Council of the preceding year.\nMr. Bodwell: You say, Mr. Raymur, that up to the end of April $76,000 had been spent,\nand up to the end of May $112,000, and that the total amount, according to the by-law,\navailable for expenditure was $78,000. How was the money prior to the passage of the second\nbank credit by-law obtained ?\nA.\u2014There is revenue coming in all the time.\nQ.\u2014Did you receive more revenue than you anticipated ?\nA.\u2014 -As I told you there is revenue coming in all the time.\nQ._Will you say that you received $112,000 at the end of May?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Will you say that you received $76,000 at the end of April ?\nA.\u2014I do not think so.\nQ.\u2014How was the money obtained between the time of the expiration of the limit of the\nfirst bank by-law and the passage of the second one ?\nA.\u2014The bank advanced the money.\nQ.\u2014Who arranged that.\nA.\u2014I don't know\u2014that is, not to my knowledge.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xxxi.\nQ.\u2014What was the total amount of expenditure up to the last time you made an estimate?\nA\u2014$272,000.\nQ.\u2014Not including any overdraft ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014You estimate the total revenue at what ?\nA.\u2014$317,000.\nQ.\u2014That includes the sale of the gravel pits, does it not ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014But what do you estimate the expenditue will be to the end of the year ?\nA.-About $337,000.\nQ.\u2014That is with putting in the whole of the overdraft ?\nA.\u2014$337,000.\nQ.\u2014How do you get at that; because $272,000 has been borrowed and spent, and there\nwas an overdraft of $71,000 from last year, and these two amounts alone would make up over\n$340,000 ?    What do you estimate the revenue of real estate would be to the end of the year ?\nA.\u2014I estimate about $245,000\u2014that was from the time that this statement was made up.\nQ.\u2014Did you expect to receive $245,000 between that time and the end of the year ?\nA.\u2014Yes.    That was simply an estimate that I made up to show to the Council.\nQ.\u2014Did this estimate include the real estate tax for the whole of the year ?\nA.\u2014No, only for that time.\nQ.\u2014How much is that of the year's tax.\nA.\u2014About 90 per cent.\nQ._How is that?\nA.\u2014Because the tax is only payable on the first of December.\nQ.\u2014Does that statement you furnished the City Council include every source of revenue ?\nA.\u2014Yes, payment from all sources.\nQ.\u2014If you did not estimate the revenue for the whole of the year, how did you get at the\nestimate that there would be a shortage of $92,000 at the end of the year?\nA.\u2014I took first of all what the Council had to meet between that date and the end of\nthe year; the $200,000 note at the bank; the overdraft of $26,475.73; there was general interest\n$4,000; there was coupon interest $12,000; accrued interest on the sewerage and market\nbonds $16,000; sinking fund $21,625; permanent salaries $20,000; other expenditure $25,000;\nthere was the school tax $3,450; and there was an appropriation which the Council had made\nfor the ordinary working of the School Board, $6,000, and the Eberts & Taylor estimate for\nlegal expenses $2,500.\nThe Court : That is the smallest amount of the whole statement.\nMr. Raymur : The total amount of that statement is $337,050.73\nMr. Bodwell: And up to the end of May you had paid out $245,000 ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014That is all you say you had to expect from current revenue ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And you had spent it all and had an overdraft of $20,000 besides? Then there is a\nshortage of $92,000?\nA.\u2014That would be the bank overdraft at the end of the year.\nQ.\u2014Now, if this $20,000, the proceeds from the sale of the gravel pits, had been kept in\na separate account what would the shortage be ?\nMr. Richards: Do you know what was the amount spent outside the old limits ?\nA.\u2014There were about $10,000 on streets, $15,000 on water, and $5,000 on laying it\nout\u2014surveyors' expenses.\nQ.\u2014Any taxes been received from that quarter ?\nA.\u2014A few water rents, that's all.\nThe Court: You estimate the revenue from the 7th October to the end of the year at\n$245,000 ; what was the revenue for that portion of the year anterior to that ?\nA.\u2014It was $97,842.77 up to the 30th September.    That was purely from taxation.\nThe Court : That with the revenue estimated for the remaining portion of the year,\n$245,000, would bring the revenue for this year up to about $350,000 ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nThe Court: And you have got over $135,000 more revenue this year than you had last;\nand still you have increased your overdraft by about $20,000 ?\n xxxii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA.\u2014Yes.\nMr. Richards : Was there not a large expenditure this year for water-works\u2014above the\nrevenue ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What did it amount to ?\nA\u2014About $45,000.\nMr. Richards : Will your Lordships please note that there has been an unusual expenditure this year of $45,000 on water-works ?\nMr. Bodwell: What was the revenue last year from water-works ?\nA.\u2014It is about the same every year.\nQ.\u2014What was this expenditure for ?\nA.\u2014New pipes and extensions.\nQ.\u2014-Where was it done ?\nA.\u2014Mostly in the new limits.\n2\u2014EXCESSIVE USE OF BORROWING POWERS.\nAlderman C. E. Renouf, examined by Mr. Bodwell : You are a member of the City\nCouncil, Mr. Renouf, and Chairman of the Finance Committee 1\nA.\u2014I am.\nQ.^How long have you been a member of the Council ?\nA.\u2014About the 20th of January last.\nQ.\u2014This is your first year in the Council ?\nA.\u2014My first year.\nQ.\u2014When did you undertake the duties of that position ?\nA.\u2014I couldn't exactly say.    I think it was after the first meeting of the Council.\nQ.\u2014Between the date of your taking office and the date of the passage of the estimate of\nexpenditure by-law, what charge had you of the city's finances ?    I mean what did you do ?\nA.\u2014We examined the vouchers presented to us for payment, to see if the liabilities had\nbeen incurred. In the first month the bills presented were for amounts incurred by the old\nCouncil.\nQ.\u2014Where was the money coming from to pay them ?\nA.\u2014We had made arrangements with the bank.     Wre passed that by-law.\nQ.\u2014You arranged for a credit of $150,000 ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Had you any estimate of the revenue of the year ?\nA.\u2014We had the rough drafts of the auditor who had estimated the revenue of the year.\nQ.\u2014Just explain the\" procedure by which this principle was arrived at ?\nA.\u2014There was no procedure that I know of. The City Treasurer simply drew a cheque\non the bank, and the vouchers were paid.\nQ.\u2014The. financial condition of the city generally, what did you know about it ?\nA.\u2014I did not know anything about it.\nQ.\u2014Did you take the trouble to enquire as to the financial affairs of the city ?\nA.\u2014I asked how much they had at the bank.\nQ.\u2014Did you ask the City Treasurer ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014-And then ?\nA.\u2014He told me.\nQ.\u2014And then ?\nA.\u2014I asked him what was the amount of the outstanding taxes.\nQ.\u2014And then ?\nA.\u2014He told me.\nQ.\u2014And about the debt handed you by the preceding Council, what enquiries did you\nmake about that ?\nA.\u2014I got the City Auditor to furnish me with a statement of the debt, and how it came\nabout.\nQ.\u2014What did you do about that ?\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xxxiii.\nA.\u2014It was mentioned at the general meeting.\nQ.\u2014What steps did you take to ascertain the liability of the new Council for that debt ?\nDid you go into the question at all ? Has the City Council paid it ? Did you make any\nreport to the Council on the question ?\nA.\u2014I stated to them what it was.\nQ.\u2014Did you make any recommendation to the Council ?\nQ.\u2014Why ?\nA.\u2014They had resolved to let it be.\nQ.\u2014Did you take any steps to ascertain whether the new Council ought to assume that\ndebt?\nA.\u2014We asked the opinion of the Mayor, and he said it ought to be paid ?\nQ.\u2014Did you not take the opinion of your legal advisers ?\nA.\u2014We did not think it was necessary.\nQ.\u2014Didn't that appear a part of your duty as Chairman of the Finance Committee to\nsee what steps should be taken about the payment of this debt ?\nA\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014What is the Finance Committee for ?\nA.\u2014To receive the bills from the Council, see if they are correct, and if so order them to\nbe paid.\nQ.\u2014Is that all they have to do ?\nA.\u2014That is all I have been accustomed to doing.\nQ.\u2014Is that all you have done as Chairman of the Finance Committee, simply to see if\nthe bills were correct, and if so order them to be paid ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Did you have nothing more to do with the finances than that ?\nA.\u2014No.    I reported to the Council if any one branch exceeded its appropriation.\nQ.\u2014Had you any duties as Chairman of the Finance Committee with reference to that\n$71,000 overdraft left you ?\nA.\u2014It was not $71,000. It was only $45,000; the previous Council had left about\n$25,000 unpaid taxes to collect.\nQ.\u2014What did you do about this ?\nA.\u2014We consulted with the Mayor and Board of Aldermen ?\nQ.\u2014Did you make any report ?\nA.\u2014I made several reports.\nQ.\u2014Do you think you will be able to state whether or not you made any report, or\nbrought in any resolution in the form of a recommendation with reference to these matters ?\nThe Court: There is no individual responsible ; it is the City Council as a whole.\nMr. Bodwell : The natural source from which you would expect recommendations to the\nCouncil as to the financial affairs of the city is the Finance Committee.\nThe Court: The Finance Committee have to take the bills and see if they are correct;\nthen they have to go to the Council for money to pay those bills. The Finance Committee\nhave no money of their own.\nQ.\u2014What are the duties of the Finance Committee with reference to expenditure ?\nWhat check do they hold over the other departments ?\nThe Court: There are no duties imposed on the Finance Committee that I know of.\nQ.\u2014Did you ever have to report to the Council about any department exceeding its\nappropriation ?\nA.\u2014I think I made one or two such reports with reference to both the water and streets\ndepartments.\nQ.\u2014What was done with those reports ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.    They may have been received and filed.\nQ.\u2014You don't know whether there was any request made to the chairmen of the Water\nand Streets Committees to curtail their expenditure ?\nA.\u2014I think there was.\nQ.\u2014:Was street and water expenditure curtailed accordingly 1\nA.\u2014I think it was.\nQ.\u2014How much was estimated for streets in your estimate of expenditure ?\nA.\u2014We estimated that we would have the balance available for general purposes.\nQ.--That was $9,000; and that $9,000 was all you had to spend at that time ?\n Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA.\u2014$9,000 was all we estimated we had to spend at that time.\nQ.\u2014But was it the whole amount available for the general purposes of the Corporation\nin the streets 1\nA.\u2014Yes. But, on the other hand, we estimated our revenue from real estate at\n$125,000, while it brings in $210,000.\nQ.\u2014When did you change the rate ?\nA.\u2014We never changed the rate; that was made when the assessment roll was revised.\nThat estimate of Mr. Raymur's of $125,000 was purely one of his own.\nQ.\u2014You passed this bank credit by-law; that was brought in by the Finance Committee?\nA.\u2014I believe I proposed it.\nQ.\u2014And you assumed the overdraft of the preceding year?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Was that discussed in open Council ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; it was resolved to assume it.\nQ.\u2014Then you had the difference between that overdraft and the $150,000 voted by the\nbank credit by-law to spend ?\nA.\u2014We had already the difference, between that overdraft and the revenue for the\ncoming year. That credit by-law is only to tide the Council over till the revenue begins to\ncome in.\nQ.\u2014You ascertained the amount that was coming in?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014 How soon did you find you had got beyond your limit?\nA.\u2014Well, it was early in the season. Some $15,000 has been spent this year in the\nfurther distribution of the water service. That is where most of the money has been spent\nthis year.\nQ.\u2014Is that part of the $56,000 on streets?\nA.\u2014No ; the streets are kept separate.\nQ.\u2014You estimated $8,000 for streets and bridges; how did you spend $56,000 ?\nA.\u2014When we found that we had $210,000 on real estate, we decided to spend more on\nstreets.\nQ.\u2014Do you know how much had been spent on them up to that time ? In all about\n$112,000 to the end of May had been spent?\nA.\u2014No ; I don't know.\nQ.\u2014Did you say that the City Auditor supplies the Council once a quarter with an exact\nstatement of receipts and expenditure ?    Did you know you were going to overrun the revenue?\nA.\u2014No. If the water works had not overrun their revenue we would have not only\ncome out even, we would have had a surplus.\nQ.\u2014How much do you calculate the water works has overrun its revenue ?\nA. -About $45,000.\nQ.\u2014If it had not been for the water works, you say you would not have overrun your\nrevenue this year.    You have a shortage of $92,000 ; how is that ?\nA.\u2014We have not got it; it is only estimated.\nQ.\u2014Mr. Raymur says you have it ?\nA.\u2014If he says so he has a better knowledge of what is going- to happen at the end of the\nyear than I have. I don't know what is going to be till the end of December, and I don't\nknow if there is going to be one at all.\nQ.\u2014Do you think the Auditor's statement is wrong ?\nA.\u2014It may be.\nQ.\u2014Do you think it is ?\nA.\u2014What is to prevent the City Council discharging everyone to-morrow, and having no\nliabilities at the end of the year ?\nThe Court: And sacrifice the city ? Surely the police and fire departments are the most\nnecessary part of the expenditure.\nQ.\u2014Do you think there is any likelihood of that being done ?    Do you think there is ?\nA.\u2014I don't know. I don't think the amount of shortage will be $92,000, at any rate.\nThere will be a shortage this year probably amounting to about $20,000. This added to the\n$71,000 of last year makes the $92,000 estimated shortage.\nQ.\u2014Then, practically, by that bank by-law you adopt the $71,000 shortage of last year?\nA.\u2014I don't think so.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xxxv.\nQ.\u2014Then why did you not take that position last year?\nA.\u2014I don't know.    It is not my fault; it is my misfortune.    I did not know any better.\nQ.\u2014Did you ever read the Municipality Act ?\nA.\u2014I think I have.\nQ.\u2014Did you read that point about expenditure ?\nA. \u2014I may have ; I don't know.\nThe Court here rose for luncheon.\nThe Court having reassembled, the examination of Alderman Renouf was proceeded with.\nQ.\u2014You were going to leave a $20,000 overdraft for your successors, as well as the\n$71,000 you found when you came into office ?\nA.\u2014I don't know that we were going to leave any at all. Mr. Raymur says it is going\nto be $20,000, but because he says so does not make it so.\nQ.\u2014You can't dispute his figures 1\nThe Court: It is not a matter of consequence whether it is $20,000, $15,000, or only\n$5,000.\nQ.\u2014Have you read this section of the Act governing the expenditure of the year to the\nrevenue within the same year ? Do you call it a legal expenditure of the year to assume the\ndebts of a previous year ?\nA.\u2014From what I have seen it would be acting illegally not to do so.\nQ.\u2014Did you take any pains to ascertain ?\nA.\u2014I think it was more a matter of precedence than otherwise. It had been done for\nthe past few years, and we did not see anything wrong in our doing the same.\nQ.\u2014You were taking on yourself a rather important trust ?\nA.\u2014I didn't take it upon me; it was given to me.\nQ.\u2014It was stated in the rules of order what your duties were to be?\nA.\u2014As I said before, the Mayor made the appointments for the year in the several committees.\nQ.\u2014Did you not think it was any part of your duty to inform yourself of the financial\nstate of the city ? Did you move any resolution against assuming this liability, or did you\nvote for any resolution against assuming it, or did you vote for any resolution to assume it ?\nA.\u2014I don't think there was any such resolution moved.\nThe Court: Did nothing strike you that the bank would have any difficulty in collecting\ntheir overdraft ?\nA.\u2014I looked upon it as their own concern.\nThe Court: Do you think it was fair to take the bank in in that way ?\nA.\u2014I did not take the bank in at all.\nQ.\u2014In making up this estimate for the year, what sources of revenue did you count in ?\nA.\u2014 The City Auditor has furnished you with those particulars.\nQ.\u2014Do 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\nwhole tax, or did you merely count that as the amount that would be collected ?\nA.\u2014I understood that that tax was current revenue. The property is there and is liable\nfor it.\nThe Court: Hopes and estimates are not cash.\nQ.\u2014 As a citizen, you have no doubt followed the corporation accounts for several years ?\nA.\u2014Not particularly.\nQ.\u2014Don't you know that for several years past there are from $20,000 to $25,000 on\nreal estate not collected at the end of the year ?\nA.\u2014I didn't know.\nQ.\u2014You would not be surprised to find that it actually is so ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014What I want to get at is whether you estimated the probability of some of this\n$125,000 real estate tax being uncollected at the end of the year. It was not your intention\nto let the expenditure exceed the revenue ?\nA.\u2014It was not my intention at all events.\nQ.\u2014How did you intend to work the streets and sidewalks ? You haven't provided for\nthem?\n xxxvi. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA.\u2014Yes, we have.    General purposes, $9,000.\nQ.\u2014Are streets and sidewalks general purposes ?\nA.\u2014I understood that that balance was made for anything that might be deemed necessary.\nQ.\u2014If it was going into streets why is it not put into streets and sidewalks ? Is it not\na fact that you intended to spend a great deal of money on streets ?\nA.\u2014No, it is not a fact.\nQ.\u2014When you found that a larger amount than had been intended was spent on streets\ndid you certify the vouchers ?\nA.\u2014I certified to the correctness of the expenditure.\nQ.\u2014Did you point out to the council that there was no provision for streets, or at least\nthe expenditure that was made upon them ?\nA.\u2014The matter was pointed out to the City Council.\nQ.\u2014Where was that money to come from 1 At a recent meeting of the board a bill was\nbrought in for a loan of $150,000 for permanent improvements on streets. Was that by-law\never passed ?\nA.\u2014No; it was brought in again to allow Alderman Smith to withdraw it. It was not\npassed on account of the depressed state of the money market.\nQ.\u2014If it was the intention to spend this special loan on streets and sidewalks, why did\nyou spend this $56,000 ?\nA.\u2014Because the real estate tax was larger.\nQ.\u2014You estimate to assess property at its full cash value?\nA.\u2014It is not in our power to raise the assessment in value. The assessment is entirely\nin the hands of the Assessor.\nQ.\u2014You found that the old rate would produce $125,000?\nA.\u2014I have told you that it was purely an estimate of the Auditor's, furnished to the\ncorporation.\nQ.\u2014Why don't you answer my question ? We don't want a speech on every point. The\nold valuation would produce $125,000?\nA.\u2014No, it would produce less than that.\nQ.\u2014How do you get that ?\nA.\u2014We don't get it at all.\nQ.\u2014When you find the increased assessment of property brings in more revenue, why\ndidn't you reduce the rates to keep it down to the $125,000?\nA.\u2014Because we needed the money to spend on streets.\nQ.\u2014When you had got so much more, what did you do with it ?\nA.\u2014We spent it on streets.\nThe Court: The actual expenditure on the streets took place long before this. That was\ndone largely in anticipation.\nQ.\u2014As a matter of fact, after getting a greater amount of taxation on increased valuation, you then increased the improvements ?\nA.\u2014On realty we did, but we reduced it on improvements.\nThe Court: The real fact of the matter was that the bank was pressing for this overdraft.\nA.\u2014No ; they were not.\nQ.\u2014They were getting a little bit anxious about the large amounts that were owing them ?\nA.\u2014No; I don't know that they were.\nQ.\u2014What brought about the sale of the gravel pits ?\nA.\u2014I think it was recommended by the Street Committee that they should be sold.\nQ.__Why ?\nA.\u2014 There was no further use for them.\nQ.\u2014All the money you raise this year you consider revenue ?\nA.\u2014We try to expend it.\nQ.\u2014And you succeed very well. As I understand you to say that the various committees\nspent money and sent in the bills to the council ?\nA.\u2014No.    No committee expended any money unless by authority of the council.\nQ.\u2014Is that the practice ?\nA.\u2014So far as I have known, yes.\nQ.\u2014Take the Street Committee. When they got beyond the limit, on whose authority\ndid they spend more money ?\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xxxvii.\nA.\u2014That of the City Council.\nQ.\u2014In what shape ?\nA.\u2014Petitions were sent in from various parts of the city asking for certain improvements.\nThey are referred to the Street Committee to be reported upon.\nQ.\u2014\" With power to act?\"\nA.\u2014No; they report to the council whether in their opinion the work is necessary, and\nthe council carry out the recommendation.\nQ.\u2014Is it not a fact that work has been done and the bills sent in to the Council for\napproval ?\nA.\u2014To the best of my knowledge, the Council has vouchers for every dollar that was\nspent. There are often expenditures that are unexpected and yet have to be done. Take the\nnew city boundaries, for instance.    The appropriation for defining them was $1,500.\nQ.\u2014How much did that cost ?\nA.\u2014About $5,000.\nQ.\u2014How did you spend the difference between $1,500 and $5,000 ?\nA.\u2014It was surmised at the time that the Government would bear half of the expense,\nbut after the work was done they repudiated their portion and the city had to bear the whole\ncost.\nQ.\u2014Did you bring in this bank credit by-law of the 5th October ?\nA.\u2014I would not be sure; I think I did.\nQ.\u2014Had you made any enquiries to ascertain the state of affairs ?\nA.\u2014I made some mental calculations myself from figures given me by the auditor.\nQ.\u2014Did you calculate the state of affairs that would be at the end of the year?\nA.\u2014I thought we would come out about even.\nQ.\u2014You apprehended that you had good reason to believe there would be a shortage at\nthe end of the year of $92,000 ?\nA.\u2014I didn't.\nQ.\u2014You didn't believe your auditor ?\nA.\u2014As far as he was concerned, he may have been right. It was purely an estimate on\nhis part. I was informed that the amount overexpended on the water works account would\nbe refunded out of the water works revenue.\nQ.\u2014If that was correct it would be impossible to repay this $200,000 out of current\nrevenue for the year 1891.\nA.\u2014It would not be impossible; it would be reducing expenses to make both ends meet.\nQ.\u2014Did you make any recommendation to the Council ?\nA.\u2014A recommendation was made, yes.\nQ.\u2014Did you make any recommendation which proposed to reduce the expenses by\n$92,000?    Why didn't you bring in a by-law repealing this bank credit by-law?\nA.\u2014We didn't think it was necessary.\nQ.\u2014Have you seen this $200,000 note ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Who would have signed that ?\nA.\u2014I don't know;  I have never seen it.\nQ.\u2014This by-law legalizes certain agreements between the bank and the city ; what agreements were those?\nA.\u2014I suppose that means the advances that had been made us. I don't know of any\nother agreements than that.\nQ.\u2014Does it legalize last year's debt ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.    It was my intention when I went there last year to pay it.\nQ.\u2014Was it not a fact that at that time you had got $46,000 more than you were entitled\nto by the by-law, and that you passed this by-law to meet the case ?\nA.\u2014No; I don't think that was so.\nQ.\u2014Do you know it is a fact ?\nA.-\u2014There is no agreement between the corporation and the bank that I know of. And\nthere has been no agreement, to my knowledge.\nQ.\u2014In case it would be necessary to go to the bank about finances, who would go ?\nA.\u2014Alderman Holland, the Mayor, and myself.\nThe Court: Had you any understanding with the bank by which they would be prevented\nfrom holding any money for the legitimate debt ?\n xxxviii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA.\u2014No, sir. There was a verbal agreement as to the six per cent, interest on the overdraft.\nCross-examined by Mr. Richards :\nQ.\u2014For streets and bridges this year you say you spent how much ?\nA.\u2014I have not the exact figures with me, but it is some $50,000 odd.\nQ.\u2014And on water works this year, what did you spend, when the interest and sinking\nfund has been paid?\nA.\u2014The general revenue this year advanced the water works about $45,000.\nQ.\u2014Will revenue be received from that ?\nA.\u2014 Revenue will be received from it as soon as it is expended.\nThe Court : The water works is a paying concern. You had contemplated some loans,\nhad you not, this year, both for water works and street improvements ?\nA.\u2014There were four loans. Two moved by Alderman Smith, and two by Alderman\nCoughlan.    The latter was for the extension of the water service.\nThe Court : WTere the amounts raised ?\nA.\u2014No; but in anticipation of that the city bought $20,000 worth of water pipe.\nThe Court : Then you spent that money on a hope.    Where are those pipes ?\nA.\u2014They have been used in distributing the service.\nMr. Richards : So far as you know, there never was any money improperly spent on\nstreets or water works ?\nA.\u2014I have never known of any.\nAlderman Holland. Examined by Mr. Bodwell : How long have you been a member\nof the City Council ?\nA.\u2014This is my second year.\nQ.\u2014 How long of the Finance Committee?\nA.\u2014This is my first year.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell us anything about this bank credit by-law ?\nA.\u2014Know nothing whatever about it.\nQ.\u2014Did you read this by-law before it was passed 1\nA.\u2014It was read before the Council.\nQ.\u2014Did you not get considerable revenue from the bank in excess of the June by-law\nbefore you got the October by-law ?\nA.\u2014There may have been.\nQ.\u2014 Can't you tell us anything about it more than that ?\nA.\u2014I don't know anything about it.\nQ.\u2014Do you know anything connected with it ?\nA.\u2014I had to see, in conjunction with my colleagues, any arrangements necessary were\nmade with the bank so that the bank would honour our cheques.\nQ.\u2014Did you make any arrangements of that kind ?\nA.\u2014Occasionally I went to the bank to see the manager, who agreed to advance the\nmoney we sent down for.\nQ.\u2014You did make an agreement with him for that.    What authority had you for that ?\nA.\u2014I don't know. It was the duty of the Finance Committee to see that all bills were\nhonoured.\nQ.\u2014What limit did the bank allow?\n.A.\u2014$150,000 in the first instance.\nQ.\u2014Did you know at the time the bank credit by-law for October was passed you had\ndrawn out $46,000 more than the revenue for the whole year ?\nA.\u2014W7e didn't do that.\nQ.\u2014How can you tell ?\nA.\u2014From the report of the auditor.\nQ.\u2014In the auditor's report to the 30th September he says you have obtained from the\nbank $26,475.73 more than the amount authorized by the June by-law ?\nA.\u2014That is not $46,000.\nQ.\u2014How was that money obtained ?\nA.\u2014The bank advances it.\nQ.\u2014On what ?\nA.\u2014Nothing particular that I am aware.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xxxix.\nQ.\u2014Did you know at the time the by-law was passed that  there  would be a shortage at\nthe end of the year ?\nA.\u2014It was generally understood that we could not recoup the bank.\nQ.\u2014Then why did you pass this by-law in which you agreed to recoup the bank?\nThis closed the case for charge No. 1.\n6._SEWERAGE   CONTRACTS.\nMr. Bodwell said the first point arising in this question is the construction of the by-law.\n(Copy handed into Court.) What we allege there is practically admitted in the answer of the\ncity. The by-law is drawn up, as your Lordships will remark, in a rather peculiar way. If\nyou look at paragraph 1 of the enacting part you will see it states that it shall be lawful for\nthe Mayor to borrow from any persons who may be willing to advance the amount the sum of\n$300,000, for which the Mayor shall issue debentures bearing interest at four per cent, per\nannum. The petitioners submit that there is no authority to sell these debentures at a discount\nat all.\nMr. Robert Ward was called and sworn.    Examined by Mr. Bodwell:\nQ.\u2014You are a director of the British Columbia Corporation, Limited ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014As a director of that company did you ever have any communications with any\nmember of the City Council with respect to the $300,000 sewerage debentures ?\nA.\u2014I have.\nQ.\u2014With whom ?\nA.\u2014With the Mayor.\nQ.\u2014Is it in writing ?\nA.\u2014It is. I may state with respect to the $300,000, or \u00a360,000 sterling, sewerage\ndebentures, that advertisements appeared in the local papers and elsewhere calling for tenders\nfor the purchase of these debentures. That was over a year ago. I submitted an offer to\nthe corporation for these debentures in response to the invitation, and it appears that that\nwas the only tender submitted. That was in November, 1890. At that time the money\nmarket was probably a great deal more depressed than it is at the present time. That offer\nwas refused. In January, 1891, I cabled from London asking the Council if they would\naccept 90 for the debentures, which was the highest possible figure that was named by any of\nmy friends there.\nMr. Ward read a lot of correspondence that ensued between the Mayor and himself in\nthis connection. The following, comprising the final offer and acceptance, were handed into\nCourt:\n\"28th August, 1891.\n\" To the Finance Committee, City Council, Victoria :\n\" Gentlemen,\u2014In accordance with your communications of the 8th and 20th instant, we\nare prepared to purchase the debentures issued under the sewerage and market by-laws, viz.:\nSixty-one thousand pounds and $100,000 respectively, with accrued interest, at 85 per 100,\nand will agree to hold the debentures for one year, during which period the corporation shall\nbe at liberty to re-purchase them from us at the same price, plus such sum as shall be equal\nto interest at the rate of 8 per cent, per annum from the time of our purchase to the date of\nre-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\nfor the debentures to the best advantage in the interest of the city, expecting also that the\ncorporation would assist as far as possible in the same direction, and, upon a satisfactory price\nbeing made, the corporation would be at liberty to exercise their privilege of re-purchasing\nthe debentures, and thus obtain the advantage of the difference in the price, paying us only\ninterest at the rate above-mentioned, plus the brokerage of one per cent. This would give\nthe corporation one year in which to negotiate, and would secure our hearty efforts in the\nsame direction. This offer is made on the understanding agreed to in your last communication,\nviz.:\u2014Either to accept or reject promptly, and in the event of   rejection we would ask that\n xl. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nour letter be treated privately.    We are, of course, assuming that the by-laws are valid, and\nthat the corporation will afford satisfactory legal proof accordingly.\n\" We are, etc.,\n\"Robert Ward & Co.\"\nThe following reply was received :\u2014\n\" City Clerks's Office, August 29th, 1891.\n\" To Messrs. Robert Ward de Co., Managers British Columbia Corporation.\n\"Gentlemen : Referring to your offer for Victoria municipal debentures, viz.: Sewerage,\n\u00a361,000, market, $100,000 4 per cent., the same is hereby accepted on behalf of Corporation\nin terms of said letter, dated 28th August, 1891. In the event of re-purchase of debentures\nby the Corporation, it is understood that in adjusting the interest agreed upon at 8 per cent,\nthe Corporation-shall have credit for the interest now accrued on the said debentures.\n\" Yours, faithfully,\n\"John Grant, Mayor.\"\nThe Court: After all, it was perhaps an error of judgment in the Corporation refusing\nan offer of 90 when they afterwards had to accept 85. They were perhaps holding out for\nsomething better, and not seeing it come accepted the best they could get.\nMr. Ward : The very best has been done to procure the best possible price for these\nsecurities. But I think the Corporation have made a mistake in issuing a 4 per cent, loan at\nthe present time. There would be no difficulty in placing the security at four and a half per\ncent, at par.\nMr. Bodwell : Can you tell us how much has been advanced on these securities ?\nA.\u2014The whole of the market building, and the whole of the market site have been taken\nup ; that is $100,000 worth.\nQ.\u2014And how much of the sewerage ?\nA.\u2014I took twenty-five thousand pounds, and since then I have taken another six\nthousand pounds. There are about thirty thousand pounds more to take. The debentures\nwere handed to us as they were issued, with the coupons attached. I paid the Bank of B.N.A.\nthe amount required by the Corporation and obtained the debentures.\nQ.\u2014Do I understand you to say that the debentures were in the Bank of B. N. A.?\nA.\u2014You misunderstand me. I say that when I bought these debentures I took up the\nmarket site and building debentures. I paid the Corporation a cheque for $85,000, and they\nhanded me an order on the Bank of B. N. A. for them.\nQ.\u2014What were they doing there ?\nA.\u2014They were for safe keeping, I presume. The city would be very foolish to allow\n3,000 worth of bonds lying around loose.\nMr. Bodwell : It is just possible the bank had got a lien on them.\nThe Court: What ceremony took place when you got possession ?\nA.\u2014I handed a cheque to the City Treasurer on my bankers, the Bank of B. C, and then\nI got the debentures.\nThe Court: The debentures were issued in December, 1890 ; consequently if you take\nup a number this month you get an advance of four per cent.\nCourt rose Friday evening.\nSaturday, November 28th, 1891.\nContinuation of Examination on Sewerage Contracts.\nAid. C. E. Renouf, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Who carried out the arrangements with\nMr. Ward with regard to the sewerage debentures ?\nA.\u2014The 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\nhad them put through the channel of the City Clerk's office to make them official.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xli.\nQ.\u2014What other negotiations had you, if any; what other efforts did you make as to the\nsale of the debentures in other quarters ?\nA.\u2014We positively refused to deal with anyone at any time unless they made us a positive\noffer.\nQ.\u2014Did you have any communication with Mr. Turner while he was in England ?\nA.\u2014On this subject ?    No.\nQ.\u2014Do you know whether any took place ?\nA.\u2014Not that I know of.\nQ.\u2014Did you have any communication with Mr. Boscowitz ?\nA\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Do you know whether any took place ?\nA.\u2014I believe there was some conversation between the Mayor and Mr. Boscowitz. I\nunderstand this conversation was in 1890 ; that was prior to our taking office.\nQ.\u2014Why did you make this arrangement of pledging the debentures ? Why didn't you\nwait till you could get a good price for them, or make a good sale ?\nA.\u2014The reason is this: when we took office we found Mr. McBean with a sewerage\ncontract of some $200,000 let to him ; we also found a contract to the Pottery Company for pipe,\n$50,000 ; an engineer and staff engaged ; some land taken at Clover Point for the right of\nway; we found all these things done and the people asking for money. At that time we\ntried to sell the bonds, but the financial crisis occurring in London then made it impossible to\nsell the bonds at any price. Prior to that I believe the city could have got par for their\nbonds.\nQ.\u2014Do I understand you to say that all these contracts had been let, and all these\narrangements made, before the money was provided ?\nA.\u2014The last Council said there are $300,000 worth of bonds, and there are so many\ncontracts let.    Go ahead and carry them out.\nQ.\u2014Then they let the contracts before they sold the debentures ?\nA.\u2014I suppose so.\nThe Court: It is true they left no money provided, but they provided $300,000 worth\nof bonds which they gave you as money.\nMr. Bodwell : That may be so, but it was certainly not in the interest of the city to\nraise that money at 8 per cent.; and our contention is that the city should not have entered\ninto those contracts until they knew that they would get a fair price for their debentures.\nThe Court : The position of the Sewerage Commissioners and City Council is this : The\nsuperintendent of the work would come to the Council and say, \" We want $20,000 or the\ncontractor will sue.\"\nWitness : That is just it.\nThe Court : But then you took $20,000 from some other purpose and applied it to that ?\nA.\u2014Oh, no.\nQ.\u2014Where did you get this $20,000 from ?\nA.\u2014We sold the debentures with the right of repurchase.\nThe Court: You had no authority to spend money on this contract, except that which\nyou raise on this by-law. You should have refused payment till you could raise the money\nfor the bonds. You did not do anything successfully with the bonds until September, 1891,\nwhen you negotiated with Mr. Ward. Therefore, you could not have met any demands in\nJanuary without considerable irregularity.    You were robbing Peter to pay Paul.\nA.\u2014We were not taking money out of current revenue.\nThe Court : But you must have been.\nA.\u2014We were taking it out of special account.\nThe Court: What right had you to incur liability on this account at the bank ? Borrowing means incurring liability, and incurring liability means borrowing almost.\nA.\u2014We were placed in a peculiar position. We had either to meet those liabilities or\nrender the city liable to all sorts of damages from the contractor.\nMr. Gavin Burns, Manager of the Bank of B. N. A., was called, but claimed the\nprivilege of not giving evidence in case it might interfere with any claim he might have against\nthe city in the future.\nThe Court allowed the matter to stand over till Monday.\n xlii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nMr. J. H. Turner was next called; examined by Mr. Bodwell: You were in England\nthis year on financial business connected with the Government ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014During that time, or before you left, had you any communications with the Mayor\nor members of the Finance Committee with reference to these sewerage bonds ?\nA.\u2014I sent a telegram out from there, and I am informed that it was delivered to the\nMayor, with respect to an offer for these bonds.\nQ.\u2014Have you that telegram with you ?\nA.\u2014I know what the telegram contained. It was about the 10th October. I telegraphed\nthat I believed I could get a definite offer for 86 or 87 for the bonds, subject to the condition\nthat if sixty or a hundred thousand pounds more were issued they should be placed in the\nsame hands, but at the fair market price, 88 \" R.\"\nQ.\u2014And was that in consequence of any previous communications 1\nA.\u2014Yes. Before I left here (I had to leave rather hurriedly) the Mayor spoke to me.\nI 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.\nQ.\u2014What answer did you get to this telegram ?\nA.\u2014The answer that I got was that the Mayor was able to do better; that he had got\nup to 91-|, including accrued interest. I did not know anything about accrued\ninterest. I was going on the face of the bonds. As soon as I heard about this accrued\ninterest I telegraphed back to find how much it was. I got no reply to that till I got to N ew\nYork, when I learned that there was about $16,000 accrued interest.\nQ.\u2014Did you have any communications with anyone after that?\nA.\u2014Yes ; I spoke to some gentlemen in New York, but I did not do anything about it.\nAnyone could see that it was worth much more with the accrued interest. Had I known\nthat in London I could have sold it.\nMr. Richards : I suppose at this time you knew that these bonds had been handed to\nMr. Ward ?\nA.\u2014No, I didn't.\nQ.\u2014You are one of the Sewerage Commissioners ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I was one of them.\nQ.\u2014You didn't hear that Mr. Ward had taken the bonds at 86 ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014If you will give any more the Council is ready to receive offers from you or any one\nelse.    Did you offer any more ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Have you offered any at all ?\nA.\u2014No, not directly.\nQ.\u2014WTere you going to put these on the Stock Exchange ?\nA.\u2014No; it was too small a loan to be put on the Stock Exchange. I saw private\nparties about it, and they required me to telegraph that they would take them on the condition\nthat if another \u00a3100,000 were issued they should have the handling of them.\nQ.\u2014If you are going to make an offer for these debentures they are yet for sale. Mr.\nWTard merely holds them in pledge.    The city will get them back.\nA.\u2014I am not here to make an offer, if I were in London I might be able to make an\noffer at once.\nQ.\u2014Could they be listed on the Stock Exchange at London or New York without incurring considerable expense ?\nA.\u2014I don't think you could get them listed at either place.    It is too small.\nMr. Bodwell, Counsel for the petitioners, took up the question of sewerage tenders next.\nThe following tenders were received for pipe :\u2014\nBritish Columbia Pottery Co $54,011 41\nRobert Wrard & Co    68,000 00\nP. McG. Mc Bean    56,549 00\nDoulton & Co    68,000 00\nMr. W. H. Bainbridge, examined by Mr. Bodwell:\nQ.\u2014Your full name is ?\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xliii.\nA.\u2014William Herbert Bainbridge.\nQ.\u2014You are Secretary of the B. C. Pottery and Terra Cotta Company 1\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014When did that corporation come into existence ?\nA.\u2014About the middle of September 1890.\nQ.\u2014Where are the works situated ?\nA.\u2014Constance Cove road.\nQ.\u2014Have you entered into a contract with the city ?\nA.\u2014We have.\nQ.\u2014When was that contract executed ?\nA.\u2014About March last.\nQ.\u2014Did you attach the seal of your corporation to it ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What did you do with the original contract ?\nA.\u2014The original is in the hands of the City Clerk, Mr. Dowler.\nQ.\u2014Did yo deliver it to him ?\nA.\u2014I did.\nQ.\u2014Have you a duplicate of it ?\nA.\u2014Yes.    (Produced.)\nQ.\u2014When did you begin to deliver the pipe ?\nA.\u2014I think the first delivery was made in May.\nQ.\u2014Have you your stock-book here ?\nA.\u2014Yes.    (Produced.)\nQ.\u2014Will you state who are the shareholders in this Terra Cotta Company, and the amount\nof stock they hold ?\nA.\u2014J. H. McLaughlin, 50 shares; Joseph Hunter, 96 shares; J. Nicholles, 72 shares;\nand Samuel C. Burris, ill shares.\nQ.\u2014What is the value of the shares ?\nA.\u2014$60 a share.\nQ.\u2014Who are the directors of the company ?\nA.\u2014There is only one managing director, Mr. Nicholles.\nQ.\u2014Any of these members of the Corporation ?\nA.\u2014Yes; Mr. Hunter.\nQ.\u2014What firm does Mr. Nicholles belong to ?\nA.\u2014Nicholles & Renouf.\nQ.\u2014What is the amount of the paid up capital ?\nA.\u2014$20,160.    The capital is $60,000, and there are 336 shares issued.\nQ.\u2014At the time of your incorporation did you know that tenders were being sent in to\nthe city for the delivery of sewer pipe ?\nA.\u2014There was talk of the probability of the sewer by-law passing about the time the\ncompany was organized; and there was talk some time before that of a sewerage system being\ninaugurated.\nQ.\u2014The sewerage by-law was passed about the 30th September, 1890?\nA.\u2014Ah-ha.\nQ.\u2014At that time, what plant and machinery had the B. C. Terra Cotta Co. ?\nA.\u2014I don't know what the capacity was, because we commenced altering right away.\nWe proposed to get a proper plant.\nQ.\u2014 With that view ?\nA.\u2014With a view to supplying all the trade we could get.\nQ.\u2014You didn't have in view at that time the city contract for pipe ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Nothing had been said about it ?\nA.\u2014Nothing.\nQ.\u2014Are you speaking now from what you heard at the board of directors, or from your\nown knowledge ?\nA.\u2014I was chiefly instrumental in floating the company, and I know that that matter was\nnot taken into consideration as a reason for spending the money we did in putting in new\nplant.\nQ.\u2014How much money did you spend in putting in your plant ?\n xliv. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA.\u2014I suppose we put in about $10,000 worth.\nQ.\u2014What was your capacity in December, 1890 ?\nA.\u2014In December, 1890, we were replacing our machinery entirely.\nQ.\u2014You must have had an idea of what your plant was able to do at that time ?\nA.\u2014We considered we would have a capacity of turning out 20,000 to 30,000 feet of\npipe a month.\nQ.\u2014What kind of pipe ?\nA.\u2014Sewer pipe of the average size.\nQ.\u2014Did you consider you had at that time a sufficient capacity for fulfilling the contract\nfor the city for supplying the sewer pipes for the city ?\nA.\u2014We had sufficient capacity to do it, providing everything went on all right in the\nmanufacturing.\nQ.\u2014Is it a fact that you have supplied all the pipe for the city out of your own works ?\nA.\u2014No ; we have not.\nQ.\u2014Where have you obtained the other from ?\nA.\u2014From San Francisco.\nQ.\u2014Do you know where from ?\nA.\u2014From the San Francisco Sewer Pipe Co.\nQ.\u2014Do you know whether Mr. P. McG. McBean has anything to do with that company?\nA.\u2014I don't know his exact position. There are several firms who go to form that\ncompany.\nQ.\u2014Mr. P. McG. McBean is contractor for the sewerage ?\nA.\u2014No, sir.\nQ.\u2014Who is Mr. P. McG. McBean ?\nA.\u2014He is a partner of Glady, McBean & Co. of San Francisco.\nQ.\u2014Who is in charge of the sewerage works ?\nA.\u2014Mr. Alexander McBean.\nQ.\u2014Has Mr. P. McG. McBean ever been up here ?\nA.\u2014He was here tendering for the pipe.\nQ.\u2014Did you have any understanding or arrangement with Mr. McBean before you put\nin your tender for the pipe ?\nA.\u2014Well, we made an arrangement with him to the effect that if we wished to get any\nassistance from him in the large pipe he would help us, provided he did not get the contract\nhimself.\nQ.\u2014It was a private arrangement ?\nA.\u2014It was simply a matter of business.\nQ.\u2014Had you no ostensible reason for urging on the Council the acceptation of your\ntender ?\nA.\u2014I should think the price\t\nQ.-\u2014Had you no other reason?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Did you write a letter accepting the contract, but declining to agree to the clause\nthat the pipe should be all your own manufacture ?\nA.\u2014That recalls the fact that we were only commencing business; we had not begun to\nmake the large pipe yet, and we didn't want to tie ourselves down to those conditions, in case\nwe might not be able to carry them out.\nQ.\u2014As a matter of fact, you never intended to supply anything but the small pipe ?\nA.\u2014We did, if we could get through in time.\nQ.\u2014Are you making any now ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What is the name of this large pipe supplied from Frisco ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014Have these supplies been delivered regularly ?\nA.\u2014Well, there have been complaints from the contractor about wanting pipe at times,\nbut I really could not tell you what the delays have been.\nQ.\u2014Have you any knowledge of the rejection by the engineer of large quantities of this\npipe?\nA.\u2014There have been, but I could not tell you the exact amount at any time.\nQ.\u2014There was quite a large number rejected at one time?\n 55 Vict. .     Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xlv.\nA.\u2014I remember one lot; they were not sufficiently burnt, and, of course, they were sent\ndown again.\nQ.\u2014How long do you burn your pipe ?\nA.\u2014From 48 to 54 hours, and it takes about three or four days to cool.\nMr. Richards: Yours was the lowest tender?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How many men have you employed ?\nA.\u2014About 40.\nQ.\u2014Are the works permanent ?\nA.\u2014Oh, yes.\nQ.\u2014Independent of the city contract ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How much money have you spent on the works up to this time ?\nA.\u2014Between $50,000 and $60,000.\nQ.\u2014All been spent here ?\nA.\u2014With the exception of about $6,000 which we paid for machinery that we could not\nget here.\nThe Court rose at two o'clock, p. m.\nMonday, November 30th, 1891.\nContinuation of the Examination with Reference to Sewerage Contracts.\nAlexander McBean, examined by Mr. Bodwell: You are contractor for the sewerage\nworks in Victoria ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014When did you begin actual work on the ground ?\nA.\u2014The first of March.\nQ.\u2014How soon after did you begin to lay pipe ?\nA.\u2014It was some months after that.\nQ.\u2014How much of the work is done now ?\nA.\u2014I think there is half of it.\nQ.\u2014Do you mean half the territory covered ?\nA.\u2014I mean that we have got the largest pipe and the concrete work, the heaviest part\nof it, done.\nQ.\u2014You haven't made any connections with the houses ?\nA.\u2014That has all to be done afterwards.\nQ.\u2014What means are taken to see where the connections are to be made with the pipe ?\nA.\u2014There are posts put along each side of the street every 45 feet or so.\nThe Court: When you say that half the work has been done, that does not include the\nconnections ?\nA.\u2014No, sir.    I mean my work.\nThe Court: They are not touched yet ?\nA.\u2014No, sir.\nQ.\u2014Have you been delayed at all in your work, Mr. McBean ?\nA.\u2014We have been delayed for pipe considerable.\nQ.\u2014Which pipe, the large pipe ?\nA.\u2014No, the 8-inch pipe.\nQ.\u2014Where did you use that principally ?\nA.\u2014Well, I would have to explain. The main pipe starts at Clover Point, up Moss\nStreet to Snowden, across Snowden to Cook, Cook to Southgate, and through McTavish's\nproperty and the Convent, till it comes to that little church (R.E. Church) at Humboldt; from\nthere the 20-inch pipe starts running down Humboldt to Wharf Street, as far as Johnson, and\n xivi. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality      \u2022 1891\nthen up Johnson one or two blocks to the 18-inch, then we follow the 18-inch along Store to\nChatham, and then the 15 up Chatham to Douglas, and then at Douglas is the 12-inch. We\nhave gone along Douglas two blocks. That is the main sewer. The others are 8-inch except\nin a few streets where there are 9 and 10-inch. Most of the smaller streets are laid in 8-inch,\nexcept a few that are 9 and 10-inch.\nThe Court: The main sewer stops where ?\nA.\u2014That is the main sewer.\nQ.\u2014Where does the 15-inch terminate ?\nA.\u2014Douglas Street.    There is another line of 18-inch on Cook Street  from Southgate to\nView.    That is the main sewer again.\nQ. \u2014You say you have been delayed in getting this 18-inch pipe ?\nA.\u2014I have been delayed in this way.    If I had had the pipe I could have worked a good\nmany more men.\nQ.\u2014Have you any claims against the corporation on account of this delay ?\nA.\u2014I have not put in any claims at all.\nQ.\u2014I suppose you have got a record of all these delays ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Do you know whether or not a considerable amount of pipe has been  tendered  and\nrejected by the engineer ?\nA.\u2014Only from hearsay.\nQ.\u2014Have you any idea whether the amount provided will be  sufficient to  complete the\nsewering of the city ?\nA \u2014I don't think it.\nQ.\u2014Can you form any idea of the amount that will be required to do it ?\nA.\u2014I don't think I could do that without figuring.\nThe Court: You have got a record of the delay ?\nQ.\u2014We have.\nMr. Richards : Was the large pipe delivered before the contract called for it ?\nA.\u2014It was, I think.\nQ.\u2014According to your contract there was no  pipe  asked for  until  August?    Did   they\ndeliver any pipe before that ?\nA.\u2014They did.    Some months before that?\nQ.\u2014And did you commence work some months before that ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014They were not obliged to give it to you before August ?\n\u2022   A.\u2014That is the contract between the city and the pipe man, but my contract was to\nbegin on the 1st March.    I was to finish in 18 months.    If I had not the pipe to go on  with\nI could not do the work.\nThe Court: You did commence on the 1st March ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nMr. Gavin Burns, Manager of the Bank of B.N.A., examined by Mr. ,Bodwell: Mr.\nBurns, you are the manager of the Bank of British N orth America ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And the corporation account is kept at your bank ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ,\u2014Eor several years past there has been an overdraft of more or less magnitude at the\nbank against the corporation ?\nA. - Sometimes there has, sometimes there has not.\nQ.\u2014Would you explain the method of business by which the moneys were from time to\ntime advanced to the Corporation\u2014oh, going back as far as the year 1888, and passing up to\nthe present ?\nA.\u2014In 1888 the Council passed what was called a bank credit by-law, under which they\nborrowed by way of overdraft for certain amounts. They simply overdrew on the current\naccount.\nQ.\u2014How were these arrangements made with you as manager of the bank 1 I mean\nwith whom were they made ?\nA.\u2014The Mayor and the Finance Committee.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xlvii.\nQ.\u2014In the year 1890 what was clone?\nA.\u2014Well, in the year 1890 they didn't owe us anything. They didn't owe us anything,\nthey didn't ask for anything till well on in the year,    i don't know about the time.\nQ.\u2014About March, was it not?\nA.-  I don't know.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell by looking at that book when the overdraft began ?\nA.\u2014This book commences with the 31st May, 1890, and there was then a balance of\n$15,000 debtor; $15,109.26 on the 31st May, 1890. This book continues from 31st May to\n22nd October, 1891.\nQ.\u2014You don't know whether that was incurred in April or March ?\nA.\u2014I could not tell from this book.\nQ.\u2014How was that overdraft arranged for?\nA.\u2014By 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,\nsigned by the Mayor and two members of the Finance Committee, were honoured to the extent\nof that overdraft.\nQ.\u2014The bank credit by-law was passed on the 5th of February, 1890, authorising the\ncity to arrange for and obtain credit by way of overdraft upon current account in the bank of\nB.N.A., to an amount not exceeding $150,000, including the now existing overdraft. What\ndoes that mean ?\nA.\u2014At that time there was no overdraft.\nQ.\u2014There was no overdraft ? Can you tell us from that book what date they reached\nthat limit ?\nA.\u2014On the 30th June their balance was $49,000, and on the 30th July they owed us\n$49,000.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell from that book whether from June to July they ran over the $150,000?\nA.\u2014No, I cannot.\nQ.\u2014How much were they overdrawn at the end of August ?\nA.\u2014$67,000.\nQ.\u2014How much at the end of September ?\nA\u2014$72,000.\nQ.\u2014At the end of October ?\nA\u2014$105,000.\nQ.\u2014And the end of November ?\nA\u2014$108,000.\nQ.\u2014And at the end of December ?\nA\u2014$55,000.\nQ.\u2014They reached their limit within a few hundred dollars at the end of June ? Do you\nsay that money was advanced to them subsequent to that date 1\nA.\u2014I presume there was. An additional by-law was passed, but I don't recollect the\ndate of it.\nQ.\u2014It seems to have been passed in September. What did you say was the overdraft at\nthe end of August?.\nA\u2014$67,000.\nQ.\u2014If you look at this book (city annual report), page 232, on the 10th September they\npassed this amendment making the overdraft $180,000 instead of $150,000. When was that\nlimit reached ?    At the end of November, was it not ?\nA.\u2014At the end of November they owed $105,000.\nThe Court: What a dark way of making a by-law. Any one reading that by-law by\nitself would be at a loss to understand what it meant : \" Section 1 of the Bank Credit By-law\nof 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\nwas no overdraft; but on the 29th of January there was a by-law, which was finally passed\non the 5th of February, stating that it shall be lawful for the Finance Committee of the City\nCouncil to obtain credit by way of overdraft at the Bank of B. N. A. a sum not exceeding\n$150,000, including the now existing overdraft. If there was no overdraft then existing, what\nwas the meaning of these words ?\nMr. Bodwell: They could have no meaning in accordance with the surrounding circumstances.\n Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nThe Court: One would think that they would have taken pains to ascertain what the\nstate of their account then was, if they didn't know.\nMr. Bodwell : They had an overdraft for so long that they had fallen into the habit of\nthe expression.\nThe Court: No; I think they are intelligent men, some of them. They seem to know\ntheir business, and they must have meant something by these words ; though I should like to\nknow what they did mean. You see this is an exceedingly improper way of drawing up a\nby-law\u2014\" by striking out the figure 5 and inserting therefor the figure 8.\" It is absurd.\nNo mercantile man of any common sense would write like that to his correspondent.\nMr. Bodwell : It is very misleading. Any one reading that would imagine that the\nintention was to correct a clerical error in the by-law.\nMr. Richards : I think the best way is for some lawyer to go in for alderman and keep\nthem straight.\nThe Court : A chance for you, Mr. Richards.\nMr. 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\nthat you remember ?\nA.\u2014I don't remember.\nQ.\u2014At the end of June they have got to their limit; in August they have exceeded it,\nand it was not till the 10th September that the second credit by-law was passed. Tell us what\narrangements they had made with you for the advance of money between those dates ? When\nyou found they had got beyond their limit, what did you do ?\nA.\u2014I informed them that they would require to pass another by-law, and they took\nsteps, I understood, to have this done.\nQ.\u2014In the meantime were there any cheques offered for payment ?\nQ.\u2014 Yes.\nA.\u2014Was there any special arrangement about that ?\nQ.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What was it; do you remember?\nA.\u2014I could not. It was only verbal. It simply was that their cheques were to be\nhonoured pending the passage of that by-law.\nQ.\u2014Just a verbal arrangement ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014With whom did you make it, the Mayor?\nA.\u2014I could not tell you.     I don't remember exactly.\nQ.\u2014Whom do you usually see with reference to the finances of the city ?\nA.\u2014Generally the Mayor and one or two of the members of the Finance Committee.\nQ.\u2014 And they came in and said they would like to have the cheques honoured in the\nmeantime.\nA.\u2014That is about the way of it.\nMr. Richards : Is he swearing to all this ?\nMr. Bodwell, to witness : You have not any doubt about this ?\nA.\u2014I presume it is so ; I can't remember at all; it is more than a year and a half ago,\nQ.\u2014Will you tell us when the limit of $150,000 was reached ?\nA.\u2014It does not appear to have been reached at all.\nQ.\u2014How do you explain that ?\nA.\u2014The bank book does not show it.\nQ.\u2014How much did they overdraw on the 30th May ?\nA.\u2014$135,000.\nQ.\u2014How do you account then for their passing the by-law in June allowing them to\noverdraw to the extent of $200,000 ? This by-law says it shall be lawful to borrow from the\nBank of B. N. A. such sums as may be required to meet the current legal expenditure ; the\nwhole not to exceed $200,000, and the rate of interest not to exceed six per cent.; and the\nobligation shall be in writing, and shall be in the form of a promissory note bearing the\ncorporate seal.    They discounted that note ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014When did the proceeds of that note go to their credit ?\nA.\u2014On the 27th of June.\nQ.\u2014How much had they at the bank before that went in ?\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xlix.\nA.\u2014The book does not show.\nThe Court : They discounted a note for how much ?\nA\u2014$200,000.\nQ.\u2014Do you remember whether they were overdrawn this amount ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.    I presume they wanted some more money.\nThe Court : Was the overdraft then due of $130,000 paid out of that note ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How soon did they get beyond the $200,000 ?\nA.\u2014They discounted an additional note. There was a third by-law passed for $50,000,\nmaking it $250,000.\nQ.\u2014So they discounted another note ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014 When?\nA.\u2014That was discounted on the 9th October ?\nQ.\u2014What was the condition of their account then ?\nA.\u2014On the 30th September they were overdrawn $12,000.\nQ.\u2014How long after that was it before they had considerably more of an overdraft ?\nA.\u2014They never had an overdraft after that, I think.\nQ.\u2014They discounted the $50,000 on the 9th October ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What they did was to discount the $50,000 note ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014They didn't take up the old note and issue a new one for $250,000 ?\nA\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014The way to carry out this by-law was to give a new note for the whole amount ?\nThe Court : Whatever is borrowed must be in the form of a note, and the sum they\nborrow, according to this amended by-law, is not to exceed $250,000. And then they repeal\nthe former by-law on which the $200,000 was raised. Now, if you pull out the peg, the\ncloak falls to the ground, does it not ?\nA.\u2014I don't admit that.    The note for $50,000 was wanted only for a very short time.\nMr. Bodwell: What does it mean by this clause 4 :\u2014\"All agreements for advances heretofore made by such bank are hereby confirmed. ?\"\nThe Court: I think I shall give up taking the Illustrated London News, in which I take\ngreat interest on account of its chess problems, and take these by-laws. They are such\nconundrums.\nMr. Bodwell: What agreements are those referred to ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nThe Court : You didn't have that put in as a protection for yourself ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014You didn't interfere with the passing of the by-law at all ?\nA.\u2014No, no.\nQ.\u2014How many separate accounts are kept by the city at the bank ?\nA.\u2014There are a good many.    I could not tell the number.\nQ.\u2014The sinking funds, are they all one account ?\nA.\u2014No ; each loan has a separate account.\nQ.\u2014Then there is the general current account. That is the one to which the proceeds of\nall these notes went ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014The market site loan account, the market building fund, the sewerage loan funds,\n1890, and the sewerage debenture advance account.    Do you know of any others?\nA.\u2014I think that is about all.\nQ.\u2014Will you explain what this sewerage debenture advance account is ?\nA.\u2014It is an advance made on the debentures lodged with us.\nQ.\u2014When and how were these debentures lodged with you ?\nA\u2014On May 31st, $50,000 and $20,000.\nThe Court: Were these debentures lodged with you in any shape as security ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014By the Corporation ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\n Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014How many, the whole of the debentures ?\nA.\u2014No ; only $70,000.\nQ.\u2014They were in pledge to the bank.    Will you explain that $70,000 ?\nA.\u2014That is what they wanted to carry on the sewerage works in the meantime.\nQ.\u2014Not for general purposes ?\nA.\u2014Oh, no.\nQ.\u2014Was it before or after the 6th February that Mr. Ward got these debentures from\nyou on a delivery order ?\nA.\u2014It must have been after that.\nQ._Has this $70,000 been repaid ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014When was it repaid ?\nA.\u2014That would be repaid on the 5th September.\nQ.\u2014I see there is an amount of $914.61; is that interest?\nA.\u2014I presume so.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell was that the total amount of interest paid ?\nA.\u2014I think so.\nQ.\u2014What rate is that ?\nA.\u2014Six per cent.\nQ.\u2014Have you any lien on these debentures ?\nA.\u2014No ; nor have I any lien on what may be in the bank now ?\nQ.\u2014They are there for safe keeping ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What is this sewerage loan fund account ?\nA.\u2014That is an account that is set aside for the sewerage works. Funds for these works\nare deposited and placed to the credit of this account.\nQ.\u2014All the moneys I see were not deposited at one time. There was October 17th (90)\n$1,000; November 20th, $1,000; November 2nd, $776, and December 23rd, $15,000. What\nwas that on December 23rd?\nA.\u2014I couldn't say.\nQ.\u2014Mr.McBean's cheque ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ._At the end of May they deposited $32,622.89 ?\nA.\u2014They deposited more than that.\nQ.\u2014Is there any way to show how these deposits are made ?\nA.\u2014They are received as cash\u2014cheques.\nQ.\u2014These cheques were not cheques drawn on the current account and paid into the\ncredit of the sewerage account ?\nA.\u2014I could not say.    They are simply cheques paid in by some of the city officials.\nQ.\u2014How does that account stand now ?    Has it a credit balance ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How much ?\nA.\u2014$20,893.85.\nQ.,\u2014When was that ?\nA.\u2014That is on November 5th.\nQ.\u2014What is this market loan account ?\nA.\u2014That is an advance against the market site debentures. That account is closed. It\nbegan on April 30th, 1891, and was closed on September 5th, 1891.\nQ.\u2014And on that account you made advances of what amount ?\nA.\u2014$35,000.\nQ.\u2014And the rate of interest ?\nA.\u2014Six per cent.\nQ.\u2014You held the market site debentures for that ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Pledged ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What account is this market building debentures ?\nA.\u2014That is a similar account to the market site.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. li.\nA.\u2014You held the market building debentures for that, didn't you . How much did you\nadvance on them ?\nA\u2014$30,000.\nQ.\u2014Is that account closed ?\nA.\u2014I think that account is current with a credit balance of $3,000.\nQ.\u2014There has been paid into that account $31,324.32 ?\nA.\u2014Yes, that is the amount paid in.\nQ.\u2014These market bonds are also free from any lien 1\nA.\u2014I don't hold them.\nQ.\u2014You have delivered them all ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Outside of these accounts do you know of any other accounts in the bank deposited\nin a special way ?\nA.\u2014I don't know. I think you have recited them all. Without a list I could not tell.\nSometimes they are opened and sometimes they are closed.\nQ.\u2014Have you a special account for the proceeds of the gravel pits sales ; or was that\npaid into the general account ?\nA.\u2014I couldn't say.\nQ.\u2014You have no knowledge of a special account on your books for it ?\nA\u2014No.\nThe Court: Have you any account of the sinking funds of the various loans ?\nA.\u2014Yes; a special credit account of each of the sinking funds.\nQ.\u2014How are the sewerage cheques signed ?\nA.\u2014By the Commissioners.\nQ.\u2014And by any one else ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; by the Treasurer, I think.\nMr. Bodwell pointed out that the Commissioners were not re-appointed by the Council\nthis year, or they should have been re-appointed by the people.\nMr. Taylor : How much does the city owe the bank ?\nA.\u2014There is a note current for $200,000.\nQ.\u2014That is the extent of the liability ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What was the date of the note, do you remember ?\nThe Court: What is the date of the note for $50,000 1\nA.\u2014That has been paid.\nQ.\u2014That $200,000 note was some time in May, was it not ?\nA.\u2014I think it was towards the end of June\u201427th June.\nQ.\u2014At the time the engagement was entered into did you see any estimate of the revenue\nof the city for the year.\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Who submitted this estimate?\nA.\u2014I don't exactly remember. It might have been shown to me or brought down under\ncover.\nQ.\u2014Do you remember the extent of the revenue estimated ?\nQ.\u2014No; I don't remember the exact figures.\nQ.\u2014Was it more or less than $200,000 ?\nA.\u2014It was a great deal more.    It was well within the revenue ?\nQ.\u2014That was on the 27th of June ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What was the date of the $50,000 note ?\nA.\u2014-The 9th October.\nQ.\u2014The $50,000 for which that note was given, was that money all taken out of the\nbank, or had some been taken out previous to that ?\nA.\u2014I think that while the by-law was in course of passing $12,000 had been drawn.\nQ.\u2014Were there any arrangements that that should be done ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Then the words in the by-law ratifying previous agreements referred to this agreement ?\nA.\u2014I presume so\n Hi Royal Commission-\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nMr. Taylor : That is the meaning of the words referred to, and my learned friend could\nhave brought that out if he chose.\nQ.\u2014 The whole extent of the indebtedness is $200,000 ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Is there any money now to the credit of the city, general account?\nA.\u2014Yes, there is a considerable sum. I don't know exactly ; there may be about\n$50,000.\nQ.\u2014What interest do they get in respect to these special trust accounts ?\nA.\u2014Three per cent.\nQ.\u2014There is the sewerage loan fund ?\nA.\u2014I think there is something standing to the credit of that account. $20,000 on the\n5th November.\nQ.\u2014Are there any advances outstanding against any of the other accounts ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Only this $200,000 against which there is $50,000 to the credit of the general\naccount.     Regarding this second $50,000 note, that has been paid has it not ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.--When was that paid ?\nA.\u2014In November sometime.     I don't remember the date.    Some time this month.\nQ.\u2014Do you pay interest to the Corporation on the sinking funds ?\nA.\u2014Yes, we credit up the interest to each account. The total amount is $112,000 or\n$113,000.\nQ.\u2014You pay three per cent, on those funds, and when you lend the Corporation you\ncharge six per cent. ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nThe Court : That is good business.\nMr. Bodwell : You say, Mr. Burns, you had au estimate of the revenue given you at the\ntime you discounted this $200,000 note ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Did you have any estimate at the time you discounted the $50,000 note ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Did you see the auditor's report?\nA.\u2014The estimate was submitted to me early in September.\nQ.\u2014Was that before or after this $50,000 note was discounted?\nA.\u2014Subsequently.\nQ.\u2014Did you understand then that there was to be a shortage of $92,000 at the end of\nthe year ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014That was not explained to you.\nA.\u2014No.    The estimate showed a surplus that was submitted to me.\nQ.\u2014Was not this a surprise to you ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I have only seen this since I returned.    It was a surprise.\nQ.\u2014Of course, had you known there was going to be a shortage you would not have\nallowed this note?\nA.\u2014No, certainly not.\nQ.\u2014Did you have any communication with the Council on the subject ?\nA.\u2014No ; I have not taken any action yet.\nThe Court: In 1889 your overdraft was paid in out of the proceeds of certain loans?\nA.\u2014I don't think there was any overdraft at the end of December, 1889.\nThe Court: You state there was none on the 2nd February ?\nA.\u2014Probably not.\nThe Court : Do you know anything of the method by which the overdraft was paid in at\nthe end of the year 1889?\nA.\u2014No; the books are not here and I could not state from memory.\nThe Court : The fire loan for instance ; that was paid into the general account ?\nA.\u2014Speaking from memory, I don't think there was a separate account for the fire loan.\nI don't remember one.    There may have been one and it may have been closed.\nThe Court : The Market Site Debenture advance account\u2014what was that ?\nA.\u2014That was a debit account.    Then there was another separate  account called \" The\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. liii.\nMarket Building Debenture Account.\" There was $31,324.62 that has been paid into that\naltogether.\nQ.\u2014Is there a separate account kept for each of the sinking funds ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nMr. Taylor : I would like their Lordships to ask Mr. Burns what was the actual extent of\nthe overdraft at the beginning of this year.\nMr. Burns : I don't remember, somewhere about $55,000.\nQ.\u2014Was that money actually paid out by the bank ?\nA.\u2014Chequed out, yes.\nQ.\u2014Actually advanced by the bank ?\nA.\u2014$55,000, yes.\nQ.\u2014Now be sure about that, the amount that the bank had actually paid out $55,000\nbeyond what they deposited ?\nA.\u2014They had then at the end of the year $25,000 unpaid taxes against that.\nQ.\u2014Are you sure it was $55,000 ?    Was it not about $15,000 at the end of the year?\nA.\u2014$55,000 is entered here in the book.\nMr. Bodwell : How do you account for the published statement that there was $71,000\noverdraft? Is it possible that the city could publish a statement shewing that they owed\nyour bank $71,000\u2014had they discounted any note then ?\nA\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Or had they any special arrangement by which they got the money ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Do you know how the cheques are drawn\u2014was it not a practice to draw cheques in\nJanuary, and date them as far back as the middle of December ?\nA.\u2014I 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.\nMr. Raymur, recalled.    Examined by Mr. Bodwell.\nQ.\u2014Will you explain this mystery ; was that amount owing to the bank at the end of\nthe year\u2014how is it here the bank shows only $55,000 ? Can you explain this matter about the\ncheques ?\nA.\u2014The pay-rolls for December don't come in till the 2nd or 3rd of January, and the\naccounts for December are not passed till the first or second week in January ; we draw\ncheques for these and charge them in December, the month to which they belong, that's the\nwhole thing.\nQ.\u2014And how do you account for the difference between $71,000 and $55,000 ?\nA.\u2014There were a lot of outstanding- taxes at that time, but our ledger and the bank\nledger are always different, our balances never agree.\nMr. J. H. Turner was called, with reference to the sewerage pipe. Examined by Mr.\nBodwell.\nQ.\u2014You had a tender on behalf of Doulton :\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Explain about that tender?\nA.\u2014I am wrong in saying I put in the tender, because Doulton's sent it to she Council direct.\nQ.\u2014Now will you tell us about that tender ?\nA.\u2014There was a general meeting of the Council, at which the Sewer Commissioners were\npresent to see the opening of the tenders. I was one of those who opened the tenders, and I\nthink Doulton's was, perhaps, the first tender that was opened. It was handed over to me,\nto take note of it. I casually looked over it, and I at once saw an error in the 3rd or 4th line\nof some $13,000 or $14,000. It was made in the carrying out. It was carried out $31,712,\nwhen it ought to have been $19,820. There was also another error of $120 carried out, so\nthat I called the attention of the Mayor to these at once. He noticed them, and said it was\nvery desirable that these tenders should be handed over to a Committee for examination and\nreport, not only in connection with that error, which was apparent on the face of it,\nbut also to check every line of the tenders. There were a great many lines to go through,\nand we wanted to check them to see how they compared all the way through. That was done\nthe next clay, and then it was found that Doulton's tender came to $56,025. It was less\n$12,000; less that sum owing to the errors and 5 per cent. ; roughly, it was $56,000.\n liv. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nMr. Bodwell: The Terra Cotta Company's was $54,000 odd ?\nA.\u2014I don't know. I may say there was a letter put in with the cheque; there was no\ncheque sent in accompanying the tender. Doulton's telegraphed me to put in the cheque, and\nin a letter about the same time, or shortly after the tender was received here, requested me to\nsay that they had great difficulty in getting ships, and that it was doubtful if they could be\nready to ship the pipe so as to get here in time.\nQ.\u2014Now, can you tell us, is there any particular advantage which would have accrued if\nDoulton's tender had been accepted, and which would really make it the cheaper one ?\nA.\u2014I looked at it in a different way to what other parties here do. I felt very much\ninterested in getting Doulton's pipe here, as I knew they were perfectly good and reliable, and\nI called attention here during the opening of the tenders to the fact that, in a number of lines,\nDoulton's were very much under the other tenderers. That refers to special portions\u2014for\ninstance, junctions\u2014and where there is special work to be done they were very much lower\nthan any of the others; but then, again, in certain lines they came a little higher. I may\nremark that there was only a small amount of these junctions and bends called for; but had\nthere been a larger quantity of these wanted, I don't know but what Doulton's tender would\nhave been the lowest one.\nQ.\u2014Won't a large number of these bends and joints be required for making house\nconnections ?\nA.\u2014I couldn't say; that's a question for the engineers. There is a clause for a certain\nquantity, and I presume it is sufficient for the amount of work.\nQ.\u2014You were appointed under this by-law (it has been put in in evidence)?\nA.\u2014I don't remember the time of my appointment at all.\nQ.\u2014Tell us what is done by the Commissioners ?\nA.\u2014The Sewerage Commissioners examine accounts presented from time to time, endorse\nthe cheques if the amounts are found to be correct; also to receive reports from the Engineer\nand Inspector, with reference to the quality of materials; to test pipes, and so on.\nQ.\u2014How are pipes tested ?\nA.\u2014There 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\nthe Inspectors on that.\nQ.\u2014There is a branch Sewerage Committee of the Council ?\nA.\u2014Yes; composed, I think, of Aldermen Coughlan, Hunter, and McKillican.\nQ.\u2014Do they sit with you ?\nA.\u2014Sometimes, but not always. There are special occasions ; they meet with us in the\nawarding of contracts.\nQ.\u2014There are three Commissioners and three on the Sewerage Committee of the Council?\nA!\u2014Yes ; three or four.\nQ.\u2014Has anyone got a casting vote ?\nA.\u2014I think that there were four on the Council.\nQ.\u2014You haven't been present at any of the meetings ?\nA.\u2014I was present at all of them until the 23rd of July.\nQ.\u2014Do you know of any complaint with reference to the pipe supplied ?\nA.\u2014I know that there has been a complaint lodged with reference to the report of the\nEngineer to the Commissioners with regard to the pipe.\nQ.\u2014The company complained that their pipe could stand the test, aud the Engineer said\nit could not; that's what it amounts to ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And they asked for another test to be made ?\nA.\u2014I couldn't say that.\nMr. Richards : I think that by-law places in the hands of the Sewer Commissioners the\npower to look after the construction of these sewers ; I believe it does. And the Sewerage\nCommittee of the city has nothing to do with it ?\nA.\u2014The Sewerage Committee has met with us to assist us in letting the contract.\nQ.\u2014Do you allow them to sit with you and control you by their vote ? Do you allow\nthem to sit with you and vote?\nA.\u2014I believe that is right on this special occasion. As a matter of fact, we met jointly\nin connection with awarding of tenders, and to check them up very carefully.\nQ,\u2014Did you ever examine the by-law under which you were appointed or elected ?\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality.\nA.\u2014I think so.\nQ.\u2014Did you find anything in it about the committee of the Council sitting with you,\nanywhere ?\nA.\u2014I don't remember.\nQ.\u2014What do you suppose you were appointed for ? Why, do you suppose, were you\nelected to do this work, and paid for it (reading section \" Duties of Commissioners \") ? You\nwere speaking of the tender of these people from England for pipes.   Do you sell their pipe here ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Are you their agent for their pipes here ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Do vou get a commission ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And how much ?\nA.\u2014Ten per cent.\nQ.\u2014I suppose you would have got a commission on this if the city had accepted the tender.\nA.\u2014Not 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,\nthey telegraphed to take off another five per cent.\nQ.\u2014Whose tender was the lowest ?\nA.-\u2014The Terra Cotta Company's.\nQ.\u2014Notwithstanding the deductions you had made and the errors you had found in the\nDoulton's tender?\nA.\u2014There were other tenders lower than Doulton's.\nQ.\u2014Still, the local company had the lowest\u2014I mean the Terra Cotta Company ?\nA. \u2014Certainly.\nQ.\u2014Were there any other reasons for their not awarding the tender to Doulton's ?\n.A.\u2014There was the difficulty about not getting the pipe here in time. That was considered a vital objection.\nQ.\u2014You say these people didn't send a cheque ?\nA.\u2014Yes, they sent a cheque; but not at first.\nQ.\u2014Did you hand that in ?\nA.\u2014It was my own cheque ; yes.\nQ.\u2014The others were enclosed with the tenders ?\n- A.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014Was there any condition at all in their tender about their being able to get ships to\nbring the pipe out ?\nA.\u2014No ; I think not.\nQ.\u2014Didn't they say something about their not being able to get vessels?\nA.\u2014That was in a letter to me. We knew that the pipes shipped in the manner they\nwere able to ship them would not be here in time for the contract. The tenders were only\nadvertised for in December, and we had to send them home and get a reply out here in so\nshort a time, that it would have been impossible to deliver the pipes in time.\nQ.\u2014Suppose their tender had been accepted, how soon could they have got the pipe here ?\nA.\u2014We reckoned about five months after June.\nQ.\u2014Not until November 1\nA.\u2014We calculated we could get them along in October.\nQ.\u2014Then the city could not have accepted that tender; if they had, the work could not\nhave gone on ?\nA.\u2014I haven't said they could accept.    I never advanced any such statement.\nThe Court: Was the $300,000 put in in your name as Commissioners ?\nA.\u2014Not the whole amount; there were certain sums set aside from time to time for the\nrequirements of the Commissioners to their credit as they asked for it. It stands in our\nname, but the whole amount has not been placed there.\nThe Court: You say that Messrs. Doulton did not send their cheque with their tender ?\nA.\u2014Yes. In their letter they say : \" We do not forward our deposit, as we consider our\nname sufficient guarantee to fulfil the conditions of the contract if our tender is accepted.\"\nMr. Richards : But they did send a cheque afterwards ?\nA.\u2014No; they telegraphed to me to deposit the cheque for them, and my cheque was\naccepted, and was held for some time,\n Ivi. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1S91\nMr. Bodwell: When was the contract signed by Mr McBean ?\nA.\u2014That contract was signed on the last day of the Council of 1890.\nQ.\u2014In that contract, they provided for Mr. McBean beginning work in March ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014That was the only thing that necessitated the delivery of the pipe so early 1\nA.\u2014Yes.\nMr. Richards : Who was the man who made the offer for the sewerage bonds in London ?\nA.\u2014I could not tell you ; that's my own business.\nQ.\u2014You decline to name him ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I decline to name him.\nQ.\u2014Why do you decline ?\nA.\u2014It is a matter of my own business; I don't think I am bound to give that name.\nQ.\u2014-It is very desirable to know who the party was, to see if there is anything in it, or\nif he means business ?\nA.\u2014I may say, if the Commissioners require me to give that name, of course I will name\nthe party, but I decline to answer that question unless I am forced to.\nQ.\u2014I suppose, if there was anything in it, the Commissioners would force Mr. Turner to\nanswer the question. So far as the Council is concerned, Mr. Ward still holds these bonds,\nand if your friend can make another bid for them, or offer more for them, they are for sale.\nA.\u2014I may yet make an offer for them ; I don't know.\nMr. Bodwell: The City signed the contract, and incurred other liabilities, but made no\nprovision for the money ; then they had to take people's terms. The Sewerage Commissioners\nwere applied to for $7,000 out of this fund on account of the Johnson Street sewer ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And they declined ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nMr. Richards : I suppose you are going to use Johnson Street sewer ; that is part of the\nscheme ?    You don't abandon it ?\nA.\u2014As far as my knowledge goes, it is abandoned entirely; but we don't have anything\nto do with the scheme.\nQ.\u2014Who controls that ?\nA.-\u2014The City.\nQ.\u2014You don't think that Johnson Street sewer will be utilized as part of the scheme ?\nA.\u2014I have reason to believe it has been abandoned.\nWellington J.  Dowler was next called.    Examined by Mr. Bodwell : Your full name\nit?\nA.\u2014Wellington J. Dowler.\nQ.\u2014You are Clerk of the Municipal Council of the City of Victoria ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And you also act as clerk to the Sewerage Commissioners ?\nA.\u2014I do.\nQ.\u2014Is that a list of the C .mmittees of the Council for the present year ?\nA.\u2014Yes    (Exhibit \" I\").\nQ.\u2014On that list, who are the Sewerage Committee ?\nA.\u2014Aldermen Hunter, McKillican, and Coughlan.\nQ.\u2014Will you produce the contract for the sewer pipe ?\nA.\u2014I haven't it in my possession.\nQ.\u2014Did you ever have it ?\nA.\u2014I am not aware that I ever had it placed in my possession.\nQ.\u2014Is there any minute of council authorizing the contract to be let?    Will you produce\nExtract from the minutes of the City Council, January 26th, 1891 : \"A communication\n\" was received from the Sewerage Committee and Sewerage Commissioners, recommending\n\" that the contract for the supply of sewer pipe be awarded to the B. C. Terra Cotta Co.\n\" All pipes to be home manufactured, unless express permission is given by the Sewerage\n\" Committee, Sewerage Commissioners, or the Sanitary Engineer to substitute such pipe of\n\" foreign manufacture, in such quantities as may be deemed desirable\"    (Exhibit \"J\").\nQ.\u2014Is there any subsequent minute passed with reference to this same subject ?\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. lvii.\nA.\u2014Not that I am aware of.\nThe Court: Here is the contract that is said to have been entered into, but I don't find\nthat clause ?\nA. \u2014 No ; it is not called for in the tenders, nor is it in the contract. (Copy of contract\nhanded in and marked \" K\")\nQ.\u2014Have you any idea where the original contract is ?\nA.\u2014No ; I have not.\nQ.\u2014Have you attended the meetings of the Sewerage Commissioners ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; I have attended some of them ; others I have not attended.\nQ.\u2014Will you state, from looking at your minute book, who are the staff of engineers ?\nA.\u2014Ed. Mohun, Wilmot, J. B. Harrison, Creed (janitor), Parker, Chambers, Newling,\nJohnson, and Blackwood.\nQ.\u2014What is the total amount of salaries there ?\nA\u2014$1,630.\nQ.\u2014When was that for ?\nA.\u2014That was passed on the first day of September for the month of August.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell, from your minute, the permanent staff's pay-roll for the month ?\nA.\u2014I could not tell.\nQ.\u2014Will you turn to your minutes, page 47, of the meeting held on fourth of September.\nDo you find any reference there to the delivery of pipe by the Terra Cotta Co. ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; I do. It says a report from the Sanitary Engineer was read, with reference to\nthe small pipe supplied.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell us where that report is now ?\nA.\u2014I think it is in my office.\nQ.\u2014In consequence of the report, did the Commissioners take any action ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What was done ?\nA.\u2014I was instructed to forward a copy of the report to the Council, stating that, in the\nopinion of the Commissioners, the non-fulfilment of the contract by the Terra Cotta Co. was\ncausing serious delay and inconvenience.\nQ.\u2014Did you communicate in accordance with that ?\nA.\u2014I did.    (Report handed in.)\nQ.\u2014Will you look at your minutes for the meeting of the 8th of October, when this\nquestion was again before the Committee ?\nA.\u2014It was moved and seconded that the Secretary call the attention of the City Council\nto the resolution of the Sewerage Commissioners, dated 4th ult., informing them that the\ndelivery of the pipe by the Terra Cotta Co. is still insufficient to keep the contractor supplied,\nand that the Council be requested to take immediate steps in the matter.\nQ.\u2014Did you act in accordance with that resolution ?\nA.\u2014I believe I was not in the City at that time, but I am informed the matter was\nattended to.\nQ.\u2014Was anything done by the City Council on these reports ?\nA.\u2014They took them into their consideration.\nQ.\u2014What was done?\nA.\u2014I could not say positively unless I had the minutes of Council before me.\nQ.\u2014Referred the the Sewerage Committee ?\nA.\u2014I could not say.\nQ.\u2014Has there been any trouble\u2014has anything occurred with reference to the quality of\npipe ?\nA.\u2014Well, they have been subjected to several tests.\nQ.\u2014And the result of those tests ; what have they been ?\nA.\u2014They were not satisfactory; that is to say the tests did not correspond.\nQ.\u2014There is nothing a,r-.taring on the minutes to show that ?\nA.\u2014It simply appears that the Commissioners had an interview with the Secretary of the\nB. 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\nthe acid test.    It was arranged that a joint test be made.\nQ.\u2014 Do you know anything about the result of that ?\nA.\u2014I don't.\n lviii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014Does it appear from your minutes whether the Sewerage Committee of the City and\nthe Sewerage Commissioners ever sat together ?\nA.\u2014Yes; we had three or four meetings.\nQ.\u2014Give us an instance.\nA.\u2014The meeting of September 21st,\nQ.\u2014Did the Sewerage Committee attend that meeting ?\nA.\u2014They evidently did.\nQ.\u2014Who was chairman ?\nA.\u2014Alderman Hunter was the chairman. There were also present Aldermen Coughlan\nand McKillican, and Commissioners Earle and Teague. It was not my duty to keep a record\nof these meetings, but, of course, at the request of the meeting I did so.\nQ.\u2014You don't know anything about the working of the Sewerage Commissioner's office ?\nA.\u2014That is all I know; what is written in this book.\nQ.\u2014By Mr. Richards: Do you know what action the Council took on these reports\ncoming before them ?\nA.\u2014I cannot remember the precise action.\nThe Court: I understand the Commissioners held a meeting at which Mr. Turner was\nnot present. If this was a meeting of the Commissioners, how came Mr. Hunter to be in the\nchair if he was not a Commissioner ?\nA.\u2014They had a joint meeting of the Sewerage Committee and Sewerage Commissioners,\nbut the Committee had no executive functions.\nQ.\u2014Then how could that meeting appoint a member of the Committee, who was not a\nCommissioner, chairman of a meeting of the Commissioners. Yo don't mean to say they\nallowed these gentlemen to vote and take part in the discussion?\nA.\u2014At the outset of the year they invited the Committee to attend their meetings, as\nvery important matters would come before the Commissioners, who thought it wise to have the\nCommittee present.\nQ.\u2014They might have called Mr. Mohun to be present at the meeting, but they would not\nput Mr. Mohun in the chair, nor would they allow him to vote. Do you mean to say that\nthey admitted these three gentlemen from the Council\u2014possibly better men than themselves,\nbut still having nothing to do with the Commissioners\u2014to vote at their meetings; that they\nbeing appointed with full powers in certain matters should deposit three-fifths of that power\nin the hands of other men?\nMr. Dowler : I suppose it was a matter of courtesy to allow one of the Committee to\ntake the chair.\nQ.\u2014Do you think it is a matter of courtesy for me to ask anyone up here to take the\nchair ? I want to know if you fully understood what took place. Did these three gentlemen,\nat a meeting of the Commissioners, assume to act as Commissioners ?\nA.\u2014No ; I don't suppose they did.\nQ.\u2014Then why did one of them take the chair ?\nMr. Richards : There is one resolution here, moved by Commissioner Earle, seconded by\nAlderman McKillican, \"That the action of the Sanitary Engineer, rejecting the pipe referred\nto in the above report, be confirmed.\"\nThe Court : I don't suppose the Committee would do anything but the most intelligent\nand upright acts, but they had no right to vote at that meeting.\nMr. Taylor : Perhaps Mr. Dowler can tell us whether this meeting was held in reference\nto some report referred to them by the Committee ?\nMr. Dowler: Very often matters affecting this same contract came before the Council,\nwho 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.\nThe Court: It is a meeting of the Commissioners, and the Committee may be there\u2014\nthe Council may be there\u2014but it is a meeting of the Commissioners only.\nMr. Taylor: Can you tell us, Mr. Dowler, by referring to any of your books at the City\nHall, what brought about this particular meeting ?\nA.\u2014I really could not say. I think it was a report from Mr. Carmichael, Analyst, on\nsome sewer pipes submitted to him for examination.\nThe Court: To whom did Mr. Carmichael report ? He should have reported to the\nSanitary Engineer.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. lix.\nMr. Taylor : Now, really, was it not sent in to the Council, and they referred it to the\nSewerage Committee ?\nMr. Dowler: Speaking from memory, I think it was sent in to the Council.\nMr. Taylor : I think, my Lords, you will find the real cause of that was these pipes were\nrejected by the Sanitary Engineer, and the other party complained to the Council, who referred it to the Sewarage Committee for investigation.\nMr. Richards : My learned friend Mr. Bodwell asked you about the salaries paid these\nofficers here, amounting to $1,630.    Who appointed them ; do you recollect ?\nA.\u2014Mr. Mohun and Mr. Wilmot were appointed by the Council. Mr. Harrison was also\nappointed by the Council, on the adoption of a report of the Sewerage Committee. I think\nthe remainder were appointed by Mr. Mohun.\nMr. Bodwell: Who is J. B. Harrison ? Was he not the Chairman of Streets and Bridges\nand Public Works for 1890?\nA.\u2014He was Chairman of the Sewerage Committee.\nQ.\u2014The year in which this contract was executed ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What position does he now hold ?\nA.\u2014He has the position of Inspector.\nQ.\u2014At $150 per month ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014When did he assume the duties of that office ?\nA.\u2014Some time early in the year.\nThomas Earle, M.P.    Examined by Mr. Bodwell.\nQ.\u2014You are one of the Sewerage Commissioners ?\nA.\u2014I have been acting as such, and was one, I presume.\nQ.\u2014Can you explain how, or under what circumstances, it happened that the Sewerage\nCommittee of the Council has been attending meetings of the Sewerage Commissioners ?\nA.\u2014 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.\nQ.\u2014Do you remember this meeting\u2014you seem to have been present\u2014page 48 of this\nminute book ? Was that a time when as Sewerage Commissioners you were asked to attend a\nmeeting of the Sewerage Committee ?\nA.\u2014I presume so.\nQ.\u2014For what purpose were you asked to attend a meeting of the Sewerage Committee of\nthe Council?\nA.\u2014Well, I could not say, I'm sure.\nQ.\u2014Does that first resolution refresh your memory\u2014was it a fact, do you know, that a\nreport had been sent to the City Council stating that certain sewer pipe ought not to have\nbeen rejected, the Council referred it to the Sewerage Committee to investigate, and the\nSewerage Committee asked you to be present ?\nA.\u2014I should judge from the resolution that it was in consequence of something in connection with the pipes being rejected, but I could not say.\nQ.\u2014Alderman Hunter was in the chair ?\nA.-\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And this resolution was adopted ?\nA.\u2014So it would seem from the minutes.\nQ.\u2014Is it a fact that the Sewerage Commissioners have not actual control of the works ?\nA.\u2014No, certainly not.\nQ.\u2014Where is the actual control of the works vested ?\nA.\u2014In the City Council. They could overrule anything we do. We have power, I\nbelieve by the by-law, to reject material, and to refuse to pay bills for works and material\nthat do not properly belong to the sewerage works, but as to the conduct of the work, we\nhave no control.\nQ.\u2014How is that ?\nA.\u2014We haven't got it.    As I understand the by-law it does not give us full control.\nThe Court: I think the by-law goes a long way towards giving you full control, not in\nthe giving of the contract, but in connection with the works done uuder the contract.\n(Reading the clause in the by-law with reference to Commissioners' duties.)    Unfortunately\n Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nfor your contention, Mr. Earle, that the Council can overrule anything you do, the by-law\nsays your decision shall be final.\nMr. Bodwell : Is not the matter of the sewer pipes under the direct jurisdiction of the\nCommissioners ?\nA.\u2014I think so.\nQ.\u2014Was a rejection of certain pipes made with their approval ?\nA.\u2014As soon as the rejection was made by the engineer In charge, we had another test\nof the pipes, and this test proved that the pipes would stand all that was required of them.\nQ.\u2014Had that rejection been approved by the Commissioners before ?\nA.\u2014I don't remember.\nMr. Taylor : Did not Mr. Mohun communicate his disapproval of these pipes to the\nCommissioners prior to this meeting ?\nA.\u2014I presume he did.\nQ.\u2014Did you not, as Commissioners, empower Mr. Mohun to employ Mr. Carmichael to\nmake this test ?\nA.\u2014He was employed.\nQ.\u2014Do you know whether he was employed by the Commissioners or Mr. Mohun ?\nA.\u2014I think by the direction of the Commissioners.\nQ.\u2014Mr. Carmichael made a report to whom\u2014Mr. Mohun ?\nA.\u2014I can't say as a matter of fact.\nQ.\u2014That report was sent in to the City Council instead of to you as Commissioners ?\nA.\u2014I do not remember as a matter of fact.\nThe Court: The proper way would have been to have sent it to Mr. Mohun who would\nhave submitted it to the Commissioners. Mr. Earle has not been able to point out any error in\nthe by-law. You have got power to do this, and your decision is final. You will report to\nthe City Council, but your decision is final. I have no doubt the Council, was under the\nsame error as yourself, and perfectly conscientiously, and you understood that you had not\nfull powers till pointed out to you not five minutes ago. It is really not an uncommon error\nwith a great many people to never read the Act of Parliament under which they act, and in\nthis way often give a great deal of trouble to judges and lawyers in cases of habeas corpus\nand certiorari, and so forth.\nQ.\u2014Did the City Council take any action on the resolution passed by the Commissioners\nin respect to the delay in the delivery of pipes by the Terra Cotta Company 1\nA.\u2014Not so far as I know.\nEdward Mohun, called.    Examined by Mr. Bodwell.\nQ.\u2014You are the Sanitary Enginner of the city 1\nA.\u2014I am in charge of the whole of the sewerage works.\nQ.\u2014Did you prepare the plans which were accepted for the sewerage ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And the specifications for the sewer pipe ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Was a time limit for the beginning of the work inserted in the sewerage contract\naccording to your recommendation or with your concurrence ?\nA.\u2014I don't quite understand the question. There is a clause in the contract which says\nthe contractor shall commence work on receiving a notice to that effect from me.\nQ.\u2014When did you give him that notice to commence work ?\nA.\u2014I gave him notice to commence on the 1st March this year.\nQ.\u2014Then the contractor was not to commence work until receiving notice from you ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Did you prepare the specifications for the sewer pipe ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You know Doulton's pipes ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014It is a first-class article?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Has an established reputation?\nA.\u2014Yes.    I have known it for a great many years.\nQ.\u2014When you prepared the specification for the sewer pipe did you intend that the\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. lxi.\nwork should be commenced on the 1st March? Did you expect that Doulton's could possibly\ntender for pipe if you had to begin then ?\nA.\u2014Well, we had about 6,000 or 7,000 feet of sewer for which we did not want any\npipes at all; it was all concrete work.\nQ.\u2014You could have completed the whole of that work before you wanted the pipe ?\nA.\u2014We could.\nQ.\u2014Why did you want the sewer pipe delivered by August ?\nA.\u2014Because I was in hopes we could get a good many pipes here during the dry weather\nand in that case we could get a good deal of work done.\nQ.\u2014Did you think it possible that Doulton's pipe could get here in that time ?\nA.\u2014Yes; I consulted with several Wharf Street merchants about the shipping, and they\nagreed that it could be done.\nQ.\u2014You could have deferred giving notice to the contractor to commence the work ?\nA.\u2014Yes; I could have notified him at any time.\nQ.\u2014It was your intention that you would have Doulton's pipe if they could get it here\nand theirs was the lowest tender?\nA.\u2014There was more than one tender? There were two English tenders; one from\nCalifornia, and one local tender\u2014four altogether.\nQ.\u2014Had you made any test of the clay of the Terra Cotta Co. before the tenders were\nsent in ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014After you knew they were tenderers did you visit their works ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; I went down there once or twice.\nQ.\u2014Were you satisfied they had the plant and material to furnish the pipe ?\nA.\u2014I cannot say.    I am not a pipe manufacturer.\nQ. \u2014No, but as an engineer, do you know ?\nA.\u2014I 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.\nQ.\u2014Do I understand you to say that at the time they entered into that contract they\nhad not fully satisfied themselves that they could supply the pipe ?\nA.\u2014They appeared to be well satisfied, but up to that date I do not think they had made\nany sewer pipe.\nQ.\u2014After that did they begin to test their different clays ?\nA.\u2014I think they made a great many experiments.\nQ.\u2014Has there not been a considerable trouble in getting pipe ?\nA.\u2014At one time about the beginning of September and the end of August there was\nsome trouble, not from want of the large pipes, but from the small ones.\nQ.\u2014It was the large pipe that came from. California ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014The smaller ones were manufactured here, and those were the ones you wanted ?\nA- Yes.\nQ.\u2014You made a report to the Sewerage Commissioners on that point ?\nA.\u2014I think it was the beginning of September.\nQ.\u2014This grievance was not done away with in October?\nA.\u2014No ; we had some trouble. On the 8th of October a resolution was passed, asking\nthe Secretary to take some action on the report of the Commissioners and the shortage of\npipes.\n(Resolution read again.)\nQ.\u2014What made this delay a serious and inconvenient one ?\nA.\u2014It was putting off the opening up of the streets to the bad weather.\nQ.\u2014Was it not delaying the contractor in his work ?\nA.\u2014I could hardly answer that question. There was a certain delay to the contractor,\nbut no delay occurred that he could claim any damage from the city.\nQ.\u2014Are not the city obliged to furnish him with material as he wants it ?\nA.\u2014I do not think so.\nQ.\u2014As a matter of fact, is the pipe being furnished now as rapidly as the work calls for\nit?\nQ.\u2014When they found we were running short they telegraphed to California for a large\nshipment of small pipe to enable us to go on with while they were manufacturing their own.\n Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014Then, as a matter of fact, they have supplied very little pipe ?\nA.\u2014Not a very great deal.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell us how much they have supplied ?\nA.\u20142,759 feet 8-inch; 752 of 9-inch ; 384 of 6-inch ; and about 7,000 of the channel\npipes.\nQ.\u2014What is the proportion of the small pipe already delivered by the Terra Cotta Co.\nfrom their own works to the whole of the pipe required for the sewerage, including the large\npipe ?\nA.\u2014I could not say that without figuring it out. There are about 6,000 pieces of the\n10, 12, 15, and 18 and 20-inch delivered, and about 4,000 of the 6, 8, and 9-inch, exclusive of\nthe channel pipes.\nQ.\u2014Have you rejected many pipes ?\nA.\u2014Among the first pipe that came up we had to reject a large number.\nQ.\u2014What do you think of the pipe ?\nA.\u2014It is a very good pipe.\nQ.\u2014Have you rejected many of them ?\nA.\u2014I have, a good many for breakage.\nQ.\u2014Did you not reject over 90 per cent, of one shipment?\nA.\u2014I think not. I think there was about 50 per cent, of one shipment broken in coming\nup. I think there were about 350 pipe, and out of that something like 120 were broken, but\nthey were all of good quality.\nQ.\u2014How thick are the 12-inch pipe ?\nA.\u2014About an inch. You require about l-12th of the diameter. Some materials are a\ngreat deal stronger than others, but the American pipe, as a rule, is made thinner than the\nEnglish.    They generally run about the same.\nQ.\u2014What company is the pipe made by that comes from California ?\nA.\u2014Glady, McBean & Co.\nQ.\u2014Have they a good reputation ?\nA.\u2014Very good, I should say.\nA.\u2014You know about the Toronto sewerage question ? You took part in that conference?\nDo you know what pipe is referred to there ?\nQ.\u2014That would be eastern pipe.\nA.\u2014Has that as good a reputation as this ?\nQ.\u2014I should say from what I have heard of the eastern pipe that the California is better.\nQ.\u2014What tests did you make ?\nA.\u2014The water absorption, the crushing, and the acid tests.\nQ.\u2014What is the crushing weight ?\nA.\u20141,000 pounds to the lineal foot.\nQ.\u2014What test do you make for absorption ?\nA.\u20143 per cent, in 24 hours.\nQ.\u2014How do these pipes run?\nA.\u2014Considerably less; the average is 2.66.\nQ.\u2014That was the American pipe ?\nA.\u2014No ; they run still less\u2014about 2 per cent.\nQ.\u2014How do you test for acid ?\nA.\u2014Take a piece of pipe, thoroughly dry and carefully weigh it; then submit it to the\naction of the acid for 24 hours ; take it out, thoroughly remove all traces of the acid, dry it\nand weigh it; and if the acid has not reduced the weight in any particular, the pipe has stood\nthe test.\nQ.\u2014Did you make more than one test as a rule ?\nA.\u2014Oh, yes ; six or seven.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell from the appearance of the pipe whether it is of the proper quality ?\nA.\u2014Generally.\nQ.\u2014How do you judge ?\nA.\u2014By the ring. Sometimes we generally try the ring for cracks, although, of course,\na really good pipe will ring well; the appearance and colour of a pipe will always go a good\nway.\nQ.\u2014Have you passed any pipes by appearance ?\nA.\u2014I have when I have known the pipe, but I would not let an unknown pipe go on\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. lxiii.\nappearance.    It would not be necessary to test a great many out of one kiln.\nQ.\u2014Is it necessary you should test every kiln ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Don't you do it ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Does not a great deal depend on the burning ?\nA. \u2014Certainly.\nQ.\u2014Then why should you not test every kiln ?\nA.\u2014A great deal depends upon the maker; if you know the maker pretty well you take\na great deal for granted ?\nQ.\u2014How many tests have you made of the pipes delivered by the B. C. Terra Cotta Co.?\nA.\u2014I think there must have been about ten chemical tests made.\nQ.\u2014Out of ten different kilns ?\nA.\u2014I don't know whether there were of different kilns. I have tested two or three out\nof different shipments.\nQ.\u2014Do I understand you to say you have tested two or three out of each shipment ?\nA.\u2014In every shipment where there has been any doubt at all we have tested them.\nQ.\u2014How many shipments have you had ?\nA.\u2014I can't tell, because they delivered them from the local company by waggon from the\nrailway station, and I could not tell how many car-loads there are, or how many go to one\nburning.\nQ.\u2014How many tests for acid have you made ?\nA.\u2014I could tell by referring to the reports.\nQ.\u2014How many do you think ?\nA.\u2014I think Mr. Carmichael has made two; Mr. McAlpin three or four; Mr. Shotbolt\nhas made one, and there was one made at Langley's. I think there was something wrong\nabout that.\nQ.\u2014How long an interval would elapse between these tests ?\nA.\u2014If I had a fresh lot of pipe that looked suspicious, I had a test made.\nQ.\u2014Then you don't think it necessary to make a test of every kiln ?\nA.\u2014We should have to keep a man constantly employed for that alone, if we did.\nQ.\u2014It is not a very difficult operation ?\nA.\u2014They charge pretty well for it, when it costs $25 for testing a piece of pipe.\nQ.\u2014Why don't you employ a man to do it ?    Can't you do it yourself ?\nA.\u2014I am not a chemist, and I don't care to take the responsibility ?\nQ.\u2014It is not a very difficult operation ?\nA.\u2014It 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\nyou leave any in the pipe, it leaves the weight probably the same, and you lose the value of\nthe test.\nQ.\u2014Have you had any complaint about a box-drain in connection with the sewer ?\nA.\u2014No one has made any complaint to me.\nQ.\u2014Is there anything in that complaint ?    Is it a fact ?\nA.\u2014There is a box-drain under a portion of the concrete sewer.\nQ.\u2014How far does it run?\nA\u2014About 3,000- feet.\nQ.\u2014Is that any detriment to the work ?\nA.\u2014No; it is down below the watershed, and, therefore, as is known, wood will not rot\nunder water.\nQ.\u2014Is the sewer not likely to collapse ?\nA.\u2014I don't think it would, and if it did could do no harm; in fact, it is now unused,\nand is nearly filled with sand.\nQ.\u2014Are you going to be able to use Johnson Street sewer in your scheme ?\nA.\u2014I am rather doubtful of that. '\nQ._Why is that ?\nA.\u2014In the first place, it is too low. I could not discharge by gravitation out to Clover\nPoint.\nQ.\u2014Do you consider you will have a sufficient amount at your disposal to complete the\nmain arteries of the sewers ?\n lxiv. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA.\u2014Certainly; and also a considerable number of the branches. In fact, I am in hopes\nof finishing that part bounded by Cook, Pandora, Douglas and Chatham Streets, with the\nbranches ; but this all depends on the amount of rock we meet with. The moment we strike\nrock, there is considerable expense.\nQ.\u2014 How about the house connections?\nA.\u2014The house connections, I suggested to the Council last year, should be made at the\nsame time the sewers are built; but the difficulty was this: There was a sum of $300,000\nvoted by the people for sewers, but the people who voted that did not contemplate that any\nportion 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.\nThe matter was referred to the city solicitors, and they could not see how it could be done ;\nbut posts are put in at about every forty feet, where the connections can be made afterwards.\nQ.\u2014What precautions are you taking to have these junctions recorded?\nA.\u2014The measurements of these junctions are taken by une Inspector and entered on a\nlarge plan in the office ; they are marked on the ground by a 3^-inch scantling, carried up to\nthe surface from the main.\nQ.\u2014How much of a staff have you working under you ?\nA.\u2014There is Mr. Wilmot, the Resident Engineer ; Gordon, the Draughtsman ; Harrison,\nInspector ; then from time to time, as the work requires, we have four or five sub-Inspectors;\nbut, then, they are only engaged as they are wanted, and are paid by the day.\nQ. \u2014What are Mr. Harrison's duties ?\nA.-\u2014He is the General Superintendent of all the works ; goes over the works to see that\nthe contractor fills in all the streets to the surface level enough to prevent danger, and when\nthe pipes are laid he sees that there is no settlement, and that it is filled up at once. He\nlooks after the men and keeps the time, and if, as sometimes happens, there are fifteen or\ntwenty pipes to lay, and I don't want to employ a man, he goes and does it.\nQ.\u2014Were your plans accepted by the Council just as you prepared them?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Were there no additions?\nA.\u2014How do you mean ?    By me, or anyone else ?\nQ.\u2014Any additions made to them after they were sent in to the Council ? Were there\nany changes made ?\nA.\u2014I believe the Council, on the suggestion of Mr. Herring, made some changes, altering\nthe outlet a foot or so.\nQ.\u2014Was there any writing on your plans when you sent them in to the Council 1\nA.\u2014My 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\nname, which I thought at the time was the worst thing I could do if I wanted to get the\ncontract.\nThe Court : Why did you think that ?\nA.\u2014Because I thought they would not give it to a British Columbian.\nQ.\u2014Who was the Consulting Engineer ?\nA.\u2014Mr. Herring.\nQ.\u2014He was a personal friend of yours ?\nA.\u2014I trust he is now.\nQ.\u2014Wasn't he then ?\nA.\u2014No; I have only seen him once since.\nMr. Richards (cross-examining on pay-roll) : Were all these men necessary ?\nA. \u2014Yes; I don't think we could do without any of them.\nQ.\u2014Whenever you can get along without any of them you discharge them ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014All these men are paid by the day, aren't they ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And you can discharge them without giving them a month's notice?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You say the pipe from San Francisco is a good article?\nA.\u2014A very good article. I tested it several times when I was laying pipe in Vancouver,\nand I always found it satisfactory.\nQ.\u2014How much sewerage did you lay in Vancouver ?\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. lxv.\nA.\u2014I laid about seven miles of sewers there; about four and a half miles of that was\nthis pipe.\nQ.\u2014And you find the article delivered there a good one ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014I believe you prepared this contract?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And it provides that the contractor shall  commence after receiving notice from you?\nA.rt-Yes.\nQ.\u2014Has he always had a sufficiency of large pipe to keep him going ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Is there any provision in the contract that if he runs short of pipe and has to stop\nthe work, he can have any claim for damages ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; clause 41 says he shall have an extension of time if he is delayed, in proportion\nto the amount of delay, but no other compensation.\nQ.\u2014Has the delay been any way serious to the contractor?\nA.\u2014It has, in one sense. He would probably have put on a great many more men had\nhe been kept supplied with pipe, and in that way he could have done a great deal more work.\nQ.\u2014He could have done the work quicker?\nA.\u2014Yes. There is a considerable portion of this laid in cement; a portion of the arch\nis built in brick ; the rest is concrete.\nQ.\u2014How much of the sewer is done in that work ?\nA.\u2014It is concrete up to Southgate Street.\nQ.\u2014Then there they begin to lay pipe ?\nA.\u2014Yes.    From there down to the sea he was not delayed in any way.\nQ.\u2014Who furnished the material there?\nA.\u2014He furnished it himself.\nQ.\u2014He could go to work on that at once and there would be no delay.\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014How long was he at that work ?\nA.\u2014It is not completed yet; still, of course, he could only get a certain number of men\nthere.\nQ.\u2014At the street there where the brick leaves, you begin to lay pipe ?\nA.\u2014The main sewer runs as far as the Reformed Church, coming through McTavish's\nproperty to Humboldt Street. From there the 20-inch pipe goes along Humboldt Street to\nWharf Street, along Wharf to Johnson and Store, up Store Street to Chatham and Government,\nwhere it connects with the 18-inch.\nQ.\u2014For all that work you have had plenty of pipe ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Then up Cook Street ?\nA.\u2014That is the 18-inch pipe.\nQ.\u2014You go south to View Street with\u2014 ?\nA.\u2014Fifteen inch on View Street as far as Quadra.\nQ.\u2014Any delay there ?    What size pipe have you there ?\nA.\u2014I think it is 10-inch there.\nQ.\u2014Then you run north of Cook and come to Yates ?\nA.\u2014North of Cook Street we come to View.\nQ.\u2014Well, anything done there ?\nA.\u2014We have clone a small piece on Yates, but we have got into rock, and are not making\nvery fast progress.\nQ.\u2014Were you present at the opening of the tenders for the pipe ?\nA.\u2014I was.\nQ.\u2014The Terra Cotta Company was the lowest ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.--Did you suppose if the contract had been let to these people in England that the\npipes would not be here in time ?\nA.\u2014I think the feeling of the Commissioners and Council was that the contract should\neither be let to the local company or to Doulton.\nQ.\u2014Was there a letter put in with Doulton's tender ?\nA.\u2014I think Mr. Turner stated that owing to some difficulty about obtaining a vessel\n lxvi. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nthey doubted whether they could be able to deliver the pipes here before October or November.\nThey thought they could deliver the whole quantity called for by May, 1892.\nQ.\u2014There was a company in San Francisco whose tender was rejected ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014There was a tender from Messrs. Ward & Co. ?\nA.\u2014That is the other English tender I mentioned. Then there was the tender from the\nlocal company, I believe.\nQ.\u2014With regard to the work here you say the contractor has been delayed because the\npipes\u2014 ?\nA.\u2014 I consider we ought to have had a larger supply of small pipe than we have received.\nQ.\u2014But then you don't consider the contractor was delayed a great deal in consequence ?\nA.--He would have employed more men, who could have been put to work in several\ndifferent places at once had we had sufficient pipe to go on with.\nQ.\u2014Do you know whether the matter was referred to the city with a view to taking\nproceedings against this company for their delay ?\nA.\u2014Mr. Dowler was instructed to forward the resolution to the Council to take action\nupon.\nQ.\u2014You say you will not be able to use that Johnson Street sewer ?\nA.\u2014I don't think so.\nQ.\u2014Do you know when that was built ?\nA.\u2014I was not here at the time it was built. Of course, it is a portion of another system\naltogether.\nQ.\u2014The Pickering system ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014They subsequently abandoned that system and adopted the one you are working on\nnow ?\nA.\u2014Yes The people would not vote the money for it. I believe the by-law was introduced, but the people rejected it.\nQ.\u2014Why ?\nA.\u2014I think the people must have come to the conclusion that it was not the right\nsystem.\nQ.\u2014What system was it ?\nA.\u2014The combined system.\nQ.\u2014What is your system ?\nA \u2014The separate system, taking in sewerage alone.\nQ.\u2014How do you expect the water will run out ?\nA.\u2014By gravitation ; we have fall all the way through.\nQ.\u2014You do not admit any water into your pipes ?\nA.\u2014No, except the rain water, which is quite clean and brings no sediment with it.\nQ.\u2014In this other system would the surface water be conducted off?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014All the rain that fell in the street ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Is Johnson Street sewer used as a surface drain now ?\nA.\u2014I think so.\nMr. Bodwell: The contractor cannot do his work in this weather as in summer ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014He has not preferred any claims for extras as yet ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014And your attention has not been officially drawn to the delays in the pipes ?\nA.\u2014I have taken notice officially of what I considered delays in the delivery of pipes,\nand I have often had conversation with the contractor on the matter. In fact, very few days\npass that I don't have a conversation with him as to where he shall begin next.\nQ.\u2014Where does he get his men from ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.     His foremen have worked for him for several years\nMr. Richards : Can you tell us how it was that this meeting of the Committee and Commissioners was held ?\nThe Court : I don't think it is necessary to go into that, Mr. Richards ; there has been a\nmistake committed and\u2014\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. lxvii.\nMr. Mohun : The whole thing is that a report which should have been sent to me was\nsent to the Council.\nThe Court : Have you ever been able to find out how much that Johnson street sewer\ncost ?\nMr. Bodwell: $30,000 was appropriated for it, and it cost $7,000 beyond that. That\namount was spent out of the general revenue.\nThe Court : I suppose that $30,000 was negotiated at par ; they had not the cash.\nMr. Bodwell: The amount received was $30,337.50.    There was a premium on it.\nMr. Raymur: It was paid into a special account in the Bank of British North America,\nand called the Johnson Street Sewer Account, and paid out separately until the whole was\nexhausted, and then the balance was paid out of the general revenue.\nAid. Renouf here took the stand to state that he had  no interest in the Terra Cotta Co.\nTuesday, December 1st, 1891.\nEdward Mohun, re-called on the sewerage question, and examined by Mr. Bodwell:\nWill you point out the specifications with reference  to excavations for the pipe lines\u2014I mean\nwith reference to the width of the excavations\u2014what width at the top, bottom and the depth?\nA.\u2014There is no such clause. The only one is the item in the bills of quantities. But\nthe contractor could judge what width he would have to dig a trench to lay a pipe of a\ncertain size.\nQ.\u2014What is the width of a trench for the 18-inch size?\nA.\u2014Three feet nine inches at the bottom.\nQ.\u2014What is that at the top ?\nA.\u2014There is nothing there as to what the top should be, but I think that trench would\nbe about 4 feet six inches at the top.\nQ.\u2014The 20 inch pipe trench is 4 feet at the bottom ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014The 15-inch is 3 feet; the 12-inch is 3 feet 2 inches ; the 10-inch is 2 feet 9 inches;\nthe 9 inch, 2 feet 9 inches; the 8-inch, 2 feet 6 inches. For all these pipes in the bills of\nquantities these figures were put in ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And the tender was made on the basis of that width ?\nA.\u2014I presume so. It was a lump sum contract; everything was under schedule rates all\nthrough, so much a yard for concrete and so much a lineal foot for trenching.\nQ.\u2014You don't pay for the actual excavation as taken out by quantities ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Have these trenches been dug to these depths\u2014for instance, has the 15-inch pipe\ntrench been made 3 feet 6 inches at the bottom ?\nA.\u2014I could not say positively. It must be close to that in order to have the room for\nlaying the pipes.\nQ.\u2014If the contractor were to lay the pipe at a less width than that he would have more\nprofit on his contract ?\nA.\u2014No ; we should get the profit. I don't think he would, because if you dig the\ntrench too narrow the men would not have room to work.\nQ.\u2014Suppose he could work at a less width than that, would he not have some advantage?\nA.\u2014Possibly, if he could lay his pipes.\nQ.\u2014Were the tenderers informed before the contract was taken that these trenches must\nbe taken to that width ?\nA.\u2014I should have specified it in the contract if it had been a hard and fast rule.\nQ.\u2014WThy did you put it in the bill of quantities, then?\nA. \u2014So that every tenderer might have an idea of the width that would be required.\nQ.\u2014How do you explain that clause which says that your measurements must be adhered\nto in the contract?\n Ixviii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA.\u2014There is no such clause in the contract.\nQ.\u2014Is there not a clause stating that these widths would have to be adhered to ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ,\u2014Why then didn't you put that in if you intended it to be adhered to ?\nA.\u2014I might have done so if I had thought of it, but it never entered my head to do so.\nA man does not want to dig a trench wider than is necessary for the absolute working, and\nyet he must have room enough for his men to get to work.\nQ. \u2014 Would you be surprised to know that some of these trenches were taken down to a\nless width than shown according to the pipe ?\nA.\u2014 I would not if I found they had  room enough to perform the work of laying the\nQ.\u2014In your specifications you have a clause stating that this is a rule not necessarily to\nbe adhered to ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Is there any clause referring to these excavations ?\nA.\u2014The trenching excavations ?\nQ.\u2014Yes.    What clause is it ?\nA.\u2014Clause 58.    (Clause in sewerage specifications read.)\nQ.\u2014You have been at the work since the beginning ?\nA.\u2014 Yes, I have been there nearly every day.\nQ.\u2014Can't you tell us whether all these trenches have been taken down to this width or\nto a less width ?\nA.\u2014I really can't; I never measured them. As long as I found there was enough room\nto lay the pipe 1 thought that was all that was necessary.\nQ.\u2014Have the trenches been taken in places beyond the depth mentioned in the\nspecifications ?\nA.\u2014These bills of quantities were only a rough estimate. We had not had any survey\nat the time beyond the old contour plans, which were made about 1883. These bills of\nquantities were a rough estimate as to the quantities required according to that plan, but it\ndid not matter as to whether they were correct or not, because we have a schedule rate for\nthe various depths. So that, if we make a ten-foot instead of a nine-foot excavation, we had\nto pay for the ten-foot.\nQ.\u2014You have, in some instances, made an exception in the working since the contract\nwas let ?\nA.\u2014Originally, under the last Council, in 1890, it was decided to sewer\u2014I think I could\ndescribe it roughly as the section bounded by Blanchard and Chatham to the water, deep\nenough for basements. That may be termed the business portion of the city. Beyond that\nwe proposed to sewer out with a minimum of five feet, in what you would call the residential\npart; but the present Council determined, finally, to sewer the whole city to a depth sufficient\nfor basements. They said it was hardly fair for one man not to be able to put a basement in,\nwhile the other one on the other side of that line was putting one in, and both were paying\nfor the sewerage.    And, in consequence, these sewers have been deepened.\nQ.\u2014How much has that increased the cost of the sewerage beyond the amount estimated\nin your bills of quantities ?\nA.\u2014I reckon about $50,000 or $60,000 more.\nQ.\u2014Do you apprehend you will follow the same plan in other places ?\nA.\u2014As I understand the resolution of the Council, it covers the whole city.\nMr. Richards : Is there any condition here that the contractor is to have any damages in\ncase of delay to him ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; It is clause 41.\nQ.\u2014It provides that he is to have an extension of time in proportion to that which he\nwas delayed ?\nA.\u2014I think that is it.\nQ.\u2014You judge, from that, that the contractor can have no other claim against you for\ndelay ?\nMr. Bodwell: That's a question of law.\nMr. Richards\u2014to witness: The Council of 1890 thought shallower sewers in certain\nplaces were necessary ?\nA\u2014Yes.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. lxix.\nQ.\u2014Then the Council of the present year decided to deepen the sewer all round ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014That will add very much to the value and efficiency of the system, won't it ?\nA.\u2014It will enable everyone to put in a basement who wishes to do so.\nQ. - As the contractor is paid by the piece, it will make no difference to him how it may\nincrease the work he has to do, if you have money to pay him 1\nA.\u2014It simply increases the work he has to do by the quantity taken out.\nQ.\u2014With regard to the width of these trenches, it is merely for the purpose of enabling\nthe contractor to get round to his work ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Any contractor would know that ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I suppose so; he ought to, at any rate.\nQ.\u2014And the Council have no reason to expect that the work would be any more efficient\nif the trench was a foot or more wider ?\nA.\u2014Not at all; it would be worse.    There would be more filling and more sinkage.\nQ.\u2014You didn't give a greater width than you thought necessary ?\nA.\u2014I gave only the extreme width that I thought would be necessary. In cases where\nthere is any timber required to hold the sides, it would have to be a little wider; but where\nthe ground is solid, it would not be required so wide. A great deal, though, depends on the\nman 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.\nQ.\u2014When the money was voted by the ratepayers for sewerage purposes, had there been\nany plan decided upon as to how deep these pipes were to be placed, or where they were to be\nplaced, so that the people might know what they were voting for ?\nA.\u2014There was a plan, showing the proposed system, hung upon the City Hall for the\npeople to see. I was requested to furnish a tracing to be framed. I had a tracing made, and\nit was hung upon the City Hall, I believe, the whole time the by-law was before the people,\nuntil passed.\nQ.\u2014Could they see the depth the pipes were to be laid ?\nA.\u2014No; it was merely a survey of the city, showing the system of sewerage. In fact,\nthe survey I had at the time was not complete, and didn't cover the whole of the ground.\nQ.\u2014As matters are going on now, how much of the city will this money sewer ?\nA.\u2014It is almost impossible to say, but I think we shall take pretty nearly from Cook\nStreet, Pandora, and Douglas, to Chatham. I think that would be approximately the\nboundary, exclusive of James Bay.\nQ.\u2014I suppose, from time to time, as money is voted, other streets could be sewered, and\nconnections made with the main system ?\nA.\u2014Yes; the system covers the whole of the old city limits.\nMr. Bodwell :  Have you made any estimate for the servey of the whole system 1\nA.\u2014It is utterly impossible.\nQ.\u2014Do you think it will take a million dollars ?\nA.\u2014I am rather doubtful that it will.\n10.\u2014EXPENDITURE  ON  PUBLIC  MARKET  BUILDING.\nMr. Bodwell, counsel for Petitioners, put in the By-Law for the Public Market Loan.\nAlderman Holland, called and examined by Mr. Bodwell: Are you a member of the\nMarket Committee ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Were you so at the time tenders were called for the erection of the building ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014WTere you present when the tenders were opened ?\nA.\u2014I was.\nQ,\u2014Will you just tell us how the tenders were called for 1\n lxx. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA.\u2014By advertisement.\nQ.\u2014There were two buildings; were tenders called for the whole ?\nA.\u2014There were whole and separate tenders received. The whole of the plans comprised\nthe entire property purchased by the Corporation. In the event of the cost running beyond\nthe amount we had at our disposal, we could go on with one portion of the building.\nQ.\u2014And so tenders were called for in that way ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What tenders were received ?\nA.\u2014I don't quite remember how many. There was Humber's, $73,381 for the whole\nbuilding; for the main building, $53,235; Woodward & Mundy's, full tender, $81,590; and\nfor the main building, $60,590.\nQ.\u2014Is that another tender (handing document to witness) ?\nA.\u2014No; that was a separate tender for the plastering. It was not called for by the\nCorporation.\nQ.\u2014Was it in the specifications ?\nA.\u2014We did not call for separate tenders for the different trades.\nQ.\u2014Was it treated as a tender ?\nA.\u2014No, my Lord.\nQ.\u2014What is that ?\nA. -That is a tender, of Mr. Cotterall for a two-story building on Cormorant Street,\n$55,573, and one-story building on Fisguard Street, 22,025 ; total, $77,598. Elford & Smith,\n$57,190 for the main building, and there is another tender for the remaining portion, $16,580,\nmaking a total of $67,770. McGregor & Jeeves, main building, $49,975 ; building on Fisgard\nStreet, $20,025 ; total, $70,000.\nQ.\u2014These were all the tenders received ?\nA.\u2014I think so; of course, I don't remember them all.\nQ.\u2014What was done by the Committee ?\nA.\u2014They accepted the lowest tender for the main building on Cormorant Street.\nQ.\u2014Whose tender was that ?\nA.\u2014McGregor & Jeeves'.\nQ.\u2014-Did the city decide to build only the main building on Cormorant Street ?\nA.\u2014The Council  decided so at that time.\nQ.\u2014Then the Committee accepted McGregor and Jeeves' tender ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Was the contract subsequently let to them ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Do you know whether that included all the work in the main building ?\nA.\u2014It included all the work that was to be done on the main building\u2014all the work\nthat was to be done to complete it.\nQ.\u2014Was the floor included ?\nA.\u2014It says so in the tender.\nQ.\u2014Was there any asphaltum in connection with that ?\nA.\u2014The tender says so.\nQ.\u2014McGregor & Jeeves' ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014That would be asphaltum over the whole of the building ? Do you know as a matter\nof fact why asphaltum is in their tender ?\nA.\u2014That is a matter between McGregor & Jeeves and their sub-contractors.\nQ.\u2014Had McGregor & Jeeves sub-let the contract ?\nA.\u2014I presume so ; I don't know.\nQ.\u2014As a member of the Market Committee you have been on the work during its progress ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Do you know as a matter of fact who is carrying out the wood work ?\nA.\u2014Mr. Donaldson.\nMr. Richards : The Corporation have let the contract to McGregor & Jeeves, and they\ndon't know anyone else in the contract but McGregor & Jeeves.\nThe Court : I don't see that it is a matter of any importance, because every contractor\nmust sub-let his contract in the different branches.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. lxxi.\nJohn Teague, examined by Mr. Bodwell : You are the architect for the market building?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Have you the contract ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I have it in my pocket.\nQ.\u2014And the specifications ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\n(Both produced, and handed to the Court.)\nQ.\u2014Is this the specification for the main building, or the whole work ?\nA.\u2014For the whole work.\nQ.\u2014Would that include the flooring and all ?\nA.\u2014Everything.\nQ.\u2014What proportion of the work does this asphaltum floor occupy ?\nA.\u2014You mean the part that is executed ?\nQ.\u2014No, the part that is called for by the specifications ?\nA.\u2014The specifications call for asphaltum in both buildings.\nQ.\u2014Can you give us a rough estimate of the proportion it bears to the cost of the rest of\nthe building ?\nA.\u2014Not without measuring it.\nQ.\u2014Will it cost $8,000, that is, the part that is erected now ?\nA.\u2014I don't think so.\nQ.\u2014Is there any more of that work to be done on the other part ?\nA.\u2014No, the whole of the work contracted for is executed ; but there is a portion of the\nbuilding that has not been contracted for that carries some asphaltum with it.\nQ.\u2014Is that greater or less in proportion to the rest of the building ?\nA.\u2014I should think it was greater.    I am not sure about that, though.    No contract has\nbeen let for that yet.\nQ.\u2014Whom has that been done by ?\nA.\u2014The asphalt work has been done by a company.\nQ.\u2014The Pacific Asphalt Company ?\nA.\u2014I don't know what they are called.\nQ.\u2014What price, do you know, has been paid for that work ?\nA.\u2014I have no idea.\nQ.\u2014Who has done the other work\u2014the wood work, for instance ?\nA.\u2014The wood work has been done by Mr. Donaldson.\nQ.\u2014Where has the lumber for the wood work been prepared\u2014at any shops ?\nA.\u2014I believe the joinery work  has been  prepared at Smith & Clark's  shop ; in fact  I\nhave seen some of the work brought from there.\nQ.\u2014Is that a considerable item in the contract ?\nA.\u2014There is a very large amount of wood work in the building.\nQ.\u2014Did you know Mr. Donaldson as a contractor before this work 1\nA.\u2014Yes, I have known him before for several years.\nQ.\u2014As a contractor?\nA.\u2014No.    I haven't known him as a contractor.    I have seen him working round various\nworks.\nMr. Richards : I don't know what all this means.    We have had no intimation of this.\nThe Court : Let us hope that Mr. Bodwell does.    He is not taking away your breath\nwith any startling discoveries.\nMr. Bodwell: Well, you look at that tender of McGregor & Jeeves.    Their tender for\nthe main building is $49,970.    What amount do they put in for asphaltum ?\nA\u2014$11,654.\nQ.\u2014Is that for the whole building ?\nA.\u2014It doesn't say, but I imagine it is for the whole affair.\nQ.\u2014You were not present when the tenders were opened ?\nA.\u2014I don't recollect now whether I was or not.\nQ.\u2014Do you know whether or not separate tenders were put in for the wood work ?\nA \u2014I believe not.     I simply asked in the specifications that contractors divide their\ntenders, keeping the main building separate from the rest.\nQ.\u2014Do I understand, Mr. Teague (not for the purpose of the contract) that you made\nseparate estimates of the cost of the different items of work generally, such as the wood work ?\n Ixxii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA.\u2014No ; I have enough work to do without that.\nMr. Richards : You prepared the specifications for this work, Mr. Teague ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Did you prepare the contract, too ?\nA.\u2014No, the city barristers did that.\nQ.\u2014The work has been done under your direction ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And well done ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nMr. Bodwell : Have the specifications been departed from in any way ?\nA.\u2014Nothing that I know.\nQ.\u2014With reference to the iron work\u2014the girders ?\nA.\u2014Nothing materially.\nThe Court: The work has been done to your satisfaction as architect ?\nA.\u2014Yes, my Lord, and a very good job in all the branches.\nThe Court: Did you give an estimate to the Corporation of what the work would cost\nbefore the tenders were opened, in order that they might ascertain what the costs would be?\nA. - I have no recollection of doing it, but I have an idea of what it would cost, in fact\nI got within $25 of it for the main building.\nMr. Bodwell: Were there any extras ?\nA.\u2014I don't recollect exactly.\nThe Court: Not that I suspect it for a moment, Mr. Teague, but when you make such\nan uncommonly good shot as $25 to the actual cost, you never communicated your opinion to\nthe successful tenderer?\nA.\u2014Oh, no.    I was instructed by the Committee to keep as near $50,000 as possible.\nMr. Bodwell : About these girders, were they specified to be of any one length ?\nA.\u2014Very likely, but very frequently we have to make deviations.\nQ.\u2014Is it a fact that that occurred in the construction of this building ?\nA.\u2014There is a deviation in the construction of the girder from the specifications, but it is\nequally as good, and fully as strong, if not stronger, and more expensive to the contractor,\nbecause there is more metal in it.\nGeorge Jeeves, examined by Mr. Bodwell : You are one of the firm of McGregor &\nJeeves, who tendered on the market building ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What portions of the work did you sub-let ?\nA.\u2014I don't know. I don't attend to that part at all. Mr. McGregor is the man who\nlooks after that.\nQ.\u2014Oh, then, it is Mr. McGregor we want.    We have got the wrong man.\nJohn E. Crane, examined by Mr. Bodwell: You reside in Victoria ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And you are the Secretary of the Pacific Asphalt Company?\nA.\u2014I am.\nQ.\u2014When was that company organized ?\nA.\u2014I think it is two years in March next since it was organized.\nQ.\u2014How many shareholders are there?\nA.\u2014Twelve shareholders.\nQ.\u2014Is John Coughlan one of them ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How many shares has he ?\nA.\u2014251.\nQ.\u2014What is the value of the share ?\nA.\u2014$100.\nQ.\u2014What is the capital stock ?\nA.\u2014$50,000.\nQ.\u2014How much has been issued ?\nA.\u2014It has all been issued.\nQ.\u2014Who has the controlling interest ?\n ..EGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY,\n55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. lxxiii.\nA.\u2014Mr. Coughlan.\nQ.\u2014Who are the directors ?\nA.\u2014The directors for the company for the present year are Mr. Coughlan, myself, Mr.\nW. C. Haywood, and Dr. Milne.\nQ.\u2014Who is the managing director ?\nA.\u2014 Mr. Coughlan is supposed to be\u2014he acts as such.\nQ.\u2014Has that company any contract for asphaltum in Victoria ?\nA.\u2014They have had during the present summer.\nQ.\u2014Have they a contract with McGregor & Jeeves for the market work\u2014I mean the\nmarket building which has just been finished ?\nA.\u2014I think so.\nQ.\u2014Is that contract in writing ?\nA.\u2014No ; it is a verbal contract made with McGregor & Jeeves.\nQ.\u2014Who acted for the company ?\nA.\u2014Mr. Coughlan.\nQ.\u2014What was the amount of the work ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014You have not received any of the money yet ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Have you any entry of the amount ?\nA.\u2014I believe there is a charge in the book.\nQ.\u2014What is the amount?\nA\u2014About $7,000.\nQ.\u2014Do you know the price per yard ?\nA.\u2014No; it was done in a lump sum, at least I believe so, because I didn't do the figuring\nmyself.\nQ.\u2014Who did ?\nA.\u2014Mr. Coughlan.\nQ.\u2014He has not reported to you any of these bills ?\nA.\u2014No.\nThe Court: Is the Coughlan you mention an alderman ?\nA.\u2014Yes, my Lord.\nThe Court: I suppose this is a case in which you are subjected to much rivalry?\nA.\u2014I don't know, my Lord.\nThe Court : Asphaltum is called for in the specification. Some one must put the\nasphaltum there.    Do you mean to say there is no other asphaltum in British Columbia ?\nA.\u2014I have not heard of any, my Lord.\nMr. Bodwell: Is there not a man named Wilson who does that work ?\nThe Court : Sittest thou at my right hand ? (Mr. William Wilson occupied a chair at\nMr. Bodwell's right.)\nMr. Bodwell: Not exactly, my Lord.\nMr. Richards : Where does this asphaltum come from ?\nA.\u2014Ventura, Cal.\nQ.\u2014What is there to do with it ?\nA.\u2014We import and manufacture it in shape for putting on the street.\nAfter some conversation as to the mode of manufacture\u2014\nQ.\u2014How much dividend have you declared?\nA.\u2014None at all.\nQ.\u2014What is the matter?    Losing concern ?\nA.\u2014I can tell you that better at the end of the year; the work that has been done so\nfar is experimental.    We have done work and lost money by it.\nQ.\u2014What contract have you lost money on ?\nA.\u2014That work of Mr. Green's on Trounce Alley.\nQ.\u2014Any money made out of this market, do you know ?\nA.\u2014I don't know what the work has cost us ; it may be a loss there for all I know.\nMr. Mohun asked permission of the Court to correct a statement in his testimony; he\nsaid : I made an error in stating there was no clause in the specification providing for the\nwidth of the trench as well as in the bills  of  quantities.    There is such a clause\u2014clause 58.\n Ixxiv. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nIt states there that the width of the trench at the bottom shall be  18 inches wider than\nthe \" haunch.\"\nAlexander Donaldson, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Where do you live ?\nA.\u201457, Superior street,\nQ.\u2014What is your occupation ?\nA.\u2014Carpenter\u2014contractor to a certain extent.\nQ.\u2014What work are you on at the present time ?\nA.\u2014Been in connection with the market. Do a little work in Smith & Clark's shop\nsometimes.\nQ._Who is this Smith of \" Smith & Clark?\"\nA.\u2014A. J. Smith.\nQ.\u2014Alderman Smith ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Is he any relation of yours ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; brother-in-law ; so my wife tells me.\nQ.\u2014You were contractor for the wood work on the market building ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What was your price ?\nA.\u2014$12,170.\nQ.\u2014Was it a written contract ?\nA.\u2014It was.\nQ.\u2014Any security given by you for the fulfilment of the contract ?\nA.\u2014No ; I gave no security.\nQ.\u2014Did you have any large capital at your command that this security was not\nnecessary ?\nA.\u2014I have some property.\nQ.\u2014Did this wood work require any work to be done on it in the shop in the way of\npreparing and finishing 1\nA.\u2014Yes ; there was a good deal of finishing required. The sashes, doors, and window\nframes, a great deal of work I could not go into.\nQ.\u2014At what shop was all this work done ?\nA.\u2014Smith & Clark's shop.\nQ.\u2014Did you have any arrangements about the shop with Mr. Smith ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; I have done a good deal of work there off and on, and I take work there when\nI can.\nQ.\u2014Was Mr. Smith running the shop at the time ?\nA.\u2014It was running under the foreman. I was there part of the time myself to see the\nwork done.\nQ.\u2014Who is this foreman ?\nA.\u2014Mr. Fullerton.\nThe Court : You were working under the foreman ?\nA.\u2014When I was working in the shop.\nQ.\u2014How long have you been working for Mr. Smith in the shop ?\nA.\u2014A number of years.\nQ.\u2014Were you working in the shop at the time before taking this contract ?\nA.\u2014I was putting up the city clock for Mr. Redfern.\nQ.\u2014Before that, what were you doing?\nA.\u2014I was in the shop.\nQ.\u2014Before that ?\nA.\u2014I was at work for the Government, and before that I was putting up James Bay\nbridge.\nQ. \u2014Before that ?\nA.\u2014I was working in the shop.\nQ.\u2014When you had no other work you were \" working in the shop ?\"\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ._-Do you know how much has been paid Mr. Smith for this work that has been done\nin the shop of the market building woodwork?\nA.\u2014I don't know, but I could ascertain.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. lxxv.\nQ.\u2014What was the arrangement between you and Mr. Smith as to price and payment ?\nA.\u2014When he hands in his bill I pay him for the work.\nQ. \u2014 Before the contract was taken did you not have a conversation with Mr. Smith on\nthe subject ?\nA.\u2014None whatever.\nQ.\u2014Did he know that you we going to try for this contract ?\nA.\u2014Not that I am aware of.\nQ.\u2014He was not very much surprised when you brought the work to his shop ?\nA.\u2014I don't know whether he was surprised or not.\nQ.\u2014You had the contract for the James Bay Bridge ?\nA.\u2014Yes; a sub-contract from Mr. Macdonald.\nQ.\u2014Was there any shop work to be done in connection with that ?\nA.\u2014Very little.\nQ.\u2014But what was done was done at Mr. Smith's shop ?\nA.\u2014It was not.\nMr. Richards: You took this contract under McGregor & Jeeves ?\nA\u2014I did.\nQ.\u2014And you did a good work for them ?\nA.\u2014I did a first-class job; I put in good material and workmanship.\nQ.\u2014And there were no extras on it?\nA.\u2014No, I am sorry to say there was not.\nQ.\u2014Watched you too close, eh ?\nThe Court: Mr. Smith is one of the Committee on Market ?\nA.\u2014I don't know ; I don't attend to anything of that kind, I just attend to my own\nparticular affairs.\nQ.\u2014How many of these shops are there ?\nA.\u2014There is Muirhead & Mann's, Johnson, Walker & Flett, McKillican & Anderson,\nand one or two more I don't exactly remember.\n11.\u2014WATER WORKS.\nMr. 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\nCorporation, and the Corporation have applied such sums to the general revenue account.\nThey also in their reply quote, in this connection, section 34 of the \" Water Works Act,\"\nwhich reads:\u2014\n\" 34. That after the construction of the works, all the revenues arising from or out of the\n\"supplying of water, or from the real and personal property connected with the said water\n\" works acquired by the said Corporation or Commissioner under this Act, shall, after pro-\n\" viding for the expenses attendant upon the maintenance of the said water works, be paid\n\" over to and deposited monthly with the Clerk of the said Corporation of the City of Victoria,\n\" as hereinbefore provided, and shall make part of the general funds of the Corporation, and\n\" may be applied accordingly.\"\nOur contention is twofold on that section:\u2014We say in the first place a great deal of the\nmoney 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\nprovided for at all; for instance, we claim that keeping the filter-beds is really a work of\nmaintenance, but no money was spent on that at all. I shall call Mr. Summerfield, though,\nwho will be able to tell your Lordships what has been done with reference to the reservoir.\nWhat we claim upon that is, that the Council ought not to have abandoned that work after\nhaving spent such a large amount of money upon it. It was not a work which was gone into\nhastily, 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\nbe adopted for supplying the increasing wants of the people with reference to the water supply.\nUnder these circumstances the Corporation, we submit, ought not to have abandoned that\nwork without consulting the ratepayers on the subject; instead of that, after abandoning the\nwork, they spent a very large sum upon the 16-inch main, and having thus committed the\n lxxvi. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\npeople to a very large expenditure, they came forward with their by-law, which, for the first\ntime, brought to public notice, this different scheme. This is the principle that has been\nrunning through the water works management for some time, and which is exemplified at the\npresent moment, for here we find at the last meeting of the Council they have agreed to buy a\nlarge amount of pipe though they have no money to pay for it. With reference to the charges\nof frustrating the efforts of the Water Engineer, we say generally that that has been done by\nneglecting to carry out the suggestion and the measures reported on by him as necessary for\nthe system. And then there are some smaller matters which show a desire on the part of\ncertain members of the Corporation to make the Water Works Commissioner's position one of\ngreat annoyance, so much so, that he is unable to keep it and maintain at the same time any\nself-respect. We submit that matters of this kind ought not to characterize the public acts\nof a public body.\nMr. B. W. Pearse, examined by Mr. Bodwell.\nQ.\u2014You were a member of the Municipal Council at one time?\nA.\u2014Yes, I was in 1887 and part of 1888.\nQ.\u2014Were you on any committee ?\nA.\u2014I was Chairman of the Water Committee, among others.\nQ.\u2014Will you tell us, in your own way, what you know about the reservoir scheme for\nsupplying water to the higher levels ?\n.A.\u2014There was a certain scheme proposed by the then Engineer, Mr. Hendry, by which\nto supply the high level without pumping. The city was then, of course, not so well off as it\nis now, and it was considered advantageous to avoid the expense of pumping. I think that\nwas in 1884. There was a great deal of talk about town on the matter, and a great many\ndifferent 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\ntheir report will be found among your papers there.\n(Report, July 15th, 1884, was handed into Court, also a copy of Mr. Pickering's report.)\nQ.\u2014Was Mr. Pickering a competent man 1\nA.\u2014I should say so. On the 17 th May we had a report of the Water Committee, signed\nby myself and Mr. Grant, who was then a member of that committee, and enclosing a copy of\nMr. Bell's report, dated 4th May, 1887, endorsing Mr. Hendry's scheme very fully.\nQ.\u2014On that report what report did you make to the Council ?\nA.\u2014Report of Water Committee, 7th May, 1887.    (Read and handed in.)\nQ.\u2014What was done on that report ?\nA.\u2014On the 27th June the Water Committee submitted a final report from Mr. Bell.\nThis final report of Mr. Bell's was in substance revoking all that he had said before in favour\nof Mr. Hendry's scheme.\nQ.\u2014Then Mr. Bell made one report in May in favour of the scheme, and in June he made\nanother against it ?\nA.\u2014He did.\nQ.\u2014And this report that the Water Committee sent in on Mr. Bell's second report, was\nthat a minority report ?\nA.\u2014Yes; signed by John Grant and B. W. Pearse.\nQ.\u2014What did you point out in that report ?\nA.\u2014We went into a little argument on the matter of the two reports, for which, by the\nway, we paid $528 (two diametrically opposite reports), greatly against my wish, for I made\nstrenuous efforts to oppose it.    (Report handed in.)\nQ.\u2014What was done then ?\nA.\u2014Very shortly after that, by the wish of a certain member of the Council, Mr.\nSummerfield was appointed Water Works Commissioner, and he advocated a totally different\nsystem.\nQ.\u2014What was done up to this time ?\nA.\u2014In the year 1886, a by-law was passed for $75,000, to carry out the Hendry scheme,\nand a large expenditure had taken place on the high level reservoir. In fact, there are reports\nbearing on the subject.\nQ.\u2014Were you in the Council when Mr. Summerfield was appointed ?\nA.\u2014I was, part of the time. I think he was appointed late in the year\u201412th September,\n1887. He proposed that the 16-inch main should be diverted into three cast iron distributing\npipes, one of which should be laid to the high levels, and the other two for the lower levels.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. lxxvii.\nQ.\u2014Had that question of the 16-inch main been discussed before then ?\nA.\u2014No. The next step in the matter was Mr. Keefer stating that the Hendry scheme\nwas a great advantage in supplying the lower levels, but was not equal to supply of the higher\nlevels.\nQ.\u2014Then the Council abandoned that scheme ?\nA.\u2014Yes, and went on with the other. I felt somewhat staggered when Mr. Keefer\nreported that, because he is a man of considerable experience. Of course, my contention while\nI was in the Council was that the scheme had been approved by the people. The by-law had\nbeen passed, and the money had been voted for the Hendry scheme and no other, and I said :\n\" If you want to alter it, go before the people in a manly, straightforward fashion, and get\ntheir approval.\"\nQ.\u2014Was that done ?\nA.\u2014No, it was not.\nQ.\u2014Were you in the Council in 1888 ?\nA.\u2014I was, a short time\u2014two months.\nQ.\u2014I see it is stated in the annual report, page 20, 1888, that $22,000 was paid on\naccount of the 16-inch main. Up to this time, had any by-law in this respect been submitted\nto the people ?\nA.\u2014No.\nMr. Richards, cross-examining : What time in 1887 were you elected ?\nA.\u2014In January.\nQ._You sat all 1887, and part of 1888 ?\nA.-\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What time in 1888 did you resign ?\nA.\u2014I think it was in February or March.\nQ.\u2014Then you were re-elected in 1888 ?\nA.\u2014No. I had the majority of votes in Johnson Street Ward, and the man who held\nthe greatest number of votes then sat for two years.\nQ.\u2014Did you resign in consequence of the Council not going on with your scheme ?\nA.\u2014Oh, no.\nQ.\u2014There was a reason ?\nA.\u2014Oh, it's all past and gone now ; I don't think it is a matter of very great importance.\nQ.\u2014Why did you not stay and fight the battles of your constituents ? Why did you not\nstay ?    There were no private reasons ?\nA.\u2014I really don't think it worth while raking up that old question. It was the want of\ncourtesy displayed in argument. There was a want of tone in the Council; abandoned\nexpressions that I had never been accustomed to.\nQ.\u2014Why did you not stay and fight it out, like a man ?\nA.\u2014If I were to impugn your veracity, Mr. Richards, you, being a man of education,\nbirth, and position, would resent it.\nMr. Richards : I would fight it out. Now, then, this Hendry scheme : was Hendry an\nengineer ?\nA.\u2014Well, he was a mechanical engineer; not a civil engineer, no.\nQ.\u2014He was taken out of a factory here ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014He advocated a scheme having a reservoir on Pandora Street somewhere ? He\nproposed to use the 12-inch supply pipe from Elk Lake to fill the reservoir, and any water the\ncity was to have was to run through that pipe ?\nA.\u2014That was the only one laid at that time.\nQ.\u2014The scheme was to fill it at night ?\nA.\u2014Yes.    He had an automatic pumping power.\nQ.\u2014So he simply used the water supply to pump water to the higher levels ?\nA.\u2014That was the chief consideration, because, in those days, the higher levels had no\nwater at all.\nQ.\u2014According to that scheme, there would be considerable pressure lost in acquiring the\npower-?    Well, now, while you were in office, $26,000 or $28,000 of this loan was spent ?\nA.\u2014No, no; only $7,000 while I was there. I think the bulk of it was spent the year\nbefore.\nQ.\u2014At this time, while this money was being spent, there was no water commissioner\n Ixxviii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA.\u2014Mr. Hendry was water commissioner.\nQ.\u2014No ; Hendry was only water engineer.\nA.\u2014Hendry ran the concern.\nQ.\u2014While you were there in the fall, Mr. Summerfield was appointed water commissioner ?\nA.\u2014I think it was in the autumn.\nQ.\u2014He was appointed water works commissioner, and was a civil engineer, as well, by\nprofession ?\nA.\u2014I don't know; he will tell you that himself.\nQ.\u2014Did you vote for him ?\nA.\u2014I don't know; I don't remember voting at all in the matter.\nQ.\u2014You knew what his ideas were with regard to the water works ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014He disapproved of your scheme\u2014the Hendry scheme ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Did you know Mr. Keefer ?\nA.\u2014I did.\nQ.\u2014He is a gentleman who stands high in your profession\u2014civil engineer ? Has had a\nconsiderable experience in water works ?    Is considered about the best authority in Canada ?\nA.\u2014That I don't know.\nQ.\u2014You are an engineer ?\nA.\u2014Supposed to be.\nQ.\u2014Now, Mr. Keefer approved Mr. Summerfield's scheme, and condemned Hendry's ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And the Council adopted his view ?\nA.\u2014I suppose they did, for they went on with the works.\nQ.\u2014After they abandoned Hendry's scheme, they went on with the 16-inch main ?\nA.\u2014I don't think they went on with the 16-inch main that year, as far as I can\nremember. I know it was discussed, because I remember retiring outside the bar while it\nwas under discussion.\nQ.\u2014They didn't spend any more of the water works vote on the reservoir ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014They abandoned that, and it has been treated by the public as a dead loss ever since ?\nNow, Mr. Pearse, you are one of the petitioners in this case, and you charge the Council with\ncreating a dead loss on a matter that occurred when you were in the Council. Don't you\nthink you are responsible for some part of it yourself ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Were you consulted, as an engineer, with respect to the advisability of this scheme ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I was.\nQ._When ?\nA.\u2014In 1884.\nQ.\u2014In 1884 you approved of it. If you had disapproved of it, the money would not\nhave been spent ?\nA.\u2014Perhaps not.\nQ.\u2014Don't you think the Council of the day relied on your judgment ?\nA.\u2014Not mine alone; they relied upon the judgment of the people.\nQ.\u2014This $28,000 is now lost, and you, as a petitioner here to-day, seek to throw blame on\nthe Council, who are not engineers at all ?\nA.\u2014The work was done by the Council. We don't condemn the Council for that. What\nI condemn them for is setting aside the people's decision, and spending money illegally on the\n16-inch main.\nQ.\u2014Now, Mr. Pearse, did the people have any particular scheme in view when they voted\nthis money ?    Didn't they vote for water works ?\nA.\u2014Everyone knew what it was for.\nQ.\u2014Don't you think it was the duty of the Municipal Council, after they came to the\nconclusion that your scheme was faulty, to abandon it in favour of a better one ?\nA.\u2014We wanted the people to know what was going on, and the Council would not tell\nus. Although I was chairman of that committee, I never could get any information from Mr.\nSummerfield with regard to his scheme. I had written to him on several occasions to give\nus some information, and I could never get it, and the Council backed him not to give it.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. Ixxix.\nQ.\u2014You have read Mr. Keefer's report 1\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And his idea has been carried out ?\nA.\u2014I suppose so ; I don't know.\nQ.\u2014Do you know what fault he found with Hendry's scheme ?\nA.\u2014It is a long time since I have read it. It was some defect about the lower zones, I\nbelieve.\nMr. Bodwell: Although you were chairman of the Water Committee, you could not get\nany information you asked for?\nA.\u2014Absolutely ignored me.\nMr. Richards : What was it you wanted and did not get ?\nA.\u2014I wanted information of the cost and details of the scheme, and I was absolutely\nprohibited from knowing. Here is one letter I wrote. (Letter read and handed in.) And\nWilliam Wilson was the only man in the Council who backed me. That letter was never\nanswered.\nQ.\u2014Don't you have water at your house now by gravitation ?\nA.\u2014Not one single drop; it is all done by pumping.\nQ.\u2014Is the pipe small up there?\nA.\u2014I don't know what it is, but there is no water. When the pipes in town are being\ndepleted, there is not a drop of water coming to me.\nQ.\u2014When the city is supplied, say at night time, haven't you got water up there by\ngravitation ?\nA.\u2014No; not so far as I know; I don't go out at night. As long as they pump we have\nwater.\nQ.\u2014You know they can't supply these higher levels without pumping ?\nA.\u2014That is what I say.\nQ.\u2014In this scheme there was to be an upper reservoir.    Mr. Keefer approved of this ?\nA.\u2014I believe he did. What I wish to emphasize is that the Council of which I was a\nmember spent a certain amount of that $75,000, which was voted by the people expressly for\nthe Hendry scheme. If they had taken my advice, and put Mr. Summerfield's scheme fairly\nand squarely before the people, I believe it would have been carried. But they would not do\nthat.\nQ.\u2014What is your complaint ? What has been done wrong ? You complain that the\nmoney has been spent improperly ?\nA.\u2014I complain that they took money which the people had voted for one purpose and\nspent it upon another.\nQ.\u2014That is, instead of going on with the Hendry scheme, they spent it on Mr. Summer-\nfield's scheme. What would you have them do ? When you say it was voted expressly for\nthe Hendry scheme, can you point out anything in the by-law which shows that the money\nwas voted for that alone ?\nA.\u2014It was generally understood to be for that.    There was no other.\nThe 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\nthe city, but it does not bind the city down to any particular scheme. In extending the\nwater works, I understand Mr. Pearse's objection is that it is an unauthorized expenditure of\nthe balance of that loan.\nQ.\u2014This pipe has been extended out away beyond the Public Hospital ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What is the size of the pipe in front of your house ?\nA.\u2014It is a five-inch pipe, I think ; it used to be a three-inch. I remember when the water\ncame to my place. I sat up all hours of the night, my wife and I, with a lamp. We saw a\nlittle dribble like that, and I said \"Hooray? the water's a-coming!\" I paid $30 a year for\nthat, and I got no water.\nQ.\u2014Where did they get water from then\u2014from Elk Lake ?\nA-Yes.\nQ.\u2014That was with the old twelve-inch main ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\n Ixxx. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nPeter Summerfield, examined by Mr. Bodwell: You have acted for the City of Victoria\nfor some time as Water Commissioner?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014When were you appointed ?\nA.\u2014Towards the latter end of August, 1887, or the beginning of September.\nQ.\u2014In the course of your duties, you have examined the works thoroughly ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Do you consider, as an engineer, that the work of construction is complete 1\nA.\u2014Complete for what? They are complete for supplying 5,000 people, and they are not\ncomplete to supply 50,000 people.\nQ.\u2014Are they complete to supply 20,000 people?\nA.\u2014No ; they are not.\nQ.\u2014What would be necessary in order to complete them ?\nA.\u2014That is a question requiring a vast amount of study, depending on the localities to\nbe supplied, the location, and a thousand and one other things enter into the problem.\nQ.\u2014Are the filter beds sufficient to filter the water coming down from Elk Lake?\nA.\u2014The filter beds are the same filter beds as in 1887.\nQ.\u2014How much water was coming down per diem in 1887 ?\nA.\u2014I think it is embodied in the reports of that time. I think my report will contain\nthat information.    About 800,000 gallons.\nQ.\u2014What amount is being delivered now during the year 1891 ?\nA.\u2014I don't know what is being delivered now.\nQ.\u2014During the first part of the year ?\nA.\u2014Ranges from a million and a half to a million and three-quarters gallons. In times\nof excessive draft it may reach two millions of gallons in the 24 hours.\nQ.\u2014But you say that the filter beds are the same as when only 700,000 gallons were run\nthrough ?\nThe Court: How much are these beds capable of filtering ?\nA.\u2014They do not filter at all, my Lord; they simply screen the impurities. But my\nreport to the Council, 12th of September, 1887, shows my views on this question. They are\nthe same now as they were then. If the city wants water that shall be wholesome and good,\nit can only be supplied by bringing it direct from Elk Lake, instead of bringing it from the\nmorass which at present supplies the water. I advised a thirty-inch main from the filter beds\nto 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\nLake to the filter beds, by connecting a main through some land and cutting into Elk Lake\nfurther up.    The cost of this would be about $15,000.\nQ.\u2014Is that a work of construction, Mr. Summerfield ?\nA.\u2014It would have to be constructed.\nQ.\u2014No ; but would you consider it a work of maintenance ?\nA.\u2014No ; I should consider it a part of construction.\nQ.\u2014Was any money appropriated from the water works funds for that purpose while you\nwere in office ?\nA.\u2014No, there has never been.\nQ.\u2014What has been the practice with reference to the water works revenue ?\nA.\u2014The practice has been to the best of my belief to get as much of the water works\nrevenue for water works purposes as possible.\nQ. \u2014What has been paid as a general rule out of the water works revenue for general\npurposes during your term of office ?\nA.\u2014The annual reports show.\nQ.\u2014Can't you tell?\nA.\u2014It is admitted that they appropriated the revenue of the water works for the genera]\npurposes of the Corporation.\nBy Mr. Bodwell: W7hat I want to know is what that money was appropriated to ?\nA.\u2014Payment of salaries, permanent staff, interest on sinking fund; beyond that the\nwhole went into general revenue.\nQ.\u2014Any appropriations made for extensions ?\nA.\u2014Extensions were always managed by loans as far as practicable.\nQ.\u2014You were in favour of the 16-inch main ?\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. lxxxi.\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And it was subsequently constructed under your directions ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014After the main was constructed, did anything occur with reference to the testing of\nthat main ?\nA.\u2014Oh, it has been the same old story for the last four years, the reservoir versus the\n16-inch main, which ever people got the strongest would carry out their views in the matter.\nThose in favour of the reservoir scheme endeavoured to prove that the main scheme was a\nfailure.\nQ. \u2014 How was it endeavoured to prove that\u2014in what way?\nA.\u2014By proving that the main didn't bring any water to the high levels.\nQ.\u2014How was it proved to fail ?\nA.\u2014Stopping of the supply in the night time and breaking the column of water by\nopening the flush valves.\nQ.\u2014That is the test that was made ?\nA.\u2014They were not tests. The hydrants down in the lower level were opened pretty\nfrequently, and every possible way of increasing the draft on the main to the utmost point\nwas adopted.\nQ.\u2014Who can conduct these tests ?\nA.\u2014The Water Committee.\nQ.\u2014Did you not have charge of it 1\nA.\u2014Oh, no ; only so far as their test could result in ridicule, because I was the only one\nthat possessed any information.\nQ.\u2014WTas the active work of the test conducted by the Water Committee ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014They didn't apply to you for any information ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ. \u2014Did nothing happen ?\nA.\u2014Oh, yes ; the water was shut off from the city for one night. It is in my report of\n1890.\nQ.\u2014Tell us what occurred on that occasion.\nA.\u2014There was an advertised test of the 16-inch main on the following day, when it was\nsaid that the city would be supplied by the 12-inch main only. About eight o'clock at night\nI went to the foreman of the water works and told him that a column of water some forty\nfeet in height had got lost somewhere.\nQ.\u2014What do you mean by that?\nA.\u2014I mean that the pressure on the guage showed that a column of water forty feet in\nheight was missing. It showed about 125 instead of 165. I took a man with me and we\ntried the 12-inch main. Found it all right. We then went to the 16-inch main and tested\nthe air pipe. The water rushed up my sleeve, and I knew there was some obstruction. The\nmatter was righted, and it was found in the test that the 12-inch main was only able to get\nwater in the city to an elevation not exceeding 125 feet above high water mark.\nQ.\u2014Who was on the Water Committee ?\nA.\u2014Aldermen Smith, McKillican, and Robertson.\nQ.\u2014Were tests made after that ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How were these tests conducted?\nA.\u2014The next test was the 12-inch main. I took precautions this time by placing a lock\nand chain on the valve at the dam, so that the 12-inch main could only supply all the water it\ncould bring.\nQ.\u2014Were there many breaks in the main that year ?\nA.\u2014After every test the 12-inch main would give.\nQ.\u2014You were away from the city for some time\u2014when you returned had anything\noccurred ?\nA.\u2014 I found that things had got into good shape while I was away. People without\nwater for a week on the higher levels.\nQ.\u2014Did you make any enquiries as to the cause of this state of things ?\nA.\u2014I 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\n Ixxxii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nsprinkler, the Sanitary Department were flushing the box drains, and the Fire Department\nwere putting in their practices at the time of the greatest consumption. I notified the\nSanitary Department it would be necessary to confer with me before opening any hydrants\nfor flushing drains. I notified the Fire Department to consult with me in opening hydrants,\nexcept in cases of actual fire. The matter came up in Council, and the hydrants were transferred to the Fire Department. A resolution was proposed\u2014I would not be positive that it\npassed\u2014instructing the Chief Engineer of the Fire Department to allow the Sanitary Officer\nto use the hydrants for flushing purposes.\nQ.\u2014What effect would all this have on the evils that you were endeavouring to  remedy ?\nA.\u2014It simply gave them control of the water works.\nQ.\u2014Did you take any action ?\nA.\u2014Tendered my resignation ; that's all.\nMr. Richards, cross-examining : There was a little unpleasantness\u2014a difference of opinion\nbetween you and some members of the Council, and these men were in favour of the Hendry\nscheme ?\nA.\u2014Precisely, the same old fight; and you see it to-day.\nQ.\u2014How much had been spent on the water works this year before you left ?\nA.\u2014I have no idea.\nQ.\u2014Where have you done work outside of the old corporation limits ?\nA.\u2014I could not say from memory.\nQ.\u2014You commenced back of Higgins' house, at the old city boundary ?\nA.\u2014There was a six-inch pipe down to the junction of Oak Bay Avenue ; a four-inch\npipe down to the Jubilee Hospital, and a four-inch pipe down to Richmond Avenue, on Oak\nBay Avenue.\nQ.\u2014Do you know what they cost ?\nA.\u2014As a rule four-inch pipe costs a dollar a foot laid.\nQ.\u2014Did you do any work inside the old city limits?\nA.\u2014Yes ; the old twelve-inch main on the Saanich road was replaced from Market\nstreet to Tolmie Avenue by a twenty-four-inch steel main. There was a four-inch main on\nthe Burnside road from Douglas street to the trestle bridge.\nQ.-\u2014I suppose these all cost a good deal of money ? Have you any idea how much money\nwas spent on the water works this year ?\nA.\u2014I could not give you the figures.\nQ.\u2014Is the present scheme not sufficient to supply the higher levels ?\nA.\u2014That Fern wood road main is not connected with the sixteen-inch main directly, but\nit is indirectly through a number of smaller pipes.\nQ.\u2014The two pipes that are down now are sufficient to supply a population of what ?\nA.\u2014Referring to my report of 1887 I say that the new sixteen-inch main, together with\nthe twelve-inch main, will, I believe, supply all wants till the city has attained twice its\npresent size.    That, I think, it has now.\nQ.\u2014There is in last year's report an amount charged to water works, $18,668.14; that\nis not all salaries ?\nA.\u2014Salaries and maintenance.\nMr. Bodwell : What was the amount of the water rents ?\nA.\u2014$43,603.76.\nQ.\u2014It would not have cost more than $15,000 of this to have taken the pipe out to Elk\nLake?\nA.\u2014I ought to say this : immediately that 16-inch main was laid and the water turned\nin the Colquitz people commenced suit, claiming $100,000 damages. That arbitration case\nextended throughout the whole of that year and 1890, and was only decided at the beginning\nof this year.    The city did nothing in the meantime with this scheme.\nQ.\u2014Were no steps taken this year to do this work ?\nA.\u2014No, not this year; there was a loan proposed out of which it was intended to do it.\nQ.\u2014Was there any proposal to do it out of the general revenue of the water works ?\nA\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Do you know what amount is in the bank now to the water Vorks loan sinking\nfund\u2014the whole of the loans ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014What is the amount of the loans for the water works altogether ?\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. lxxxiii.\nA.\u2014I think it is getting on well towards $400,000 ; it is about $395,000. That brings\nup the question of the Water Works Act. It resolves itself into this : the city gets free\nwater for fire and municipal purposes. If you are to keep a strict water works account the\ncity should pay the water works something for that water. The Water Works Act sufficiently\ncontemplated something of that kind. If this were done the city would now owe the water\nworks some $150,000 ; if, on the other hand, as at present, the city simply charge the water\nworks with its interest and sinking fund then the water-works owe the city about $75,000.\nCourt rose Tuesday evening.\nWednesday, December 2nd, 1891.\nAid. Holland, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Were you at the last meeting of the Council ?\nA.\u2014I was.\nQ.\u2014Were arrangements made then to purchase a number of water pipes, do you know ?\nA.\u2014It was a special meeting called for the consideration of tenders for 600 tons of\nwater pipe, and the tender of Messrs. Findlay, Durham & Brodie was accepted, and the\ncontract awarded to them for $39.37 per ton.\nQ.\u2014There was no money in hand from the water works revenue to pay that ?\nA.\u2014That was also stated in the meeting ?\nQ.\u2014Where is the money to come from to pay that ?\nA.\u2014It will have to be raised out of the next year's revenue, I presume.\nThe Court : Isn't that one of the provisions of the Act\u2014that you shan't anticipate the\nnext year's revenue, and it is one of the charges brought against you here ?\nA.\u2014My vote is recorded against it on those grounds. But the Council in awarding the\ncontract deemed it was a step in the right direction, for the simple fact that they can purchase\nthe pipe much cheaper now than five or six months hence.\nThe Court : How do you know that the price of pipes will not go down still further ? It\nis hard to say whether it will or not, besides you must not do an illegal action.\nMr. Richards : The Council considered they were making a very good bargain for the\ncorporation.    How do the pipes come here ?\nA.\u2014They are to be shipped from England.\nQ.\u2014Are they shipped or to be shipped ?\nA.\u2014To be shipped.    They will not be here till next year some time.\nQ.\u2014The Council will require them next year ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You haven't paid anything on them 1\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014You intended to apply for a loan for streets as well as water works this year ?\nA-Yes.\nQ.\u2014You haven't pushed them.\nA.\u2014No; they were withdrawn.\nMr. Bodwell : Were you in the Council when the City Hall contract was let ?\nA.\u2014No, I was not.\n13.\u2014EXTRAVAGANCE AND MISMANAGEMENT GENERALLY.\nMr. Bodwell: What I wish to go into in this matter is the question of salaries. I have\nasked for a statement of the salaries which are to be paid this year, and the City Auditor\nhas given me this statement. I wish to examine him on this, because the Municipal Act says\nthat officials shall be appointed by by-law, and shall receive the salaries mentioned in the\nby-law (section 93). I am informed that a number of officials have been appointed without\nany by-law for the purpose at all, and the salaries of a number of others have been raised\nwithout any by-law authorizing it.    And then I wish to  show the increase of salaries  that\n lxxxiv. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nhave been taking place from year to year. All these questions I expect can be answered\nby Mr. Raymur.\nThe Court: I suppose the Council was required to pass a by-law saying we must have a\nCity Clerk, and his duties shall be so and so; a City Treasurer, and his duties shall be so and\nso ; but is it necessary that the by-law shall say we appoint Mr. Dowler to be our City Clerk,\nMr. Raymur to be our City Auditor, and so on ? You must appoint every year, but you can\nappoint by simple resolution at the first meeting of the Council.\nMr. Bodwell: But the Council cannot by resolution originate an office.\nThe 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\nthat the power of displacing and appointing should be, if necessary, sudden.\nMr, Raymur, examined by Mr. Bodwell:\nYou have made up a list of the amount paid, or that will be paid, for salaries during the\npresent year ?\nA.\u2014I made up a list showing the salaries of the permanent officials.\nQ.\u2014Is that the list you made?    (Produced.)\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What is the gross total?\nA.\u2014$75,522.00. Those given in the answer of the city were only an estimate; this is a\ncarefully prepared and exact statement.    (List marked Exhibit \"T.\")\nQ.\u2014Under the head of \" Fire,\" there : Are these men to whom thirty days' notice must\nbe given ?\nA.\u2014I think the Chief and Assistant Engineer must; but the call men can be discharged\nat will.\nThe Court: (Referring to the by-law) Chief Engineer, Assistant Engineer, and Firemen.\nIt looks as if firemen were permanent officers. The Act says they shall be appointed by bylaw.\nQ.\u2014Take the streets : Are these permanent appointments ? Do you know which ones\nwere appointed by by-law ?\nA.\u2014Mr. Lynn, the Street Commissioner, I think was. I don't know whether Mr. Leech\nwas.\nQ.\u2014Mr. Matthews ; what is he ?\nA.--He is Draughtsman in Mr. Leech's office.\nQ.\u2014There is no by-law appointing Mr. Matthews ?\nA.\u2014I don't think so.\nQ.\u2014Is there any by-law which appoints a clerk to the office of the City Surveyor ?\nA.\u2014I could not say.\nQ.\u2014Did you ever see one ?\nA.\u20141 don't remember.\n(By-law appointing Street Commissioner handed in.)\nA.\u2014Mr. Matthews had $50 a month last year, but I think it was raised during the present year.\nQ.\u2014Has it been raised by by-law ?\nA.\u2014Not that I know of.\nQ.\u2014Electric light:   Does the by-law for 1891 provide for the Electrician, $1,800 ?\nA.\u2014I think so.\nThe Court: Does any one know the average number of prisoners in the jail ?\nA.\u2014There are more this year than in others. We pay the Government fifty cents a day\nfor the keep of those in the jail.\nThe Court: Oh, it doesn't cost anything like that; they cost from 16 to 18 cents a day.\nA.\u2014That is what we pay for them.\nThe Court: They make something out of you.\nQ.\u2014There are \" Sundry Items \" here ?\nA.\u2014There are two of those chargeable to water-works\u2014Tax Collector Partridge and his\nassistant.\nQ.\u2014Has his salary been raised ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Where is the by-law for that ?\nA.\u2014I could not say.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. lxxxv.\nQ.\u2014Was there a by-law?\nA.\u2014Most of these salaries are raised on the recommendation of a Committee.\nQ.\u2014Assessor $1,800?\nA.\u2014I think he was appointed by by-law.\nQ.\u2014Assistant Assessor ?\nA-\u2014He was appointed sometime this year.\nQ._Who is this City Clerk, E. C. Smith ?\nA.\u2014He is the Assistant City Clerk.    He is in Mr. Kent's office now.\nQ.\u2014How long has he been there ; I mean in the city employ ?\nA.\u2014Seven or eight years.\nQ.\u2014Assistant Clerk Humphreys ?\nA.\u2014He is in Mr. Dowler's office.\nQ.\u2014How was he appointed ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014Typewriter ?\nA.\u2014That is in Mr. Dowler's office. Some of these\u2014Mr. Kent, Mr. Partridge, and Mr.\nLeech\u2014go away back, to I don't know when.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell, Mr. Raymur, how the appropriations for salaries this year compare\nwith last year ?\nA.\u2014No, I never compared them.\nQ.\u2014Do you know whether they are greater or less ?\nA. \u2014 Oh ; they're a little more, I think. Several of the salaries have been raised, and\nthere are one or two offises that didn't exist last year.\nQ.\u2014Last year they were more than the year before ?\nA.\u2014I couldn't say.\nThe 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\nregard to those.\nMr. Bodwell : If Mr. Raymur would give us a statement showing the increase in the\nstreets and sundries\u2014\nA.\u2014I think I can give you that right now\u2014$5,820.\nQ.\u2014Increase this year?\nA\u2014Yes.\nThe Court : That is a very meagre increase, isn't it ?\nA.\u2014The office work is twice as large as it was last year.\nQ.\u2014What does this assistant to the surveyor do ?\nA.\u2014I don't know exactly what he does, he is Mr. Leech's assistant.\nQ.-\u2014How does it come then that this cemetery map had to be prepared outside the office?\nA.\u2014I haven't any idea; I don't know anything about that. I suppose it was because\nthey hadn't time to do it ?\nMr. Richards : Is this the list of amounts that will have been paid in salaries by the city\nto the end of the year ?\nA.\u2014That is the full rate.\nQ.\u2014There 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\nconstables altogether, excluding the superintendent.\nA.\u2014They were increased at the beginning of the year.\nQ.\u2014And the people are applying for more ?    The Indian reserve, that is now in the city ?\nA.\u2014Yes. One of the reasons given for the increase is the larger area that has to be\ncovered.\nQ.\u2014The Police Magistrate has been increased from $1,800 to $2,400. Then the chief\nengineer of the Fire Department has the same as he had last year?\nA.\u2014No, that was raised at the beginning of the year. I think the firemen were raised\nall round.    There are four drivers ; they get $75 now ; I think they were raised all round.\nQ.\u2014The Fire Department has been quite efficient this year ? There have been no great\nfires?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014And so has the Police Department ?\nA.\u2014So far as I know.\n lxxxvi. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014While on that point, there is quite a large sum collected in the police court in fines\nand penalties that will go far to pay this.    What do they amount to ?\nA.\u2014I couldn't say.\nQ.\u2014You ought to have here something paid Mr. Dowler as Clerk of the Police Court ?\nA.\u2014I included that in the charges.\nQ.\u2014It ought to have been in here as part of the expense of the Police Court.\nMr. Raymur : At September the Police Court fines amounted to $1,575.\nQ.\u2014Then City Surveyor, I suppose you can't do without him ?\nA.\u2014I don't suppose so.\nQ.\u2014There is Street Inspector Lynn ; he has something to do with the water works ?\nA.\u2014He is acting Water Commissioner until someone is appointed.\nQ.\u2014Then there is foremen and men working on the streets. Engineer Jumbo, that is\nthe rock crusher.    Carpenters ?\nA.\u2014Those are the men repairing the sidewalks.\nQ.\u2014Park keeper ?\nA.\u2014That is at Beacon Hill.\nQ.\u2014Electric light; Mr. McMicking's salary $1,800 ?\nA.\u2014I might mention that Mr. McMicking provides a lineman out of that to keep the\nlines of the city in order.\nQ.\u2014Dr. Milne, $720, Medical Health Officer. Then there is this man Mr. Bailey,\nSanitary Officer ?\nA.\u2014He looks after the entire working of the health department.\nThe Court: He is the man with the nose?\nA.\u2014He looks out for and abates all nuisances.\nQ.\u2014Water Commissioner, $1,800 ?\nA.\u2014That is the annual salary ; there is no Water Commissioner now ; Mr. Lynn gets\n$25 a month extra for acting.\nQ.\u2014Foreman Preece ?    He is that heavy stout man ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What does he do ?\nA.\u2014He is foreman ; he superintends all the work under the Commissioner. He is the\nworking man of the whole thing.\nQ.\u2014So far as you know can any of these men be dispensed with ?\nA.\u2014Not that I know of.\nQ.\u2014Then \" Sundries :\" City Clerk Dowler, $1,800 ; that includes the $300 as Police\nCourt Clerk ?\nA.\u2014No; I didn't put it in there.\nQ.\u2014 Then Partridge, Collector of Water Rates ; you can't dispense with him?\nA.\u2014No ; he is about the hardest worked man in the whole concern\nQ.\u2014Mr. Raymur, I see you are down for $1,000.    You work cheap ?\nA.\u2014I am not there all the time.\nQ.\u2014Assessor Northcott, $1,800.    He has had a pretty hard year's work ?\nA.\u2014Yes; he works pretty hard. He is on the go all the time. In addition to being\nAssessor he is Building Inspector. He is superintendent of all buildings that belong to the\ncity, and the plans for all new buildings to be erected in the city ; the plans are submitted to\nhim.\nQ.\u2014Was there an assessment roll made last year ?\nA.\u2014There is an assessment roll made every year.\nQ.\u2014How long has that been the practice ?\nA.\u2014Since 1889.    There was none made in 1888.\nQ.\u2014You made one in 1889, 1890, and 1891 ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; and they're working on 1892 now.\nQ.\u2014Do you recollect when the last one was made before 1889 ?\nA.\u2014In 1887, I think ; Mr. Russell used to be Assessor as well as Treasurer. It was a\nvery small job then to what it is now, and this year with the new limits being put in it will\nbe a very long job.\nQ.\u2014What is the calculation of the value of the property being brought in ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014This assistant of Mr. Northcott's, what does he do.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. lxxxvii.\nA.\u2014He does all the clerical work; sends out the notices and prepares Mr. Northcott's\nfield-notes when he is out.\nQ.\u2014Has he been there all this year ?\nA.\u2014He was appointed sometime in the spring.\nQ.\u2014Then, Smith ; he is Mr. Dowler's clerk?\nA.\u2014He sometimes goes to the Police Court; and he takes Mr. Dowler's place at the\nCity Council sometimes.    But now he is in Mr. Kent's office.\nQ.\u2014Assistant W^ater Tax Collector ?\nA.\u2014We simply found that Mr. Partridge couldn't do the work, and we had to get\nanother man.\nQ.\u2014Assistant City Clerk Humphreys 1\nA.\u2014He is the boy in Mr. Dowler's office.\nQ.\u2014Typewriter Wilby\u2014a new man ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Then Librarian McGregor\u2014takes charge of the free library ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014He has an assistant there ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Pound-keeper Shaw\u2014been there a long time\u2014been any increase ?\nA.\u2014I think ten dollars a month.\nQ.\u2014Cemetery-keeper ?\nA.\u2014That is the man who looks after the graves.\nQ.\u2014There is some revenue from that ?\nA.\u2014Oh, yes ; two or three thousand dollars a year.\nQ.\u2014A great deal more than sufficient to pay his salary ?    So does this man Shaw ?\nA\u2014The pound doesn't pay its expenses, but the cemetery is self-sustaining.\nQ.\u2014Creed, that is the janitor ?\nA.\u2014Yes; he takes care of the City Hall.\nQ.\u2014Tax Collector ?\nA.\u2014That is the Road Tax Collector.\nThe Court : That doesn't pay expenses either ?\nA.\u2014Oh, yes ; he gets $50 a month and commission.\nQ.\u2014Do you collect $600 a year ?\nQ.\u2014We'll get three or four thousand dollars this year. Next year we'll have to collect\nthe school tax ; that's hard work.\nQ.\u2014Population of the city increasing ?\nA.\u2014I think so.\nQ.\u2014And expenses are necessarily on the increase ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Mr. Northcott, Assessor ; how much did you raise his salary ?\nA.\u2014His salary has been $1,800 always.\nThe Court: Don't you think that is a very meagre recognition of his services ? He has\nplaced you in possession of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and you don't raise his\nsalary.    Gratitude is a keen sense of favours to come, is it not ?\nTHE CITY HALL CONTRACT.\nMr. Raymur, examined by Mr. Bodwell : Can you tell us how the City Hall building\nwas carried out ?\nA.\u2014Which do you mean\u2014the addition to the City Hall that includes the present\nTreasurer's office ?\nQ.\u2014When was the contract for that addition let ?\nA.\u2014I think at the end of 1889.    I would not be certain.\nQ.\u2014The Council of 1889 made the contract?\nThe Court: It is only another instance of infraction of the law, which they with some\nshow of reason, perhaps, committed. They found that it was absolutely neeessary to increase\nthe City Hall; they entered into a contract for that purpose, and  left it to their successors\n xxxviii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nto pay for.    If their successors had not decided to pay for it then the retiring Aldermen would\nhave had to pay for it.    But the incoming Council  shoulders the responsibility  of the outgoing Council\u2014that is your case, Mr. Taylor ?\nMr. Taylor : That is about the result of it.\nThe Court : The contract was let in 1889, and the next Council had to raise a by-law of\n3,000 to pay for it.\nREDUCING RATES.\nMr. Bodwell : The charge we make in this is that in the year 1890 an amendment was\npassed to the Municipal Act which permitted the Council to pass by-laws reducing the rates\nfor raising the sinking fund in cases where it would be deemed necessary or desirable (section\n93.)\nThe 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\nshakes the credit of the city, because it can go into the market and say to the debenture-\nholders : \"I gave you such and such a security, but I reserve to myself the right to take from\nthat security as much as I choose.\" That section directly attacks the credit of the debenture-\nholders of the city. I think the city should go down on its knees and beg the Legislature to\nrepeal that section.\nMr. Taylor : The sinking fund thus raised every year is a fund which, with accumulated\ninterest, at the end of the period of the loan is calculated to be sufficient to wipe out that\ndebt. Lots of small loans have been made in this city years ago of $15,000 and $20,000 each,\nand the special rate levied each year is calculated to be sufficient to wipe out that loan at\nthe end of the period. They fixed a rate that year ; and say the assessed value was then\n$3,000,000, the result was that when the value became ten millions the amount raised was\nmore than three times that necessary for the sinking fund. Then the Legislature allows the\nCouncil to reduce the rate levied, so that it will be sufficient to raise the sinking fund.\nThe Court: I suppose what you mean is perfectly honest; but the debenture-holders\nhold a certain security. The rate struck originally raises, we will say, $500. In another\nyear our property, which was before worth one million, is now worth ten millions, and instead\nof levying a cent we will levy one-tenth of a cent. The next year the valuation of the city\nfalls back to its original value; the rate made by the city does not change, and there is no\npower here to enable the city to strike a larger rate. The rate once reduced is reduced\naltogether. It holds out an opportunity to a dishonest Council to lessen the value to the\ndebenture-holder of the security he holds. It does this in the most direct manner. No\ndebenture-holder would like a clause such as that.\nMr. Raymur, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Have these by-laws reducing the rates been\nacted on in collecting moneys for the sinking fund this year ?\nA.\u2014We collect all in one rate, and put by so much for the sinking fund.\nQ.\u2014The original by-law states that a certain amount annually is to be placed to the\ncredit of the sinking fund.\nA.\u2014The way this is done : We add all these special rates together. They are all lumped\ntogether. If we had to levy each of these rates separately we could not have done it. There\nare twenty-one different rates there, and if we had to levy each one separately we would\nnever have got through.    You can't put a large .staff on a work like that.\nThe Court: Supposing your rate was ten times the amount of the sinking fund, you would\nnot pay that amount in ?\nA.\u2014No, only the amount of the fund.\nThe Court: A rate is to be levied sufficient to cover interest and sinking fund. They\nhave levied a rate of one-tenth to meet that fund; that tenth produces five times the amount\nof the fund. You were not bound to raise more than was necessary to pay the interest and\nsinking fund. Now in reducing the rate you are also reducing the security of the debenture-\nholder materially, because the value of the security comes down.\nAfter some discussion on the legality of the by-law, Mr. Richards submitted that no harm\nhad been done, because the by-law had not received the sanction of the Lieutenant-Governor\nin Council.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. lxxxix.\nThe Court: No one has said that anything has been done, but here is the section and  it\nis a direct attack on the security of the debenture-holders.\nTHE CEMETERY ADDITION.\nIn explanation of this, Mr. Taylor said that as a matter of fact the lots originally belonged\nto the Douglas estate, who granted a lease, with the option of purchase, to Mr. Pemberton;\nMr. Pemberton transferred that to Mr. Snowden; Mr. Snowden went to the Douglas estate,\ngot evidence of the fee, and transferred it to the city. But in the interval it turns out that\nMr. Snowden had mortgaged it back to Mr. Pemberton.\nCharles Cecil Pemberton, examined by Mr. Bodwell:\nQ.\u2014You are a solicitor ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You have had some business to do with reference to lots 80, 80b, and 81, Fairfield\nFarm estate?\nA\u2014Yes.\n(Witness explained the location on the map.)\nQ.\u2014Is that document the title for that land ?\nA.\u2014Yes; that is the original lease from the Trustees of the estate to my father, dated\nAugust 31st 1881.\nQ.\u2014For what time ?\nA.\u2014For thirty years, I think.\nQ.\u2014Are there any restrictive covenants in that lease ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Is there anything else ?    Any other restrictions on the property ?\nA.\u2014I don't remember anything else particularly.\nQ.\u2014Is there a right of way reserved across that property ?\nA.\u2014No, but the people have passed up and down .there,\nQ.\u2014How long has that been so?\nA.\u2014As long as I can remember.\nQ.\u2014What else do you know about this title ?    Did your father make any disposition of it ?\nA.\u2014Yes, he assigned it to Mr. Snowden.\nQ.\u2014Did Mr. Snowden do anything with it ?\nA.\u2014He mortgaged it back, by way of underlease, for $13,200.\nQ.\u2014Is that still in existence?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Never been cancelled ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Do you know anything else about this property ?   Has there been a fence built there ?\nA.\u2014Yes; on section 80.\nQ.\u2014Is there any fence on section 81 ?\nA.\u2014A little old fence.\nThe Court: They are entitled to do it; it is their property.\nA.\u2014I don't know that it is their property.\nQ.\u2014Section 81 is the one they have bought; 80b is the one they have entered into an\nagreement to purchase, and may never purchase. What I want to prove is that they have\nerected a fence on section 80b.\nThe Court: You know the locality. If you look here you will see that 80 is the part\nbetween the road and Mr. Pemberton's; 80b is the part that used to be occupied by Mr. Woods;\ndon't you see.\nQ.\u2014Do you know who built the fence ?\nA.\u2014I think it was built by the Corporation.\nQ.\u2014Is there any building on that land occupied by anyone ?\nA.\u2014There is an old house there.\nQ.\u2014Occupied ?\nA.\u2014It was a little while ago.\n xc. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nMr. Richards : Has Mr. Snowden ever offered to pay you ?\nA.\u2014There was some talk about it a little while ago.\nQ.\u2014Does the mortgage cover any other property ?\nA.\u2014It covers a lot of property.\nQ.\u2014Your father had the lease, with the option of purchasing quite a large tract there ?\nA.\u2014Sixty-six acres.\nQ.\u2014How much did he sell Mr. Snowden ?\nA.\u2014About 59, I think.\nQ.\u2014He assigned the lease to you and he mortgaged it back for how much ?\nA\u2014$13,200.\nQ.\u2014Is your security good for the whole of the property ?\nA.\u2014I think so.\nQ.\u2014You could easily release these few acres ?    How much did you get from him ?\nA.\u2014$17,000, with the mortgage; about $4,500 cash.\nQ.\u2014You would be perfectly safe if you released  this  piece  from the mortgage ?    Why\ndon't you release it and let the Corporation have it ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014Have you refused to take the money ?\nA.\u2014I don't think I have absolutely refused.\nQ.\u2014How much do you want for it ?\nA.\u2014How much do you offer ?\nQ.\u2014Don't you think you ought to do this\u2014a young man beginning life ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014Don't you think your father would have done it had he lived ?\nA.\u2014I don't know anything about that.\nMr. Snowden, examined by Mr. Bodwell:\nQ.\u2014You sold some land to the city ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You entered into an agreement for the sale of another section\u2014is that the agreement ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Now this agreement is dated 3rd June, whereby you agree to sell to the city, for\n$2,000 per acre, section 80b as it is laid down in the map plan of Fairfield Farm estate, and\nsaid to contain 4 and 37-100 acres, more or less, to be paid for on or before 1st June, 1893 ?\nHere is a clause inserted in writing ?\nA.\u2014That is a clause I wouldn't agree to, and I ordered it to be struck out. I am pretty\nsure that clause was struck out at the signing of the agreement.\nQ.\u2014What was it you wouldn't agree to ?\nA.\u2014I don't remember now.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell by reading that document ?\nA.\u2014I fancy we didn't want any burying there\u2014to be used as a cemetery. We didn't\nwant them to occupy it as a cemetery until it had been paid for.\nThe Court: They are not in possession yet ?\nA.\u2014No.\nMr. Richards: You sold the Corporation section 81 and all that east of this road that\nruns down from the Fairfield Road to the water ?\nA.\u2014I think that's it.\nQ.\u2014Did you sell any west of that road ?\nA.\u2014Yes, it is included in 81.\nQ.\u2014Paid you for it ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How much ?\nA.\u2014I think it was $12,000.\nQ.\u2014Would you be surprised to find there is a prior mortgage on that property ?\nA.\u2014I knew all about that, but I presumed it had all been paid off. We made Mr.\nPemberton two payments of $4,000 odd; one at the time, or shortly after, and one this\nsummer again; that is about $9,000.\nQ.\u2014What security has he got ?\nA.\u2014He has got the whole of this fifty-nine acres.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xci\nQ.\u2014Well now here is a charge brought forward by these gentlemen looking after the\ncity's interest, saying it was a mistake dealing with you, and that they are going to lease that\nproperty ?\nA.\u2014But they can't lease it.\nQ.\u2014Your covenant is worth something?\nA.\u2014Yes, I suppose we could pay it off if we wanted to.\nQ.\u2014Here is a covenant by which you are bound to clear off that mortgage ?\nA.\u2014I am quite aware of that.\nQ.\u2014And you intend to do it ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Why can't you arrange with him to clear it off?\nA.\u2014I can clear it off any time he wishes if he will accept the money.\nQ.\u2014Won't he accept the money ?\nA.\u2014He seems to have an objection to accepting it now, although he admitted lately that\nhe would have accepted it had he been asked.\nQ.\u2014With regard to the other piece, it is merely a contract to sell ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How much is it ?\nA.\u2014I think about four acres.\nQ.\u2014How much ?\nA.\u2014$2,000 an acre.\nQ.\u2014Have they paid you anything on it ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Time isn't up yet I suppose ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014The Corporation commenced building a fence along the south side of Fairfield Road ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You are in possession yet, receiving rents of the building ?\nA.\u2014It is not rented.\nQ.\u2014The trustees of the Douglas estate gave you some evidence of absolute deed ?\nA.\u2014I think so ; I don't know ; I suppose they did.    Yes.\nJames Thomas, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Your occupation ?\nA.\u2014Caretaker of Ross Bay Cemetery.\nQ.\u2014How long have you been in that position ?\nA.\u2014Seven years last June.\nQ.\u2014Do you know of any trouble that has arisen with reference to the sale of cemetery\nlots out there ?\nA.\u2014No ; only some lots had been sold twice.\nQ.\u2014What do you know about it ?\nA.\u2014I know nothing whatever about it.    I don't sell the lots.\nQ.\u2014In fact, do you know anything that has happened ?\nA.\u2014No, I don't know.\nQ.\u2014Do you know of occasions that people have come there and found lots had been sold\nbefore ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014In fact, Mr. Thomas, you have found lots sold, and have found other bodies buried\nin them at the time ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Has that happened on more than one occasion ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014On many ?\nA.\u2014I should think a dozen or more since I have been there. I don't know how many\u2014\nseveral occasions.\nQ.\u2014What have you done?\nA.\u2014The bodies have been removed to some other part.\nMr. Richards : When did these difficulties happen ?\nA.\u2014There was one mistake about three years ago.\nQ.\u2014Was that the last one ?\n xcii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA.\u2014No.    There was one not two years ago.\nQ.\u2014 Anything occur since Mr. Dowler was appointed clerk ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Did you draw his attention to it ?\nA.\u2014-Yes.\nMr. Bodwell : What did you say\u2014you have found cases in which bodies have been interred in a lot, and it has subsequently been discovered that that belonged to someone else.\nHave you been in the habit of changing these bodies without consulting the friends ?\nA.\u2014Oh, no.\nQ.\u2014Didn't an instance of that kind occur with Mrs. Cameron ?\nA.\u2014Yes.    I was ordered from the city to do that.\nThe Court : To disinter the body ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How long had the first body been there when you removed it ?\nA.\u2014About two years.\nQ.\u2014That you did from orders from the City Clerk ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I take all my orders from the City Clerk.\nThomas Storey, examined by Mr. Bodwell: You are an undertaker ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014As part of your duty as undertaker do you have communication with the clerk of\nthe cemetery as to getting lots for burial ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Have you had any difficulties in that respect ?\nA.\u2014I have.\nQ.\u2014What are they ?\nA.\u2014In the first place the different denominations have their separate grounds, and when\na person dies I have to go to the agent of whatever denomination the parties belong to, and\nget an order to bury that party in the ground belonging to his denomination. When I have\ntaken that order from the parties that gave me permission to bury in that ground, I have to\ngo to Mr. Dowler and give him that order, and then it would be his duty to look into the\nbook and see whether those lots are occupied or not. I don't know whether he done so, but\nhe gives me the order and I send it out to the grave digger to dig the grave, when I find\nthere is another body. But we don't find that that ground belongs to another party until the\nother person wants to be buried, and they have got the lot and paid for it. The ground had\nbeen sold previous to that and this body had been buried in this ground. Then they moved\nthat body into another lot.\nQ.\u2014Were the friends of Mrs. Cameron consulted in reference to this ?\nA.\u2014Seemed not.    I can't say.    I think not, because they were very much put out about it.\nQ.\u2014They didn't know at the time ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Have you known anything happen like that before ?\nA.\u2014Oh, yes.    Mr. Rutherford was buried in a lot belonging to Mr. Irving.\nQ.\u2014Do you know any other instances ?\nA.\u2014I couldn't call to mind.\nQ.\u2014Have you been obliged to go back often and get lots changed after you had got\ncertificates from Mr. Dowler ?\nA.\u2014I have had a great deal of trouble and lost a good deal of time.\nQ.\u2014What is the trouble\u2014don't the plans at the city hall show the\u2014\nMr. Richards : I think it would have been fair if we had had notice of this so that Mr.\nDowler could have been here.\nQ.\u2014The first case you mention was a Mrs. Cameron ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Who buried her ?\nA.\u2014I did.\nQ.\u2014Who selected the ground ?\nA.\u2014I did.\nQ.\u2014Was there any grave in the lot that you selected ?\nA.\u2014Not at that time.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xciii.\nQ.\u2014Didn't you go to the City Clerk to buy the lot ?\nA.\u2014No. I bought of the Presbyterians, and they gave me an order to bury in that\nground.\nQ.\u2014What did you pay ?\nA.\u2014$5 a lot.    $15 for the three lots.\nQ.\u2014Did you know if he was right\u2014if he gave you the correct lots ? Did you ever go to\nlook at the ground ?\nA.\u2014No, I didn't. When I take this order to Mr. Dowler it is his place to see whether\nthese lots are occupied or not.\nQ.\u2014You had a note of the lots you wanted ?\nA.\u2014I pointed them out on the map.\nQ.\u2014Did he look in his books to see whether these lots had been sold to any one ?\nA.\u2014That I couldn't say.    If he didn't he ought to have done.\nQ.\u2014Did you pay the Corporation anything ?\nA.\u2014I paid seven and a half for digging the grave.\nQ.\u2014You paid him the money.    What did he give you ?\nA.\u2014He gave me a receipt.\nQ.\u2014Did he give you any directions to bury in this lot ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Did you leave with him the paper you got from the Presbyterians ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You mentioned a case of Mr. Rutherford; when was that ?\nA.\u2014About a year and a half ago.\nQ.\u2014Did you select that lot ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How much did you pay ?\nA.\u2014$5.\nQ.\u2014You only selected ground for one grave ?    How much space is that ?\nA.\u20144x8.\nQ.\u2014Did he find to your knowledge that that was not occupied ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014At all events he took your money, gave you the order, and you buried Mr. Rutherford there?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What happened afterwards ?\nA.\u2014There is a dispute about the ground which belongs to a man named Irving.\nQ.\u2014How many lots does Irving claim ? Was there any other body buried in the same\nplace ?    You say that land is so surveyed that a man can own ground enough for six graves ?\nA.\u2014Four or six, I don't know exactly.\nQ.\u2014Were there any other bodies buried in that place ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014You don't know how far back Irving places his claim ?\nA.\u2014I do not. But they ought to have been in the books of the Council, so that when I\ntook the order he ought to look back and see whether those lots are occupied or not.\nQ.\u2014If there is no one buried in that land how does Irving get a claim to it ?\nA.\u2014That don't make any difference.    You can buy a lot just the same.\nQ.\u2014Do I understand you to say that where there is no one comes to be buried you can\ngo to, say Mr. Hett, buy a lot, and then go to Mr. Dowler and get the title?\nA.\u2014You could buy your lot, and then when the party wanted to be buried you would go\nto the City Clerk and get permission to dig the grave.\nQ.\u2014I suppose you know there was considerable irregularity with the city books under\nthe old officials ?\nA.\u2014I never had so much trouble as I have had lately.\nQ.\u2014Don't you know that since Grant became Mayor, Kent became Treasurer, and\nDowler, Clerk, that everything has been going on better ?\nA.\u2014I couldn't say.\nQ.\u2014Don't you think that Dowler is a superior sort of man for City Clerk ?\nA.\u2014You think so ?    I don't.    Yet he may make mistakes.\n xciv. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nB. W. Pearse, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Were you one of the Cemetery Commissioners?\nA.\u2014I was one of the trustees appointed, I think in '71 or '72.\nQ.\u2014Did you hold that position until the cemetery was turned over to the city ?\nA.\u2014I held it for some years.    I really could not tell how many.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell us anything about what steps were taken to secure plans ?\nA.\u2014We had a perfect survey made on a very large scale ; the lots  staked  out  in white\nwith black numbers on them ; we sold lots for $5, and interment fees $7.50.\nQ.\u2014Was a record kept ?\nA.\u2014A perfect record.     Mr. Hett was clerk ; a most methodical, business-like man.\nCourt on rising stood adjourned to Monday, December 7th.\nMonday, December 7th, 1891.\nWellington J. Dowler, examined by Mr. Bodwell : You are Secretary of the Cemetery\nCommittee .\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Do you produce the books of the cemetery ?\nA.\u2014Yes I do ; and the maps and plans.\nQ.\u2014Is there a book kept out at the cemetery ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014By whom ?\nA.\u2014The caretaker.\nQ.\u2014What does that show ?\nA.\u2014That shows the plots in which parties are buried ?\nQ.\u2014Who makes the entries in that ?\nA.\u2014Mr. Thomas, the caretaker.\nQ. \u2014What entries does he make ?\nA.\u2014He makes simply the entries of the bodies that have been interred.\nQ.\u2014-Will you explain the procedure which is adopted in the ordinary case of interments?\nA.\u2014In the first place whether the party is to be buried in one of the plots supposed to\nbe owned by the churches, or whether the party is to be buried in a plot which the Corporation\nhas the exclusive right of selling, has first to be ascertained. When this distinction is arrived\nat we then issue a permit from the stub-book in our office, and telephone the order to the\ncaretaker to prepare the grave in accordance with the permit.\nQ.\u2014Do you have any communications with the representatives of the different churches\non this point ?\nA.\u2014Well, the ordinary communication is that they send to me their permit to bury.\nQ.\u2014What do you receive from them in the ordinary course ?\nA.\u2014I receive a statement to the effect that certain parties have purchased a plot or plots\nin 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.\nQ.\u2014What course do you adopt ?\nA.\u2014I then issue my permit to the caretaker authorizing him to dig the grave.\nQ.\u2014What means do you take of ascertaining whether or not that particular plot of\nground has been sold before ?\nA.\u2014Well, I don't hold it to be a part of my duty to ascertain ; yet at the same time I\nsometimes look at my books for that purpose. I don't say though that my books are a reliable\nrecord in that case.\nQ.\u2014Why is that ?\nA.\u2014Well, parties go to the agents of the churches and reserve plots frequently though\nthere is no interment. They simply want it for the future, and the memorandum of such\nreservations are never sent to me; at least cases have happened where they are not sent to\nme.    Consequently I have no knowledge of those reservations.\nQ.\u2014Do you always mark off any lots sold ?\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xcv.\nA.\u2014Yes ; unquestionably.\nQ.\u2014Have cases come under your notice where permits have been issued for interment\nin certain lots, and it was afterwards found that those lots belonged to some one else ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What have you done then ?\nA.\u2014We send them back to the agents for readjustment.\nQ.\u2014Have you done any more than that ?\nA.\u2014I didn't hold it to be my duty to do any more.\nQ.\u2014Will you produce your books ?    (Books produced.)\nA.\u2014This is the caretaker's book.\nQ.\u2014What is that supposed to be ?\nA.\u2014That is supposed to be a record of the actual interments, and the lots in which the\ninterments are made.    Then we enter into that book a record of the statements of this.\nQ.\u2014What record do you keep?\nA.\u2014Ross Bay Cemetery Record, showing the names of the parties buried, the lots in\nwhich they are buried, and other information necessary to be put on record. There is another\nbook still, the Interment Lot Book, which is an index of the record.\n(Map also produced and explained to the Court.)\nQ.\u2014Will you turn to Block H, Lot 62, west of Road 22. What do your books show as\nto the interments in that lot ?\nA.\u2014Frederick Augustus Gray.\nQ.\u2014That is all that shows as interred there ?\nA.\u2014Well, this is all that is here.    That is what the book says.\nQ.\u2014Does not the book show that Catherine Munro, Samuel Nesbitt, and some others are\nburied there ?\nA.\u2014The names of Catherine Munro and the others were down as originally interred\nthere, but the names have been erased, and I would venture to say that the body of Frederick\nAugustus Gray is the only one that is buried there. But, then, I had nothing to do with\nthat; it took place before my time. The original name is Catherine Munro. Then it is\nentered in here by some person \" wrong plot.\"\nQ.\u2014When the name is erased, does that also mean that the body has been taken up ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014Mr. Dowler, don't you know, as a matter of fact, that bodies have had to be changed\non account of mistakes of that kind in the cemetery ?\nA.\u2014Well, yes, I think there have.\nQ.\u2014Has that been frequently, or only very occasionally ?\nA.\u2014Occasionally.\nQ.\u2014How many times ?    Can you give the number of cases from your own recollection ?\nA.\u2014I think about once or twice. I don't know of any others at present\u2014only the\nCameron case.\nThe Court: You have been there for some years ?\nA.\u2014Three years, my Lord.\nThe Court: The average number of burials in the year is 500. That is about the rate of\nmortality, I think.    In 1,500 burials there have been only one or two cases, I think.\nMr. Bodwell: There ought not to be any, my Lord.\nQ.\u2014Take the Cameron case, for instance ; what was the matter there ?\nA.\u2014In that case Mr. Storey brought me a permit from Mr. Finlayson, dated February\n1st, 1889, for the interment of Mrs. Cameron in Lot 62.\nQ.\u2014What did you do ?\nA.\u2014On receipt of that I issued a permit for the interment of Mrs. Cameron in the lot,\nin accordance with the permit.\nQ.\u2014Did you make any enquiries to ascertain whether anyone else had that lot ?\nA.\u2014I don't think I did.\nQ._What followed?\nA.\u2014She was interred there.\nQ.\u2014What happened after that ?\nA.\u2014She remained there in that grave until it was ascertained, after the decease of the\ndaughter of Mr. Steele, who, I believe, owned those lots, that she was interred in the wrong\nplot.    Mr. Steele, of course, demanded that plot.\n xcvi. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014What evidence of title had he ?\nA.\u2014He owned the reservation.\nQ.\u2014Did he produce evidence of title to you ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Did you have any communication with him ?\nA.\u2014I did not.\nQ.\u2014How do you know he demanded that lot ?\nA.\u2014Through the person of his undertaker, Mr. Hayward.\nQ.\u2014You had communications with Mr. Hayward?\nA.\u2014Upon reference to the book, I found that he owned that plot, so far as the value of\nthat record went.\nQ.\u2014What did you do on ascertaining that fact?\nA.\u2014The matter was brought before me by some members of the Council, and I was\ninstructed to order the removal of the Cameron body.\nQ.\u2014Did you do so ?\nA.\u2014I did.\nQ.\u2014Did any communication take place with Mrs. Cameron's friends on the subject ?\nA.\u2014I suppose so.    Of course, I simply carried out the orders of the committee.\nQ.\u2014Then Mr. Storey, on behalf of Mrs. Cameron's friends, entered protest ?\nA.\u2014I would not say.    I\t\nQ.\u2014At any rate, there was some objection coming through Mr. Storey ?\nQ.\u2014As a matter of fact, where was this body removed ?\nA.\u2014The body was removed to a plot adjacent to that in which it was originally, Lot 69,\nwhich according to the permit they were really entitled to, and which they hold now.\nQ.\u2014By whose instructions were you acting ?\nA.\u2014The chairman of the Cemetery Committee.\nQ._When?\nA.\u2014I couldn't say the date. It was about the first of November, this year. It was\nimperative that some action be taken as promptly as possible. The funeral of Mr. Steele's\ndaughter was to take place the next day, and it was necessary to have the body that occupied\nthe grave that was wanted removed at once.    Action had to be prompt.\nQ.\u2014Have you any recollection of any other cases of irregularities of that description;\nperhaps not so serious as that?\nA.\u2014I have; the Rutherford case.\nQ._What was that ?\nA.\u2014A case similar to this. A permit was brought to me stating that Lot 58 had been\nsold for the burial of Mr. Rutherford, and he was interred in that lot.\nQ.\u2014In consequence of that, what was done ?\nA.\u2014The Irving family, who had previously owned that lot, found that the interment had\ntaken place.\nQ.\u2014And was anything done ?\nA.\u2014They, I think, spoke to the undertaker about it. Of course nothing was done ;\nnothing has been done.    The body still remains in the Irving plot.\nQ.\u2014You say that there is often great difficulty in ascertaining who is the owner of a lot.\nYou have frequently to send people back to ascertain whether or not the lot they are asking\nfor does not belong to someone else ?\nA.\u2014It has been necessary for them to do so to make further enquiries.\nQ.\u2014Has that been, frequently or occasionally ?\nA.\u2014Not frequently ; it has been occasionally.\nQ.\u2014Is there any way of rectifying that trouble ?\nA.\u2014Of course there is. For the parties who keep the records in connection with the\nchurches to keep an accurate record of what they sell, and never issue a permit without first\nascertaining that the lot was not already sold to someone else.\nQ.\u2014Would not the same thing be accomplished if you entered in your books all the lots\nfor which you issue a permit ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ._Why?\nA.\u2014For 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.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xcyu.\nQ.\u2014Will you refer to your record there and see if there is any indication that this lot in\nwhich Mr. Rutherford was buried has already been disposed of ?\nA.\u2014Yes.    There is a statement that the lot has been reserved by Mr. Irving.\nThe Court: If you had referred to your book at the time this was applied for, you would\nnot have issued the permit ?\nA.\u2014No, not until it was satisfactorily ascertained that the lot was properly reserved in\nthe books of the agent of the church to Mr. Irving.\nQ.\u2014You say the old map was inaccurate ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014 In what way ?    In what did the inaccuracies consist ?\nA. \u2014It consisted in the lines of the roads being inaccurately surveyed ; showing plots that\ndid not exist, and the amount of the lots and the roads being in excess in some instances, and\ninsufficient in others.\nQ.\u2014Have you had a re-survey ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And a new map prepared ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014By whom was that work done ?\nA.\u2014Done by, I believe, Mr. Gore.    I understand so.\nQ.\u2014Under whose directions was it clone ?\nA.\u2014These are matters that are entirely out of my knowledge. I am not in a position to\nspeak accurately on that.\nMr. Richards, cross-examining : I understand you to say that certain portions of this\ncemetery have been laid apart for the use of the different religious denominations ?\nA.rt-Yes.\nQ.\u2014Does the property belong to them ?\nA.\u2014They hold it by virtue of moneys they have paid into the corporation ; excuse me\u2014\nby virtue of an Act passed by the Legislature.\nQ.\u2014They sell the land to parties applying for it for burial purposes ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014In the case of the Church of England, they apply to Mr. Croasdaile ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014He gives a certificate to the party, and if they want to bury they produce that\ncertificate to you ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You say that parties sometimes purchase lots without wanting to bury at once, and\nthat in such cases no immediate notice has been given to you ? They may have got these lots\nlong before they want to bury ?\nA.\u2014That may have been so.\nQ.\u2014Do you know cases where they have made changes in their sales\u2014these religious\nbodies ?\nA.\u2014I know cases where they have sent up certificates to me for lots that have been\nreserved for other parties.\nQ.\u2014Since this matter came up, you remember, I told you to go and look in Mr. Finlay-\nson's books with reference to the Cameron case.    Have you seen those books ?\nA.\u2014No; I haven't been able to see those books.\nQ.\u2014You don't know how he came to issue that certificate ?\nA.\u2014The custom is for the undertaker, acting on behalf of the relatives of the deceased,\nto see these agents of the churches, buy the plots, and charge it in the account. My version of\nthis Cameron case is that Mr. Storey went to these parties, never enquired whether these lots\nwere owned by them or not. He simply got the permit, and brought it to my office. I hold\nit was his duty to get that information, but he has endeavoured to right himself by throwing\nthe blame on my shoulders before the Royal Commission, and tries to cast a reflection on me,\nwhich I repel.\nThe Court: I don't think parties, Mr. Richards, quite understand their position in this\ncase. They don't buy a lot, nor do they sell a lot. The right of the soil remains with the\ncorporation, and that buying or selling is simply a permission to use it on that particular\noccasion for interment. And the form of this permit, I observe : \" Permission is hereby\ngiven to bury Mr. Rutherford in this plot.\" They can't give the permission. That means to\nsay :    \" As far as this denomination is concerned, we have no objection.\"    In consequence of\n xcviii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nthe duality of authority, these mistakes no doubt occur, and I am only surprised that they do\nnot occur more frequently. You will excuse my giving an account of your conduct, Mr.\nDowler, but don't you think there is something in it ?\nA.\u2014I quite appreciate the point you mention, my Lord, and will be guided by it in\nfuture.\nQ.\u2014I suppose if Storey had gone and looked over this ground, he would have seen there\nwas a grave there ?\nA.\u2014I suppose so.\nThe Court: Possibly. I don't think it is his duty. He goes to the family of the\ndeceased; 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\nblunder in this case; nor that Mr. Dowler; nor perhaps did Mr. Storey make the original\nblunder; but, whoever made it, the corporation adopted it.\nMr. Dowler : In order to prevent any such mistakes, about a year ago I was instructed\nby the committee to write to the different agents, requesting them to inform me when they\nsold lots without interment.\nQ.\u2014On application, have the parties to pay something ?\nA.\u2014They pay $7.50 for digging the grave of an adult, and $3.75 in the case of a child.\nQ.\u2014WThen Rutherford was buried there, did Irving have any body buried there ?\nA.\u2014It was a vacant lot. Irving had four or five plots on one side of the road, and it\nwas one of these that was taken for Mr. Rutherford. I communicated with the agent of the\nchurch, and asked them to adjust the difficulty. Mr. Hayward promised it would be done.\nI may say that in cases which Mr. Hayward acts, these mistakes never occur. He always\nascertains if everything is in order, and thus prevents these mistakes arising.\nThe Court: The fact of the matter is that, if you had referred to your books, you would\nhave seen that there were other claims on this ground, and you would never have issued the\npermit.\nAlderman McKillican, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Your full name is 1\nA.\u2014William Donald McKillican.\nQ.\u2014You are one of the aldermen of the city ?\nA.\u2014I am.\nQ.\u2014And a member of the Market Committee for the present year ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Member of the Cemetery Committee ?\nA.\u2014Its chairman.\nQ.\u2014And a member of the Electric Light Committee ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir; chairman.\nQ.\u2014With reference to the purchase of the additional land at the cemetery, were you one\nof the parties that negotiated that purchase ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What steps did you take to ascertain the state of the title of that property ?\nA.\u2014By authority of the Council, we took steps through our attorneys.\nQ.\u2014Under what authority did you enter into the agreement to purchase this additional\nland from Mr. Snowdon ?\nA.\u2014Well, 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\n$12,500, and that amount was inadequate to buy the land we wanted; consequently, we\npurchased lots No. 80 and 80a; paid for 80 the sum of $11,800 or $11,900, I forget just\nnow exactly the figures, and we entered into an agreement to purchase the balance of it. I\nthink it is in June, 1893.\nQ.\u2014Had you any authority to enter into that agreement ?\nA.\u2014Certainly ; by the consent of the Council.\nQ.\u2014How is it the Cemetery Committee had power to enter into negotiations with\nreference to matters of money ?    You had $12,500 ?\nQ.\u2014Yes.\nA.\u2014When you entered into this agreement had you the money in hand to pay for this\nland?\n 55 VicT. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. xcix.\nA.\u2014It was intended to frame a by-law to be placed before the people to raise the money\nto purchase the land.\nThe Court : The agreement is nothing more than an option\u2014bonding it.\nMr. McKillican :  It would be useless for cemetery purposes unless we got the whole of it.\nQ.\u2014Then why didn't you buy that other piece ?\nA.\u2014If we had more money we could have bought it.\nQ.\u2014Then you have actually committed the city to the purchase of this property. You\nerected a $500 fence, where ?\nA.\u2014On the front portion. We thought it was actually necessary, compulsory on the\npeople to buy this ground.\nQ.\u2014Why did you put a fence on 80b.\nA.\u2014In order to make it look respectable on the street lines.\nQ.\u2014Why didn't you put your fence on the other portion\u201480 ?\nA.\u2014It would then leave all that other part open for every one to enter.\nQ.\u2014Did you not write a letter to the \" Colonist \" stating you put this fence up on 80b,\nbecause if that fence was put there the city would have to buy the land ?\nA.\u2014The city would have to buy the whole piece in order to utilize it for cemetery\npurposes ?\nQ.\u2014You built the fence on the lot you don't own in order to make the city buy that lot ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ. \u2014That is a candid confession, Mr. McKillican Do you know whether a by-law was\nbrought in to purchase the balance of that land 1\nA.\u2014It was brought in and passed the Council. It went before the ratepayers and was\ndefeated.\nQ._Why ?\nQ.\u2014Because the people didn't take interest enough in it to go out and vote for it. There\nwas, I think, 300 votes cast out of 1,800. That did not give the view of the ratepayers on\nthat by-law. It is well known that only those who oppose a by-law will take the trouble to\ngo out and vote, while those in favour of it will not do so. That vote doesn't say that the\nratepayers rejected that by-law.\nQ.\u2014You still think you have got them out-generaled, and they will purchase that land\nafter all?\nA.\u2014I do.\nThe Court : How many ratepayers do you think vote on money by-laws ?\nA.\u2014I think it is something over 1,500 who take sufficient interest to come out and cast\ntheir votes for or against in these things.\nQ.\u2014I suppose you have opposed spending any money on by-laws that have not been\ncarried by a majority of this amount ?\nA.\u2014If there is no majority the by-law does not pass.\nQ.\u2014Do you know the proportion of the vote on the market by-law ?\nA.\u2014I don't.\nQ.\u2014Did you take any steps to enquire ?\nA.\u2014I didn't.\nQ.\u2014You don't oppose spending the money of that vote ?\nA.\u2014No ; because it had a majority of the votes cast.\nQ.\u2014And the other had a minority ?    So your theory is only a theory ?\nA.\u2014It is a fact that those who oppose a by-law will take the trouble to come out and\nvote against it, while those in favour of it will not. There is another by-law that I wish to\nspeak about in this respect.\nQ.\u2014WThat by-law was that?\nA.\u2014The electric light by-law.\nQ.\u2014What was that for ?\nA.\u2014It was for the extension of the present lighting of the city.\nQ.\u2014What was done with that by-law ?\nA.\u2014There was nothing done ; it was defeated.\nQ.\u2014In what year was the Ball system put in use in the city?\nA.\u2014In 1889, I think.\nQ.\u2014Under what authority ?    By by-law?\nA.\u2014No ; I think it was by resolution of the Council. The new plant was put in in 1888\nor 1889.\n Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014How much was purchased at that time ?\nA.\u2014There were two dynamos\u2014one 35 ; in all something about $5,000 worth.\nQ.\u2014From whom was that purchase made 1\nA.\u2014It was purchased from the Ball Company in Toronto.\nQ.\u2014Through whom ?\nA.\u2014Mr. McMicking, by contract.\nQ.\u2014Mr. McMicking was the City Electrician at the time ?\nA.\u2014.He is acting for the city as a contractor, and is working under contract at the\npresent time.\nQ.\u2014Isn't he called the City Electrician at the present time ?\nA.\u2014He is paid by contract $150 a month to do certain things.\nThe Court : Every labourer is a contractor. Am I a contractor. I undertake to\nperform the duties of a Judge for so much a month.\nMr. McKillican : Mr. McMicking was working under tender.\nQ.\u2014Mr. McMicking was the City Electrician when this arrangement was made ?\nA.\u2014It was by contract.\nQ.\u2014Was he paid a commission on this purchase ?\nA.\u2014That I don't know.\nQ.\u2014Do you know whether he received a commission?\nA.\u2014I do not.\nQ.\u2014Did you take any steps to enquire ?\nA.\u2014I did not.\nQ.\u2014Do you know whether the city got the list price of the plant they purchased ?\nA.\u2014They called for tenders, and got the tenders from the manufacturers. They also got\ntenders from the Brush Company at San Francisco. They were presented to the Council, and\nthe tender of the Ball Lighting Company was accepted.\nQ.\u2014Do you know whether that was a discount or list price ?\nA.\u2014I couldn't tell you.\nQ.\u2014You know there is a list and a discount price ?\nQ.\u2014 Yes.\nA\u2014You don't know which it was in this case ?\nQ.\u2014I don't know. It was accepted by the Council, and if there was any discount we\ndidn't know anything about it.\nQ.\u2014You are a member of the Market Committee ?\nA.\u2014I am.\nQ.\u2014The ashphalt pavement round the new market building, is that included in the\ncontract for the building ?\nA.\u2014No, I believe not.    At least that is left with the architect for him to decide.\nQ.\u2014Were you at the meeting of the Council at which the architect reported that that\nwas not included in this contract ?\nA.\u2014I believe so.\nQ.\u2014Who laid down that sidewalk ?\nA.\u2014It was done by the Ashphalt Company.\nQ.\u2014Under what arrangement ?\nA.\u2014It was laid down under contract, at so much a yard.\nQ.\u2014How much ?\nA.\u2014I can't give you the exact amount.\nQ.\u2014Was that contract in writing ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Can it be produced ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; I presume it can be produced.    Mr. Holland is Chairman of that Committee.\nQ.\u2014At any rate there is a contract with the Pacific Ashphalt Company, executed by the\nCommittee, to do that work at so much a yard ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Do you know how much that work comes to in gross ?\nA.\u2014No, I can't give you the exact figures, $500 or $600 I presume, or more.\nQ.\u2014Between $500 and $1,000, according to the number of yards done.\nQ.\u2014Are you a shareholder in the B.C. Terra Cotta Co. ?\nA.\u2014No, I am not.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. ci.\nQ.\u2014Do you know anything about the contract for the wood work of the new market\nbuilding ?\nA.\u2014Well; I don't know as I can give you any information on that point. That is a\nsub-contract under the contractor.    I can't give you any information.\nQ.\u2014Has Mr. Donaldson been known as a contractor to any extent ?\nA.\u2014Not that I know of.\nQ.\u2014Did you ever know of his having any contracts before this ?\nA.\u2014I think he has contracted outside during the summer months.\nQ.\u2014In fact he is foreman in A. J. Smith's shop ?\nA.\u2014That I can't tell you, whether he is foreman or Fullerton is foreman.\nQ.\u2014You are in that business ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ,\u2014And you haven't known Mr. Donaldson as a contractor in this city before this case ?\nA.\u2014No, sir.\nQ.\u2014Have you any knowledge of his financial standing ?\nA.\u2014I haven't.\nMr. Richards, cross-examining : Did the Council come to the conclusion that the cemetery\nwas too small ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And had to be enlarged ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How many acres are there in the old cemetery ?\nA.\u2014I can't tell you how many.    There must be ten or twelve acres.\nQ.\u2014Did you try to get land on the east side ?\nA.\u2014Yes. Bishop Hills, I think, owns some of that land on the east of the old cemetery.\nWe went beyond that but found there was too much rock. There was also a piece of land\nbelonging to Mr. McKeon, but the quantity we could get there was not sufficient, consequently\nwe turned our attention the other way to this piece of ground which we knew was for sale.\nIn fact we intended to go out somewhere in the country to try and buy 50 or 100 acres, but\nit was thought much more convenient for the general public to buy close to the old cemetery.\nThat was one of the reasons why we gave up the notion of going outside. We thought we\nwere acting in the interests of the ratepayers in making the purchase as we did, and to come\nbefore the ratepayers for the additional $8,500 for the sale.\nQ.\u2014In all probability this by-law will come before the ratepayers next year?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You have until 1893, and it is likely to come before the ratepayers if it is rejected\nby ;hem next year ?\nA.\u2014Yes.'\nQ.\u2014It is absolutely necessary to go somewhere to have more room ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Did you not try some of these land speculators out at Oak Bay ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Did you go outside anywhere to try and get a large tract ?\nA.\u2014The intention was to go out towards Cedar Hill. It is very difficult to get land\nthat is fit for graves, because you have to get it as dry as possible. if there is any rock it\nwon't do.    It must be gravel or dry soil.\nQ.\u2014Is there any ground toward Oak Bay ?\nA.\u2014There is, but it is rocky; or it is too low so that the water lies in the graves.\nQ.\u2014Did they want to sell you any out there ?\nA.\u2014No. We didn't apply for any, because we considered the land not suitable for that\npurpose.\nQ.\u2014You don't know whether they are annoyed at your not having applied to them ?\nA.\u2014No, I think some of them are opposed to our buying where we did. They also\noffered the Corporation the amount they paid for it if they would deed the land over to them.\nQ.\u2014Who are these, do you know ?\nA.\u2014Young Pemberton is the one I believe that stated this to me.\nQ.\u2014Do you know any others ?\nA.\u2014There was none but the young man that spoke to me on this matter, and he has\nbeen to me at different times.\n cii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014It seems that these petitioners here are opposed to the step you have made, and\namong these petitioners are some who are land speculators out there in real estate. We saw\na gentleman sitting by my learned friend (Mr. Bodwell) off and on during this enquiry. Isn't\nhe a large speculator there ?\nA.\u2014I didn't take notice of the gentleman.\nQ.\u2014In fact they didn't want you to buy this land because they wanted the cemetery\nmoved somewhere else ?\nA.\u2014I have no doubt that was a great deal of the ground of the opposition to this by-law.\nThe Court : Mr. Richards, these are dangerous grounds you are touching on now. No\none 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.\nMr. Richards : I apprehend there must be some motive on the part of these gentlemen\nor they would not rake up a matter of this kind, where the Council is trying to get a place to\nbury the dead. This is a matter that was sprung upon us the other day, and we have had no\nopportunity of enquiring why the Council should receive any opposition.\nThe Court: The charge is that a sum of $500 was spent on land that did not belong to\nthe Corporation.\nMr. Richards : At the same time it is a very small matter for these leading men to bring\nup.\nQ.\u2014I suppose you know nothing about the electric light matter ?\nA.\u2014Nothing more than I have stated.\nThe Court: This fence you put up ; although it was on land that was not your own, yet\nit protected land that was your own. You are liable to a charge for improvements in protecting your own land in that way.\nMayor Grant, examined by Mr Bodwell: Is it true that the sewerage bonds have been\nsold ?\nA.\u2014I believe they are sold.\nQ.\u2014At what figure ?\nA.\u2014Realized about 90 net.\nQ.\u2014What is that gross ?\nA.\u2014That would be a fraction over 94.\nQ.\u2014You sold at a little over 94. You pay one per cent, bonus for brokerage, and you\npay 8 per cent, for the time you had the money.    What becomes of the accrued interest ?\nA.\u2014The coupons would be taken and destroyed, and the city would only begin to pay\ninterest from this date. It was the best offer we. ever had. Anything that may have accrued\non the coupons now running will also go to the benefit of the city.\nQ.\u2014To whom have they been sold ?\nA.\u2014To Robert Ward & Co. as agent for some company.\nQ.\u2014 Is the offer in writing ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Can it be produced ?\nA.\u2014Yes. I haven't it with me, but I can very soon get it. There is nothing been done\nthat can't be produced.\nQ.\u2014I don't mean to say that there is anything wrong, Mr. Grant. Will you have a copy\nsent in to the Commissioners ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nMr. Richards : Mr. Mayor, there is a charge against this Council for making a contract\nfor the delivery of pipe next year, the contract having been made towards the end of this\nyear ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014One member of the Council voted against that. Can you tell why that contract was\nentered into ?\nA.\u2014It is simply following a practice that has obtained for a number of years past, and\nwhich, to my mind, unfortunately, was not followed for the last two years. We found that\nby ordering pipes seven or nine months ahead from England, they are landed out here ten to\nfifteen dollars a ton less than we would have to pay if we got them on short notice, by ordering them from Pennsylvania or Hamilton.\nQ.\u2014Supposing the incoming Council did not want them, or did not take them ?\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. ciii.\nA.\u2014But they will want them; and if they don't, they can make a profit on them.\nQ.\u2014Who are the contractors ?\nA.\u2014Findlay, Durham & Brodie.\nQ.\u2014Then if Findlay, Durham & Brodie do not come up to the terms of the contract and\nsupply the pipe, the Council of next year must have pipe ?\nA.\u2014They must have it.\nQ.\u2014And if they get it on short notice they will have to pay more for it ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What are these pipes to be used for ?\nA.\u2014General water extension.\nQ.\u2014Is this required ?\nA.\u2014Yes; it is required.\nQ.\u2014I suppose those people who have been brought into the limits require water ?\nA.\u2014Not only this, but inside the old limits there are a number of the old two-inch pipes\ndown, and the places are being rapidly built up. The two-inch pipe is being taken up in these\nplaces and is being replaced by four-inch pipe, for two reasons : domestic supply, and in case\nof fire, when there would be a reasonable supply.\nMr. Bodwell: Do you know about the collection of the real estate tax this year ? Has\nany portion of the money which has been coming in lately been deposited to the credit of the\nsinking funds account ?\nA.\u2014Not yet; no.\nQ.\u2014It has all gone into the general revenue ?\nA.\u2014It has been the custom to deposit the sinking fund at the end of the year.\nQ.\u2014On the 1st December the rebate on taxes is off?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Isn't it your experience that people who don't pay by that time don't pay by the end\nof the year ? Then you have deposited all that money to the general account, and there is a\nlarge amount due the bank on a promissory note. Are not your rates levied so much for the\nsinking fund ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Don't you think you ought to have paid your proportion on that ?\nA.\u2014There are large amounts still to come in by the end of the year, which will go to\nthat.\nQ.\u2014As a matter of fact, it has all gone to the general account so far ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nR. B. McMicking, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Your full name is ?\nA.\u2014Robert Burns McMicking.\nQ.\u2014You are city electrician ?\nA.\u2014No ; not exactly.\nQ.\u2014How not exactly ?\nA.\u2014What I mean is that I am doing the work of electrician under contract. I oversee\nthe buildings generally. I am called electrician\u2014called everything. I am paid by the city\nby monthly contract.\nQ.\u2014Any definite time fixed ?\nA.\u2014No definite time ; monthly, only.\nQ.\u2014Is your contract in writing ?\nA.\u2014I believe it was in writing some years ago; it was given in pencil to the Light\nCommittee. The contract with the Ball Company was for $6,500. In addition to that there\nwere other items, wire, &c.\nQ.\u2014Did you receive a commission on this ?\nA.\u2014Received a commission on this sale, discount; yes.\nQ. \u2014 How much ?\nA.\u2014Five to ten per cent, on the different articles on the list prices. I presume ten per\ncent, on the average. It's so long since, I don't exactly remember. It was purchased through\nme, but the tender was direct.\nThe Court: Did you inform the city there was a discount ?\nA.\u2014I did not do so. I don't consider myself a city official; I am a contractor. It was\na private matter,\n civ. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nThe Court: All are more or less contractors. Your Chinaman cook is a contractor; he\ncontracts to give you your dinner for so much a month. The real estate man contracts to sell\nyou a piece of land for so much.    They both contract.\nMr. Leech, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Did the city purchase a quantity of rock that\nwas excavated at the new hotel ?\nA.\u2014They did.\nQ.\u2014From whom did they purchase it ?\nA.\u2014From Mr. Haggerty, the contractor.\nQ.\u2014Directly ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Do you know how much there was ?\nA.\u2014About sixty thousand yards at sixty-two and a half cents a yard.\nQ.\u2014That was this year ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014I suppose the city have not a very great quantity of rock of their own?\nA.\u2014I don't know what they have got, exactly. They have the remainder of that sixty\nthousand yards.\nQ.\u2014If they have such a large quantity of rock in the city, why should they purchase\nthis quantity from Haggerty ?\nA.\u2014Because they got it so cheap. The rock the city owns is in sight, but it would have\nto be blasted out, and this was cheaper, of course.\nAlderman Smith, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Your full name is ?\nA.\u2014Andrew Johnson Smith.\nQ.\u2014You are one of the Aldermen?\nA.\u2014I am.\nQ.\u2014A member of the Market Committee ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014The contract for the wood-work in connection with the new market building was let\nto Mr. Donaldson.\nA.\u2014I think it was. At least, he told me he had the contract. In fact, I saw the\ncontract between him and Mr. Jeeves.\nQ.\u2014What relations existed between you and Mr. Donaldson prior to that contract ?\nA.\u2014Mr. Donaldson and I had no relations at all immediately before the contract.\nQ.\u2014What was he doing immediately before that contract ?\nA.\u2014Immediately before, I think he was working for Mr. Redfern, putting up the City\nHall clock, for about two months, and Mr. Redfern, I suppose, paid him.\nQ.\u2014Prior to the contract for the City Hall clock, where had he been working ?\nA.\u2014I think he was working a machine for me.\nQ.\u2014Had he occupied that position for any length of time?\nA.\u2014Off and on. Sometimes he took contracts of his own outside. When he was not\nworking I gave him a job, generally.\nQ.\u2014What contract do you know of his taking?\nA.\u2014He and a man named Woods had the contract for the James Bay Bridge.\nQ.\u2014That was built by the Corporation ?\nA.\u2014Under contract; I think it was $6,500.\nQ.\u2014Were you a member of the Corporation at that time ?\nA.\u2014I was.\nQ.\u2014Of the Streets and Bridges Committee ?\nA.\u2014I don't remember.    I think I was Chairman of the Water Works at the time.\nQ.\u2014Besides that contract, what other work has he had ?\nA.\u2014He has been working for the Dominion Government on several occasions.\nQ.\u2014And beyond that ?\nA.\u2014 He has been away in Alberni for W. P. Say ward; and he has been away two or three\ndozen times up North prospecting, and as he generally came back with very little money in\nhis pocket, I generally gave him a job.\nQ.\u2014And he always worked for you when he came back ?\nA.\u2014Not always.\n 55 Vict Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. cv>.\nQ. \u2014Had you any communication with Mr. Donaldson prior to his taking this contract\nwith McGregor & Jeeves ?\nA.\u2014None whatever. In fact I never figured on the work, and I never looked at the\nspecifications or plans after they were called to be tendered for.\nQ.\u2014Did you know Mr. Donaldson was going to put in a tender ?\nA.\u2014I didn't.\nQ.\u2014What arrangement did you make with him for doing the machine work ?\nA.\u2014When he showed me the document that he had got the contract from McGregor <fe\nJeeves, he asked me if I would do the finishing work for him\u2014the doors, and sashes, and\nmouldings. I told him I was not in a position to give him an answer just then. I went to\nDrake, Jackson & Helmacken's office, and saw Mr. Helmcken; I explained the case to him\nand he said: \"You can do all the work you like for Donaldson; in fact McGregor & Jeeves\ncan engage the Mayor and Aldermen to do the work, and still be within the law.\" That was\nwhat my lawyers advised, and consequently I took the work.\nQ.\u2014There was no previous understanding?\nA.\u2014None whatever.\nQ.\u2014Were you surprised when you heard that Mr. Donaldson had the contract ?\nA.\u2014Not a bit.\nQ.\u2014This was a pretty large contract, was it not?\nA.\u2014I think it was a little over $12,000.\nQ.\u2014What means has Mr. Donaldson of financing a contract of that kind?\nA.\u2014He has property.\nQ.\u2014How much ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.    I believe he has got money in the Savings Bank, too.\nQ.\u2014Did you make any advances to him ?\nA.\u2014Not a cent.\nQ.\u2014Any accommodation at the bank ?\nA.\u2014In what way ?\nQ.\u2014By endorsing a note ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014In any other way ?\nA. - He never asked me.\nQ.\u2014Come now, Mr. Smith, that is not the question ?\nA.\u2014No, he didn't ask me. Mr. Donaldson and I had no dealings in connection with the\npublic market until he showed me the contract from McGregor & Jeeves, and asked me to do\nthe work, and then I did it only on my lawyer's advice.\nQ.\u2014I suppose you charged him the regular trade price ?\nA.\u2014I put it down as low as I could. Of course he was at perfect liberty to go elsewhere\nif he saw fit.\nMr. Richards : Are you Chairman of the Water Works Committee ?\nA.\u2014Yes ;  this is my fourth year.\nQ.\u2014You have been in the Council four years ?    When were you first elected ?\nA.\u2014In '80 I think it was. When Mr. Turner was elected Mayor I was elected then for\n;he first year.    Mr. Turner held the office of Mayor for three years consecutively.\nQ.\u2014Which side did you take in the water works matter, the Hendry scheme or Mr.\nSummerfield's 16-inch main ?\nA.\u2014The Hendry scheme hadn't anything to do with the 16-inch main.\nQ.\u2014You know there was money spent on the Hendry scheme?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Was Mr. Pearse in the Council then ?\nA.\u2014He was in the Council in '77 or '78, I think.\nQ.\u2014Mr. Summerfield complains that the department hadn't been well worked by you ?\nA.\u2014Mr. Summerfield made a regular pickle of the water works I consider, from a\naydraulic point of view.\nQ.\u2014And finally from the water works being neglected so much, he give notice to quit\nand left the employment of the city ?\nA.\u2014Of course this is a very long and tedious question to go into, this water works business.\nQ.\u2014It is in evidence here that your committee has not been looking after the interests of\nthe city ?\n cvi. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA.\u2014He didn't leave last year. I am not Chairman of the Water Works this year.\nThere 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\nEngineers, gave his opinion on it; and it was in consequence of his opinion that the by-law\nwas submitted to the people and the work was done at the head of Pandora street.\nQ.\u2014That was subsequently abandoned ?\nA.\u2014After Mr. Summerfield became Water Commissioner.\nQ.\u2014Were you then in the Council ?\nA.\u2014I was not.\nQ.\u2014I think you are on the water committee this year ?\nA.\u2014I am Chairman of the Police and Streets.\nQ.\u2014You have spent a good deal of money on the streets this year ?\nA.\u2014I would like to lay out about two or three thousand dollars more.\nQ.\u2014Do you know how many applications were made to the Council and referred to the\ncommittee for work to be done ?\nA.\u2014Thousands.\nQ.\u2014Were you able to comply with them ?\nA.\u2014No, we had to turn them away. In fact we had to lay off a lot of men with families\nin order to give a lot of poor men, who had nothing to eat, a few day's work.\nQ.\u2014If you complied with the petitions that are sent in, what would the expense amount to ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014How much have you laid out this year in the new limits?\nA.\u2014We laid out too much. We were led with the belief that the Government would\ngive us the taxes collected in the outlying limits. They promised us $4,000 to be expended\nin what they term the trunk roads, the Saanich Road, the Gorge Road, and some other road.\nPrior to that time we had spent on the Oak Bay Avenue something like $9,000, and we have\nlaid down some sidewalks and made repairs. Since that time we have laid out in the outlying\nlimits between eight and nine thousand dollars\u2014it might amount to ten thousand.\nQ.\u2014Have you laid out on the trunk roads this $4,000 ?\nA.\u2014Yes, and more.\nQ.\u2014Will it not be. necessary to spend considerable money within these new limits in order\nto give the people there good roads ?\nA.\u2014Oh, yes ; there are very few streets ; there are only very few roads at the present\ntime.     The property is being sold very rapidly, and consequently it will require new streets.\nQ.\u2014You are Chairman of the Police Committee?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Complaint is made that they employ too many men ?\nMr. Bodwell: Oh, no, we have not stated that at all. Nothing of the sort. There is no\nuse trying to make a point where we have not alleged anything. We spoke of the general\ndepartment.\nThe Court: The Police and Fire Departments are practically excluded from the matter.\nI think we came to the conclusion that these two were absolutely necessary.\nMr. Richards : You pay Mr. Leech $1,800; can you dispense with him ?\nA.\u2014I suppose we could; but we should have to engage another man.\nQ.\u2014Street Commissioner Lynn, $1,500 ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; he looks after the men and sees that they do their work.\nQ.\u2014You are obliged to have such a man ?\nA.\u2014You must have a man to do that sort of work.\nQ.\u2014Clerk J. Matthews ?\nA.\u2014Mr. Leech's office.\nQ.\u2014Is he necessary ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Two foremen, $1,800 ?\nA.\u2014They're necessary. One takes the city from Yates street north, and the other from\nYates street south.    They're the foremen over the men to see that they do their work.\nQ.\u2014Are they supposed to go over the streets and see that the sidewalks are in order ?\nA.\u2014No, we have a sidewalk carpenter. They look after the streets so far as the grading\nand macadamizing.\nQ.\u2014Engineer Jumbo ?\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. cvii.\nA.\u2014Yes ; and sometimes we have two engineers. When Jumbo is rolling the streets we\nhave another boiler and engine which we use for the rock crushing.\nQ.\u2014Teamster Cameron ?    What does he do ?\nA.\u2014We have several teamsters.    They have their own carts.\nA.\u2014Carpenter Cox?\nA.\u2014That is the man who looks after the sidewalks. That is indispensable. In fact we\nhave four men at work now and can hardly keep the sidewalks in repair.\nQ. \u2014 Have you had any actions from people falling into holes in the sidewalks?\nA.\u2014We haven't had any actions taken, but we've had some threatened.\nQ.\u2014Park-keeper ; that is out at Beacon Hill 1\nA.\u2014I believe he has got charge of the park at Beacon Hill.\nQ.\u2014You don't know that the public interest would allow you to dispense with any of\nthese?\nA.\u2014Only in this way : If you would combine the position of City Surveyor with that of\nW7ater Commissioner you would save money, I think. By having one man fill those two\npositions you would save, I suppose, about a thousand dollars a year.\nQ.\u2014That might be carried out by the next Council?\nA.\u2014It might be.\nQ.\u2014Do you think you can get a man for $1,800 a year to act as Water Commissioner as\nwell as City Engineer?\nA.\u2014I say at present we pay Mr. Leech $1,800 per annum ; and also Water Commissioner\n$1,800. Mr. Leech is acting now as City Surveyor, and Mr. Lynn, the Street Commissioner,\nis acting as Water Commissioner at present with an increase of $25 per month. Now if you\nwill combine the two by paying Mr. Leech, say $2,000 or $2,500, for doing the work you\nwould save the difference.\nQ.\u2014Speaking about the water works : Mr. Summerfield said that was being neglected ?\nA.\u2014During my administration as Chairman of the Water Works the first trouble that\ntook place was in connection with the filterage of the water. I told him it was not properly\nfiltered. It was necessary for me to go and inspect the dam. I went out and found that\nnot a shovel full of sand or a piece of charcoal had been put in these beds for two years.\nThe biggest horse leech could get through these filter beds, which were nothing but a lot of\ncobble stones.\nThe Court: The Corporation must have been looking very sharply after this important\nwork. It is not to Mr. Summerfield that the public look in such a case ; it is the Corporation\nwho take the responsibility of the work.\nAid. Smith : That is the only way I interfered with him. I think Mr. Summerfield has\ngot 16-inch main on the brain.\nMr. Bodwell: You say Mr. Lynn has received an increase of salary; under what authority\nis that ?\nA.\u2014Under authority of the Council.\nQ.\u2014In what way does the city express it ?\nA.\u2014By resolution.\nQ.\u2014You have then men working on the streets now ?\nA.\u2014No ; I don't think there is any at all.\nQ.\u2014Since you finished the work on Princess Avenue you discharged all the men in each\nward ?\nA.\u2014Before that we had six men.\nQ.\u2014How many have you got working since then ?\nA.\u2014I think there are ten men working altogether now.\nQ.\u2014How many horses and carts ?\nA.\u2014That all depends on the work the rock crusher is doing.\nQ.\u2014Then Mr. Lynn has not got much responsibility at present 1\nA.\u2014I suppose he has got as much responsibility ; he may not have as much work.\nQ.\u2014He hasn't got a great deal of work to look after ?\nA.\u2014Not in one sense, perhaps ; but he has in another, because he has to make his regular\nrounds.\nQ.\u2014I thought that was the City Surveyor's work ?\nA.\u2014No; the City Surveyor is supposed to sit in his office to be consulted, to see what is\nto be done, to make out estimates and plans, and such.\nQ.-\u2014You started this year with no appropriation for streets at all beyond salaries ?\n cviii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA.\u2014How are you going to get an appropriation for streets when it is absorbed by everything else ?\nQ.\u2014This year you started with all the salaries and no money to work the men for whom\nthose salaries were provided ?\nA.\u2014We never get an appropriation for streets.\nQ.\u2014How do you get your money to do the work ?\nA.\u2014We take the residue of the other appropriations, if there is any.\nQ.\u2014What year has there been any residue ?\nA.\u2014Very little this year.    I think it was about $14,000.\nQ.\u2014No ; there was not over $9,000 if you look at the estimates. You say you had\n$14,000 1\nA.\u2014I am speaking from memory.\nQ.\u2014Was that $9,000 all you expected to spend on streets ? Did you expect any more\nmoney for this purpose ?\nA.\u2014I did in one sense.    I expected to raise a by-law for $100,000 for street purposes.\nQ.\u2014You had all these men on the permanent staff, you had arranged for their salaries,\nand you expected to raise money to work them with ? Supposing you hadn't been able to\nfloat this loan what would you have done with all these men ? How did you get the money\nfor the streets ?\nA.\u2014We got it the best way we could. There was an increase in the valuation of property ?\nQ.\u2014Where did you get the money ?\nA.\u2014We got an overdraft at the bank.\nQ.\u2014Where did the Street Committee get the money from to do the work ?\nA.\u2014We got it from the Council.\nQ.\u2014Isn't it a matter of fact that you go on with the work and then go to the Council to\nget it paid for ?\nA.\u2014Certainly, The Streets Committee are limited to $50 per week, which they can\nwork with without going to the Council. If there is any work that comes in calling for more,\nthey 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.\nThe Committee does not order any work till this report has been adopted by the Council.\nQ.\u2014The auditor tells us you have received nearly $13,000 out of that gravel pits sale.\nHow is it then that you are not working more men on the streets ?\nA.\u2014A good deal of money was spent in making those streets through the gravel pits.\nQ.\u2014That was prior to the sale ?\nA.\u2014We had to work a good many men on the Saanich Road.\nQ.\u2014How much money have you spent there since the 12th October?\nA.\u2014I couldn't give you the figures.\nQ.\u2014You state you haven't been spending any of this money on the streets ?\nA.\u2014We have been spending money on the streets all along.\nQ.\u2014How is it you have only ten men working on the streets ?\nA.\u2014Because we wanted to reduce expenses.\nQ.\u2014And you had $13,000 ?\nA.\u2014You must remember that independent of that we had the rock crusher going, below\nthe Custom House there, and teams hauling rock out of the different streets throughout town\nsince the 12th October.\nQ.\u2014How many teams had you working at that ?\nA.\u2014I think it was nine teams ; and we had as high as fourteen.\nQ.\u2014Where were these teams hauling the rock to ?\nA.\u2014All over town.\nQ.\u2014How much did you pay a day ?\nA.\u2014Four dollars.\nQ.\u2014That is about how much a day ?\nA.\u2014From fifty to sixty dollars. And then of course we had to have men to spread the\nrock.\nQ.\u2014That has been going on for how many days i\nA.\u2014I couldn't tell you.\nQ.\u2014You say that that number of teams has been working since that time ?\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. eix.\nA.\u2014Oh, they were working for about four or five weeks. We intended to start the rock\ncrusher again last Saturday, and that would take six or seven teams to haul the rock away.\nQ.\u2014Have you spent four thousand dollars or two thousand dollars since the 12th\nOctober ?\nA.\u2014Why, yes.\nQ.\u2014Three thousand ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Four thousand ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Five thousand ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Six thousand ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ._Where ?\nA.\u2014I told you all over the town.\nQ.\u2014How ?\nA.\u2014In repairing streets.\nQ.\u2014In what way ?\nA.\u2014There is this little street in front of your office, for instance. We spent some money\nin cleaning that and macadamizing it.\nQ.\u2014That is not a very expensive job.\nA.\u2014We had some streets to see to in James Bay Ward.\nQ.\u2014How many ?\nA.\u2014Several. Then we had a lot of work to do in Johnson Street Ward. We did that\nwork on the DeCosmos property. Then we've been laying down sidewalks, and repairing\nothers. There is a sidewalk contractor who gets the contract for so much a foot according to\nthe width of the sidewalk.\nQ.\u2014Has he been working steadily ?\nA.\u2014Steadily since the beginning of the year.\nQ.\u2014These contracts were all let at the beginning of the year ?\nA.\u2014Oh, no; from time to time as the work requires them.\nQ.\u2014How many since the 12th October?\nA.\u2014Couldn't say.\nQ.\u2014Have any ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell us any place that a sidewalk has been let for since the 12th October ?\nA.\u2014There has been some in Johnson Street Ward.\nQ.\u2014When was the contract let for that ?\nA.\u2014Some time ago.\nQ.\u2014Before the 12th October?\nA.\u2014I think not.\nQ.\u2014How much does that amount to ?\nA.\u2014I couldn't tell you. If you were Chairman of the Streets Committee, and had\ntwenty, or thirty, or perhaps forty items to come before you you would fail to remember any\nparticular one, unless it was of particular importance. If you can give me about the date I\ncan get the whole thing for you.\nQ.\u2014Can you produce a statement here to-morrow showing exactly what work has been\ndone on streets, outside of contracts, out of the money obtained from the gravel pits ?\nA.\u2014I think I can get that from the auditor.\nQ.\u2014With reference to the water works, you say you found the filter beds in a bad state.\nWhy is it you haven't appropriated any money to these filter beds for the last three or four\nyears ?\nA.\u2014When I left the works they were in first-class running order.\nQ.\u2014Why was it that the main was not extended to take the water straight from Elk\nLake? Mr. Summerfield reported on that, and said it would not take more than $15,000.\nDo you know any reason why the Council didn't do that ?\nA.\u2014Yes, and he takes it from a swamp just as bad as Beaver Lake. He was going to\nbring the water in by means of a ditch. When I was chairman of the water works, I believe\nI was the first person to propose to bring the water from Elk Lake by means of a box pipe\n ex. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nsubmerged in Beaver Lake and carried out to deep water in Elk Lake. The estimate I made\nat the time was $8,000.\nQ.\u2014That has never been done ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014It has been the custom of the Council to make an annual pilgrimage out to \"Steve's,\"\nand make the annual inspection of the source of the water supply ?\nA.\u2014Yes.    That is about the month of August.\nQ.\u2014Did you go over the filter beds then ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Was not this discovered ?\nA.\u2014I don't know. I discovered it. I reported it to the Council. That was in the early\npart of the year.\nQ.\u2014No steps taken on that ?\nA.\u2014We didn't have the money.\nQ.\u2014Well, how much revenue do you get from the water works'?\nA.\u2014I think about $46,000.\nQ.\u2014Why didn't you take that money ?\nA.\u2014There's salaries and extending mains.\nQ.\u2014What is the use of extending mains for the supply of impure water ? Don't you\nthink if that small sum you estimate had been spent you would now be drawing water, good\nwater, from Elk Lake ?\nA. \u2014No : you would have to filter the water any way. It will take $75,000 to give the\nwater proper filterage area for the requirements of the city.\nThe Court : Could money be more completely thrown away ? It would not take one-fifth\nof that sum to carry a pipe out to Elk Lake and have the water pure direct.\nAid. Smith : With reference to the purchasing of pipe : Last year, unfortunately for the\nCouncil, there was no pipe on hand when we took office, and we paid the Hamilton Iron\nWorks $64 per ton. This year a tender from Findlay, Durham & Brodie for $39.37 per ton\nwas accepted.\nThe Court: It was no doubt a very thoughtful thing to do, but it was illegal. I praise\nthe courage of the present Council for doing that which is against the law, although they\nthought they were doing a good thing.    There is not any moral blame in that.\nQ.\u2014You say you spent how much money on Oak Bay Avenue ?\nA.\u2014About $950.\nQ.\u2014There was a large tract of land bought out there this spring ?\nA.\u2014I don't know; I have no land out there.\nQ.\u2014They gave a bonus to the Street Car Company to run a tramway out there ?\nA.\u2014I heard they gave them something.\nQ.\u2014The tramway could not go out there without streets ? Did the city make the streets ?\nA.\u2014Mr. Bodwell thinks he has got something against me, but he's mistaken. The\ntramway put down their track and made their part of the road, and we made the other part\nto the city boundary, and the Provincial Government extended it down from the city boundary\nto the beach.\nQ.\u2014How much did you pay for that part ?\nA.\u2014I think it was\nMr. Bodwell: I think that closes the case on the part of the petitioners, my Lords.\nThe Court: Is there any other ratepayer that would like to say anything ?\nMr. Bodwell: I have brought forward everything that has been produced to me.\nThe Court then rose and stood adjourned till Wednesday morning, December 16th, 1891.\nvictoria, b. c. :\nPrinted by Richard Wolfenden-, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. cxi.\nWednesday, December 31st, 1891.\nThe Commissioners took their seats at 12 o'clock, noon.\nThe Court: Well, Mr. Bodwell, were you wishing to address us at all ?\nMr. Bodwell: Yes, my Lords. Since the last adjournment a matter has come under my\nnotice, which appears to me to be of so much importance, not only to this enquiry, but to the\ncitizens generally, that I wish, with your Lordships' permission, to call certain witnesses with\nreference to the sewerage system. As I am informed, there has been a great defect in the\nconstruction of the main sewer which will endanger the safety and value of the whole of the\nwork.\nThe Court: Is that the new sewer ?\nMr. Bodwell: Yes, my Lord. If the statement that has been made to me is incorrect it\nis of the greatest importance that the people should know it. Whether it is correct or not\nit isimportant that the people should know it.\nThe Court : Is it in the mode of construction ?\nMr. Bodwell : As I am instructed it is a change from the specifications. But it can be\nexplained in a few moments by an engineer. I would like to call Mr. Keene, who is familiar\nwith the whole matter, and who will be able to explain it to your Lordships.\nJohn Keene, sworn :\nMr. Richards :  Who is this gentleman ?    Hasn't he a suit pending against the Corporatio\nnow ?\nThe Court:    The Court is aware of all this, Mr. Richards.\nQ.\u2014Your full name ?\nA.\u2014John Keene.\nQ.\u2014Your profession?\nA.\u2014Sanitary and civil engineer.\nQ.\u2014Where are you engaged at present?\nA.\u2014Am chief engineer of the Kaslo and Slocan Railway Company.\nQ.\u2014You have been away some time ?\nA.\u2014Some two months.\nQ.\u2014And you were not here at the time the bulk of this evidence was being taken?-\nA.\u2014I was not, sir.\nQ.\u2014Did you have anything to do with reference to the contract for sewering the city?\nA.\u2014I was consulted by Mr. H. Macdonald.\nQ.\u2014In your professional capacity ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014In the course of that did you become familiar with the plans, specifications and\ndrawings of the work ?\nA.\u2014I read them all over.\nThe original plan of the egg-shaped sewer not then being in Court, and their Lordships\nhaving decided not to accept evidence on a rough draft prepared by Mr. Keene from memory,\nMr. Bodwell : Will you go on and explain, Mr. Keene, without regard to plan at all ?\nA.\u2014The original sewer, as contemplated in the specifications and bills of quantities,\nshowed the trench excavated to a certain depth and width. The bottom was to be brought to\ngrade, and at a certain elevation a piece of false work or model was to be placed in order that\nthe grade might be cast in due form so as to leave a perfect egg-shaped sewer when the model\nwas taken from it. That was to be taken up to the haunches of the egg-shaped sewer, and\nabove that level half the sewer was to be crowned with specially made bricks with radial\njoints. That was the work as described there shortly. What has actually been done is that\ntrenches have been excavated to a certain grade, and in the centre of that trench an\nexcavation has been made about twelve inches square, and a wooden box, 8x8 in the clear, of\ntwo-inch lumber has been placed down that central or sub-excavation. On the top of that eight-\ninch box there have been a series on two planks placed on the top from end to end. On the top\nof that two-inch plank platform there has been put a certain amount of concrete, the thickness\n of which varies from three inches in one place to nine inches in another. That surface has then\nevidently been brought to grade, and on the top of that has been placed the eighth part of the\ncircumference of an eight or ten-inch pipe to form a glazed invert line. The main defects of\nthat is this, that the main sewer instead of resting upon virgin soil with an imperishable\nfoundation, is resting upon a springy, perishable and moving base.\nQ.\u2014What result will that have ?\nThe Court: I should think that if the dry rot catches this lumber the concrete will give\nway ?\nA.\u2014Dry  or  wet rot;    concrete  being a  fragile  material,   and   very   brittle,  fractures\ninstantly and is irreparable.\nQ.\u2014And the result of fracture ?\nA.\u2014The liquid portions  of the excrete filters  through  into this box and  saturates the\nsurrounding soil.    And as a matter of fact there is a leak there now at the present time.\nQ.\u2014Does this illustrate what you have been saying (rough draft) ?\nA.\u2014That illustrates it exactly.    The crown  of the arch  is  of concrete, it  should have\nbeen of specially made brick.\nQ.\u2014What difference does that make in the whole ?\nA.\u2014There, is this amount of difference.    It is considerably cheaper, and besides it is one\nof the weakest pieces of work that could possible be put in.\nThe Court: Whereabouts is this ?\nA.\u2014Just beyond your house, my Lord.    Down Cook street.\nThe Court : Owing to the courtesy of the Corporation, which, I hope, won't influence my\nmind in this enquiry, I have been allowed to go shooting on certain town lots there, and while\nI have been shooting over these town lots my mind has been wandering over other things. I\nhave looked at the way they were making these sewers. I think this arch was made in brick.\nWitness : Are you sure it was not a man-hole your Lordship was looking at ?\nThe Court: I was close to a man-hole; I believe it was the sewer I was looking at\nthough.\nQ.\u2014Is there any danger in this part of the work ?\nA.\u2014There is very great danger.    It is not virgin soil in one instance, it is very soft\nmaterial in the other.\nQ.\u2014For what purpose does that serve\u2014that box drain ?\nA.\u2014It is a cheap method of draining the trenches during the execution of the work.    It\nis to save pumping, though pumping is necessary even now.\nQ.\u2014And you say there are leakages now ?\nA.\u2014There are actual leakages at the present moment.\nQ.\u2014Can you mention the place ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.    If you will give me that plan I will show you.\nMr. Richards : That is where they have finished, is it not ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.    I haven't been there since I came back.\nQ. (Mr. Bodwell)\u2014What is the effect of leakages ?\nA.\u2014It means simply a wash. A wash or scour means a displacement of material, and\nthat means that the working of the whole system is going to be suspended.\nQ. (Drawing No. 9 having been produced)\u2014Is the work being constructed according to\nthat plan ?\nA.\u2014No, sir ; it is not.\nQ.\u2014What does that drawing say about draining ?\nA.\u2014To drain the trench on either side with eight-inch pipe.\nQ.\u2014Won't concrete work rest upon that ?\nA.\u2014As it is drawn there each pipe is intended to be a skew back to the arch of the drain.\nIt would not stand at all, under any circumstances.\nThe Court: The weight of the whole sewer rests on these two drains ?\nA.-\u2014Yes, my Lord.    And it is not built that way.\nQ.\u2014And could not be built that way?\nA.\u2014It could be built that way, but no man would be such an ass as to build it that way.\nIt would be simply crushed.\nThe Court: Whether it be the foundation on which these pipes rest or not, I don't know.\nIt is not a question for us. An engineer coming here terrifies Commissioners who know\nnothing about it and persuades us that the foundations are perfectly good, while another\nengineer will swear it is exactly the opposite.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. cxiii.\nA.\u2014An engineer coming here will tell you that the Commissioners are endowed with a\ngood deal of common sense.\nThe Court:  In scientific matters you must not trust too much to common sense.\nQ. (Mr. Bodwell)\u2014You say that the work is not being constructed according to the\nspecifications ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir. That (drawing) shows the way it is executed. That curve explains the\namount of depth between the invert pipe, and the top of the two-inch platform is extremely\nexaggerated.\nQ.\u2014Did you make any measurements of the concrete there ?\nA.\u2014I don't think I did.\nQ.\u2014From memory, what do you think it is ?\nA.\u2014It varies from three to nine inches.\nQ.\u2014Now, Mr. Keene, what experience have you had in this sewer work ?\nA.\u2014I have had considerable experience in sewerage work. In the U. S.; in Croyden,\n(Eng.) ; Brighton, (Eng.) ; and in Southern California (Los Angeles).\nQ.\u2014You were on the actual construction works ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What position did you hold ?\nA.\u2014I was engineer.\nQ.\u2014In charge ?\nA.\u2014No, sir.    I was assistant.\nQ.\u2014Were they separate or combined schemes?\nA.\u2014Separate.    That system seems to be popular now.\nQ.\u2014How long have you been engaged in your profession ?\nA.\u2014Twenty-four years.\nQ.\u2014What institute were you a member of ?\nA.\u2014I was not a member of any institute     I was articled from the office of\t\nQ.\u2014Did you have anything else to do with reference to sewerage contracts ?\nA.\u2014I was asked about the width of the trenches. In making up the estimates my\nattention was drawn to the extreme width of the trenches at the top.\nQ.\u2014Can you speak with reference to any particular one ?\nA.\u2014In the case of the 12-inch pipe the trenches are described as 3 feet 3 inches in width.\nQ.\u2014Does that box drain make any difference in the cost of the contract to the contractor ?\nA.\u2014It would be a considerable saving to the contractor. It saves the moving of the\npumping station from one section to another, and enables him to pump out longer sections at a\ntime. As it is, I think they have only one pumping station with which they pump the whole\nof these trenches dry at the same time. Otherwise it would require a station at every 800 or\n1,000 feet.\nQ.\u2014Is this one of the original plans ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nPlan No. 14 produced.\nQ.\u2014What do you say about that ?    Was this produced, in your opinion, to the tenderers ?\nA.\u2014It was, sir.\nMr. Mohun (Drawing No. 9) : That was the one produced to the tenderers.\nQ.\u2014Did you see that, Mr. Keene ?\nA.\u2014I did not see it.\nQ.\u2014You prepared a tender for Mr. Macdonald ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ. \u2014In the course of that you had access to the plans ?\nA.\u2014Inspected them.\nQ.\u2014Did you see that plan, No. 9 ?\nA.\u2014I did iiot; I never saw that section before.\nQ.\u2014Did you see that section of the concrete sewer ?\nA.\u2014It was not like that, but was more like that (rough draft made by Keene). There is\nno sub-drain there at all, my Lord. It has this defect; it must remain there when it has\nserved its purpose.\nQ.\u2014What does this plan, No. 14, show ?\nA.\u2014That was pinned up on the wall.\nQ.\u2014It does show the sub-drain ?\nA.\u2014No, it does not\n The Court (pointing to the plan): There are no bricks shown here at all in the crown ?\nA.\u2014I said that was in concrete, but it is described in brick.\nQ.\u2014Is that a plan of the works (No. 12) ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014That one produced to the tenderers ?\nA.\u2014That is one I saw on the wall.\nQ.\u2014With reference to the trench widths, did that come under your notice in the course\nof your work ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014Take the 12-inch pipe, what do you think should be the proper width there ?\nA.\u2014It is described as 3 feet 3 inches. Two feet is ample for that at the top. On my\nrequest Mr. Macdonald sent his foreman to the City Hall to make enquiries.\nQ.\u2014Before you state that, what effect would that have on the tenderers to have to\nexcavate these trenches wider than was necessary ?\nA.\u2014It would make a considerable difference.\nQ.\u2014Can you state whether that is general ?\nA.\u2014Generally they are wider than is necessary or requisite.\nQ.\u2014Have you made any calculation as to how much difference it would make to the\ntenderer if the excavations were taken out according to the bills of quantities, or if the\ncontractor were allowed to use his own judgment ?\nA.\u2014I should think it would make in the cost of the excavations throughout a good third\ndifference.\nQ.\u2014In consequence of what you read in these bills of quantities, did you cause any\nenquiries to be made ?\nA.\u2014I did.\nQ.\u2014Where did you have these enquiries made\u2014at what place ?\nA.\u2014I requested Mr. Macdonald to go to the City Hall and make enquiries there in the\nEngineer's office.\nQ.\u2014In consequence of that what did you do ?\nA.\u2014 We simply priced the bills of quantities as printed, and did not discount them as we\nshould have done.\nQ.\u2014You have stated that these widths were unnecessarily wide ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014Can you, from your own knowledge, state anything with reference to the manner in\nwhich this work is being carried out ?\nA.\u2014In all the trenches I have seen the excavation is less in width than described in the\nbills of quantities.\nQ.\u2014Have you measured any ?\nA.\u2014I have only measured one. That is on Blanchard street, the street I live on. The\ntrench there is described as 3 feet 3 inches wide ; it is only 2 feet 3 inches.\nThe Court here rose for lunch.\nOn re-assembling, Mr. Richards, cross-examining : Did you make any plans of this work\nfor the city ?\nA.\u2014No, sir.\nQ.\u2014Did you make no plans at any time ?\nA.\u2014I made a set of plans for sewerage of the City of Victoria under competition ?\nQ.\u2014Were your plans accepted ?\nA.\u2014No, they were not accepted, sir.\nQ.\u2014Who else competed with you ?\nA.\u2014There were four or five other engineers competed.\nQ.\u2014Whose were accepted ?\nA.\u2014Mr. Mohun's were accepted after certain alterations and additions were made to\nthem from my designs.\nQ.\u2014You have a suit pending against the city ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.    I think one coming off next month.\nQ.\u2014You spoke of the bottom of the sewer here. I suppose that that is now all\ncompleted ?\nA.\u2014That I could not say.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. cxv.\nQ.\u2014Shall any good result from exposing this matter, if exposure it is, because it cannot\nbe remedied ?\nA.\u2014The good in bringing the matter forward now is this. Supposing in five or six years\ntime (if it runs that length of time) that sewer collapses, or is thrown out of shape by reason\nof fractures, that sewer will fail to deliver any sewage that may be delivered into it by the\nsubsidiary mains.    Then you will be in a horrible mess.\nQ.\u2014You don't think the Corporation will go to work and tear up all that work now ?\nA.\u2014I don't ask them to do it.\nQ.\u2014You originated\u2014this is your charge ?\nA.\u2014No, sir.\nQ.\u2014You gave the information to my learned friend here which enabled him to bring\nforward this fresh charge ?\nA.\u2014I gave the information in answer to certain questions that were asked of me. My\nopinion was asked about it and I gave it.\nQ.\u2014Why didn't you let the matter drop ? \"Mr. Mohun and I were rivals in this matter,\nand you had better let the matter drop now that no good can result.\" You didn't answer in\nthat way ?\nA.\u2014No sir.    On the contrary, I answered in another way.\nQ.\u2014And in consequence of what you did say you have been brought here as a witness ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014What do you say now, as an engineer, the Corporation should do ?\nA.\u2014Tear it all out and put it in properly; cheapest in the end.\nQ.\u2014You think that would be cheaper than letting it go on ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I do.\nQ.\u2014 Whereabouts is this leakage that you refer to?\nA.\u2014If you will allow me Mr. Mohun's blue print I will be able to show you. I will tell\nyou this one little incident that happened. One Saturday afternoon Mr. Stamford, of the firm\nof Braden & Stamford, and I were taking a walk along the sewerage works; as we walked\nalong there was a small amount of water in the invert of the sewer.\nQ.\u2014Where was this, at what part of the works ?\nA.\u2014We were down beyond the flat where Mr. Drake lives.\nThe Court: Between Cook and Moss streets ?\nA.\u2014Yes, my Lord. We stood there, and picking up a few leaves threw them into the\nwater so as to get some idea as to what velocity the water had. We went on some little\ndistance chaffing about it, when Mr. Stamford said :\u2014\" What is the matter here?\" I said :\u2014\n\" It is a leak.\" The water was running very gradually indeed towards Clover Point outfall.\nThere were then four or five yards of the sewer perfectly dry, yet the water was flowing. We\nstayed there and watched, and it wandered towards the leak. He said I will put my knife into\nit, and he put his knife into that joint there and stuck it into the wood work. As we looked\nup we saw your Lordship in the distance, and Mr. Stamford said :\u2014\" There is Sir Matthew\nBaillie Begbie. I will call him over and show it to him.\" I said :\u2014\" Please don't do anything\nof the kind. I have an action coming before His Lordship, and I should not like it to be\nthought that I was taking this method of drawing his attention to it.\"\nMr. Richards : I would like to know exactly where you found this leak ? Was it on Cook\nstreet ?\nA.\u2014In that tangent that runs between Moss street and Cook street.\nQ.\u2014Have you made any test to see how thick the cement is there ?\nA.\u2014I have measured it.\nQ.\u2014Where ?\nA.\u2014At that tangent.\nQ.\u2014How did you get down ?\nA.\u2014I got down in the trench as they went along with it. I simply, out of curiosity,\nmeasured it.\nQ.\u2014When was this ?\nA.\u2014That was some time  past, I think it was in September.\nQ.\u2014You immediately came to the conclusion that this was wrong?\nA.\u2014I can't say.    I think it was a mistake, an error of judgment,\nQ.\u2014You thought it an error of judgment then ?\nA-\u2014Certainly, sir.\n cxvi. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.-\u2014Did you write any letters to the newspapers ?\nA.--Oh, dear\u2014no, sir.\nQ.\u2014Did you call the attention of the Sewerage Commissioners to the fact ?\nA.\u2014No, sir.    I was never asked about it, and I had no interest in the matter.\nQ.\u2014Yet you say it was an error, a serious error ? And you said nothing about it to\nanyone ?\nA.\u2014I wasn't interested in giving information.\nQ.\u2014I suppose it was necessary to have some kind of a trench there in constructing this\nsewer ?\nA.\u2014Certainly.\nQ.\u2014It could not be done without taking the water out ?\nA.\u2014Impossible.\nQ.\u2014I suppose now that the sewer is finished this drain is filled up with earth ? Is it not\nleft hollow ?\nA.\u2014I should very much doubt whether they would be able to fill it up.\nQ.\u2014You can't say whether it is filled or not ?\nA.\u2014No, sir.     I haven't seen it since then.\nQ.\u2014You can't tell whether they left it open or filled ?\nA.\u2014No, sir.\nQ.\u2014What kind of a trench did the plan show that you looked at when you were tendering\nfor Macdonald ?\nA.\u2014I didn't see any provision made in the plans anywhere.    It was in the specifications.\nQ.\u2014This plan here (No. 9) shows a pipe on each side ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014Did you think that would answer ?\nA.\u2014That plan is full of defects and could not stand.\nQ.\u2014How would you get rid of the water in construction ?\nA.\u2014By constructing a drain at intervals vertically up the sides of the trench and passing\nthe water up by that means.\nQ.\u2014It would be cheaper to dig a little hole in that way into the clay than constructing\nthis sub-drain ?\nA.\u2014It is not the cost of that. It is the cost of moving your pumping station along the\nwhole line of your sewer from one point to another. By the sub-drain you can do it all at one\ntime and by means of one pumping station.\nQ.\u2014You have spoken about certain portions being made in cement that should have been\nmade in brick.    Can you give a statement of the number of feet made in cement ?\nA.\u2014No, I cannot, sir.    I didn't measure it.\nQ.\u2014One would suppose that, coming here as an engineer, you would be able to furnish\nclear and undoubted evidence of what you say, and yet you say you have made no\nmeasurements ?\nA.\u2014I have made no measurements, except the inverts. But it is very difficult to make\nconnections with a concrete sewer, while it is very easy to make connection with a brick\nsewer.    You can't alter or handle concrete.    Once it is set it is down for ever till it breaks.\nQ.\u2014Where do you make this connection, at the top or the sides ?\nA.\u2014On the sides. It would strike the concrete anywhere, because the brick does not\ncommence until you get half-way up the sides.\nQ.\u2014Did you discover a leakage in any other place than the one you mentioned ?\nA.\u2014No, sir.    We didn't look for them.\nQ.\u2014Was there a fall towards the outlet ?\nA.\u2014I didn't see what fall there was.\nQ.\u2014Was there enough to carry the water off?\nA.\u2014There was enough to carry a leaf along with it a few yards till it came to a dry place.\nIn one or two instances we found places where instead of the leaves going towards Clover Point\nthey went towards the city of Victoria.\nQ.\u2014What was that due to\u2014the wind ?\nA.\u2014A leaf is not likely to be affected by the wind at the bottom of a sewer.\nQ.\u2014You say you saw the water running towards the city ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir ; we found two places where leaves ran the other way. It was more for\namusement than anything else that we did it.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. cxvii.\nQ.\u2014The wind might move the leaf ?\nA.\u2014No, sir. In sailing, I admit you can sail against the tide, but when you put a leaf\nor any such light substance in the water it generally goes with the water\u2014the way it flows.\nQ.\u2014A leaf never sinks.    If you put a stick  in,  for instance,  it sinks down and is not\ninfluenced by the wind, but a leaf will rise and will be influenced by the wind independent of\nthe water altogether.    Can you point out a place ?    Because  this  is  very  damaging evidence\nyou have been giving regarding Mr. M'ohun's engineering ?\n\u2022    A.\u2014Very likely.\nQ.\u2014Go down Cook street\u2014was it on Cook street ?\nMr. Bodwell:    If you will produce the ground plan we will point out the place to you.\nThe Court:   I suppose this place where you found this leak is all covered up now ?\nA.\u2014Yes, my Lord.\nQ.\u2014Was it near Cook street?\nA.\u2014Yes, nearer Cook than Moss street.\nQ \u2014What time of the year was this ?\nA.\u2014About September.\nQ.\u2014Before the rains commenced ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014Was there any water lying at the bottom of the ditch ?\nA.\u2014At the bottom of the ditch\u2014no.    In the box drain\u2014yes.\nQ.\u2014Was there any water in the sewer itself?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How did that water get in ?\nA.\u2014From the upper cuts.\nQ.\u2014What do you mean by the upper cuts ?\nA.\u2014From the leakage in the sides of the sewer itself.\nQ.\u2014Where was this ?\nA-\u2014In the same tangent.\nQ.\u2014You say the water in there was from the leak in the sides ? Then there was water\nfrom the earth running in ?\nA.\u2014That whole district is saturated earth. It may have been that the water was put in\nthere on purpose. I should not. be at all surprised, because the sewer was dammed across with\nsand bags at the invert, and at several other places.\nQ.\u2014How near where you saw the water\u2014which way were they working\u2014from the sea\nup, or from the city down ?\nA.\u2014Do you mean which way were they constructing the sewer ?\nQ.\u2014Yes.\nA.\u2014They were constructing it all along the line. (Ground plan in question having been\nproduced.) Now I will show you that tangent. It was just about there that we made our\nexamination.\nQ.\u2014And you saw the leakage\u2014the water running in and running out into the box drain ?\nA.\u2014No, sir. It is impossible for a man to see water running out of a sewer into an 8x8\nbox drain underneath.\nQ.\u2014Where did you see the water running out?\nA.\u2014At this tangent. Just about here. That is where the water that was in the invert\npassed from the sewer into the 8x8 box drain underneath or into the earth beside it.\nQ.\u2014You say several of the trenches are being excavated too wide ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014And you say there is a loss there ?\nA \u2014Yes, sir.    A distinct loss.\nQ. \u2014In what way, now ?\nA.\u2014Simply because they described the trench to be 3 feet 3 inches wide when 2 feet were\nample.\nThe Court: You say that that makes a difference or increase in the amount of the\nestimate ?\nA.\u2014It does, because the contractor will figure supposing these trenches to be 3 feet 3\ninches wide.\nQ.\u2014You don't suppose a contractor would make a trench any wider than was necessary\nto get the pipe in?\n cxviii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA.\u2014If contractors presume that to excavate their trenches two feet wide would be amply\nsufficient to put their pipes in, yet if they are informed that they would have a deduction made\nfrom their contract price of the difference between two feet and three feet three, they would\nfigure on taking out the whole three feet three inches.\nQ.\u2014That is in the contract now ?\nA.\u2014It is in the contract.\nQ.\u2014Is there anything in the contract which says this ?\nA.\u2014These men came to me and said, \" Is it necessary that these trenches should be three\nfeet three inches wide ? \"    I said no; but go to the City Hall and ask.\nQ.\u2014There is no use in saying what the contractors said.\nA.\u2014Read the specifications then.    (Clause 12, page 5, Sewer specifications.)\nThe Court: That is a fair enough stipulation, if it is adhered to. The contractor is to\ntender for the full amount called for, and he is liable to a deduction for every diminution in\nthe course of the execution of that work.\nWitness : It is because he will not be required to refund the money that I am here,\nmy Lord.\nMr. Bodwell : The point that we make on this is that some of the contractors were not\nfully informed that they were to tender on that basis, and the result was that they put in\ntheir tenders on the supposition that the whole of this excavation was to be taken out. The\nconsequence is that their tender was $50,000 or $100,000 more than that of the contractor\nwho is now carrying on the the work.\nThe Court : Mr. Mohun gives evidence as an engineer that he is not prepared to make\nthe trenches any wider than is necessary. The fact of the matter is, it is a hardship on the\npersons tendering. It is a hardship on the ratepayers, for they ought to get a return from\nthe contractor for the work he is not doing.\nQ.\u2014How is the contractor paid, in proportion to the width of the ditch ?\nA.\u2014How can I tell, sir ?\nQ.\u2014Have you seen the contract ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014If it is stated in the specifications that the contractor shall make the ditch three feet,\nand he only makes it two and gets the pipe in, is there any loss between the city and the\ncontractor ?\nA.\u2014It is a fraud on the ratepayers.\nQ.__Who loses ?\nA.\u2014The contractor gains ; the ratepayers lose.\nQ.\u2014Do you know if the amount is paid for three feet or two ?\nA.\u2014I can only say, if your engineer's evidence is reliable, that the contractor is paid for\nthe lineal foot, and not by cubical contents.\nMr. Bodwell : You were asked whether or not you put in certain plans for the sewerage\nof the city, and whether these plans were adopted or rejected, and I understood you to say\nthat they were rejected, but that certain alterations were taken from your plans, and\t\nThe Court : Is not that a matter that is a subject of litigation now ? As I understand\nit, Mr. Keene has some question in dispute.\nMr. Bodwell : Well, we'll leave that alone now. My learned friend opened the question,\nbut perhaps we had better leave it.\nTo witness\u2014Did your plans have any reference to the utilization of the Johnson street\nsewer ?\nA.\u2014They adopted it and carried it out to Clover Point.\nA.\u2014Do you know whether or not the present plans include that ?\nA.\u2014It does not, so far as I know.    It did not as accepted by the Corporation.\nMr. Richards : You said your plans utilized the Johnson street sewer. That is very\nlow, isn't it.    How can you have any elevation so as to get the fall ?\nA.\u2014My plans show a good fall, still utilizing that.\nQ.\u2014And still have a good fall ?\nA.\u2014And still have a good fall down to Clover Point.\nQ.\u2014How much above the water level is it there where you take it?\nA.\u2014I couldn't tell you from memory now.\nQ.\u2014You must have measured it to see ?\nA.\u2014Certainly I measured it.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. cxix.\nQ.\u2014And there Was ample fall from there, Wharf street, out there ? How far is it, three\ntniles ?\nA.\u2014No, sir, I think it is two.\nQ.\u2014And you Would have the fall in these two miles necessary for sewerage purposes ?\nAs they are not using the Johnson street sewer now have they a great deal more outfall.\nA.\u2014I say no, sir.    Considerably less.\nQ.\u2014What is this Mr. Herring says about there being only four thousand feet from the\nwat\t\nA.\u2014That is like a good many other idiotic things he said in that report.\nQ.\u2014Who is this man ?\nA.\u2014-He is a Rudolph Herring, of New York.\nQ.\u2014A man of any celebrity ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.    To read his report I should say not.\nQ.\u2014He condemned your scheme?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir, and stole my grades.\nQ.\u2014You say you have to start the grade pretty low there, and you would be still lower\nwhen you got out to the sea ?\nA.\u2014The depths that you are now cutting into are the same as I had in my original designs.\nThe only difference is that you put in your designs to elevate your mains so as to drain no\none's cellars ; but when the new Council came into power they ordered you to drop your mains\nat a cost of $60,000 more. The main objection to my main was the cost. I had my outfall\nthree feet below low water, embedded in a reservoir which was so regulated as to be automatic,\nand prevent the tide coming in anywhere, by means of gates that would shut at low tide\u2014one\nthing Mr. Herring seemed to overlook or utterly ignore.\nQ.\u2014What do you mean by an automatic reservoir ; the water runs into the sewer at\nhigh tide and remains there ?\nA.\u2014Oh,  dear, no.    The sewage runs in there, and when the tide comes in the gates are,.\nclosed.    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.\nQ.\u2014Suppose that was not large enough to hold the sewerage and the tide was high, would\nnot the sewerage be forced back into the pipes ?\nA.\u2014There was ample provision for 150,000 inhabitants.\nQ.\u2014According to Mr. Mohun's scheme you can't utilize the Johnson street sewer ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014He says he can't.\nA.\u2014I' don't know the altitudes. He had no fall at all until they stole it from my\ndrawings. Their grade was one in 2,500, but instead of taking that they took mine, whicli\nwas one in 1,112, and made it one in 1,111.\nMr.  Adams,  called by Mr. Bodwell.    (Sworn):\u2014\nQ.\u2014Your full name is ?\nA.\u2014Frederick Adams.\nQ.\u2014Your occupation ?\nA.\u2014General contractor I was brought up. I have been foreman for Mr. Macdonald\nfor a long time.\nQ.\u2014Mr. Macdonald is a contractor?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014Were you foreman for Mr. Macdonald at the time tenders for the sewerage of the\ncity of Victoria were called for ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Did you assist him to make up his tender ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014Have you had experience in sewerage works?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014As a contractor ?\nA.\u2014Contracting, inspector, and general workman.\nQ.\u2014For how long ?\nA.\u2014Off and on about thirty years.\nQ.\u2014Did you look over the bills of quantities that were attached to the form of tender ?\nA,\u2014Yes.\n cxx. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014Did you notice the excavation required for the ditches ?\nA.\u2014I did.\nQ.\u2014Did you form any opinion as a contractor ?\nA.\u2014I formed the opinion that it was extremely wide for the trenches.\nQ. \u2014In consequence of that did you do anything ?\nA.\u2014Yes. I asked the clerk in the City Hall, in the engineer's office, if it was necessary\nto carry them out to that width, and he said that the work would have to be carried out\naccording to the specifications, and if it was not carried out a deduction would have to be\nmade for the work not done.\nQ.\u2014What difference would that make with reference to the tender?\nA.\u2014It would make a trifle over one-third.\nQ.\u2014Do you know what Mr. Macdonald's tender was ?\nA.\u2014I do not, from memory.\nQ.\u2014If you hadn't received that information at the'engineer's office, and you had been\ntold that you could take the trenches to any width you liked, so long as you got the pipes in,\nwhat difference did you say that would make in the amount of the tender ?\nA.\u2014Fully one-third.\nQ.\u2014So that Mr. Macdonald's contract would have been reduced one-third ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Did you have any conversation with anyone else on this subject ?\nA.\u2014No, sir ; only with Mr. Macdonald.\nQ.\u2014Have you examined any of this work that has been done ?\nA.\u2014No, sir.    I never bothered about it after.    It didn't concern me.\nMr. Macdonald, called by Mr. Bodwell.    (Sworn).\nQ.\u2014Your full name is ?\nA.\u2014Hugh Macdonald.\nQ.\u2014Occupation ?\nA. \u2014Contractor.\nQ.\u2014Did you tender for the city sewerage ?\nA.\u2014I did.\nQ.\u2014Did you have, before you tendered, the bills of quantities prepared by the engineer ?\nA.\u2014I did.\nQ.\u2014Did you form any opinion of the width of the trenches specified ?\nA.\u2014I did.\nQ.\u2014In consequence of that did you see anyone or have any conversation about it ?\nA.\u2014I spoke to one or two parties about it, and went to see the sewerage commissioners.\nI had an appointment with Mr. Earle and Mr. Turner. I met them in Mr. Earle's office, and\nI drew their attention to these unnecessarily wide trenches, and asked them if I made my\ncalculations on a less quantity than specified in the bills, would it be deducted off my contract ?\nThey said I would have to see Mr. Mohun about that, but they thought it would surely be\ntaken off the contract. I consequently made my calculations on the width called for in the\nbottom of the trench.\nQ.\u2014What difference did that make in your price ?\nA.\u2014On that portion it would make a good third.\nQ.\u2014Would that make the whole of your contract price one-third less ?\nA.\u2014No. Because there are other portions of the contract that it would have no reference to at all.\nQ.\u2014Are you in a position to state what reductions it would make in the lump sum on\nthe excavations ?\nA.\u2014No, I could not.\nQ.\u2014Did you have any conversation with Mr. Mohun on the subject ?\nA.\u2014No, I didn't.    I was in the office looking at the plans.\nQ.\u2014Did you look at the plans and specifications here shown ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I did.\nQ,\u2014Can you tell us whether or not the egg-shaped sewer was shown on the drawing that\nyou saw in this shape ?\nA.\u2014I have no recollection of that shape.\nQ.\u2014Did you see that one?    (Plan 14).\nA.\u2014Yes, that is the one.    If I am not mistaken, it was nailed on the wall.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality.\nJohn Elford, called by Mr. Bodwell.    (Sworn).\nQ.\u2014What is your occupation, Mr. Elford ?\nA.\u2014Builder and contractor.\nQ.\u2014Did you have anything to do with the contract for the sewer works here ?\nA.\u2014Yes.    We put in a bid on that.\nQ.\u2014Did you see anyone with reference to the width of the trenches ?\nA.\u2014We saw Mr. Mohun. In going through the specifications we saw that the trenches\nwere unusually wide, and we thought we would have a talk with him about it, and see whether\nit was to be carried out to the full width. I think we saw Mr. Earle, and he said he could\nnot tell us anything about it, but that we had better see Mr. Mohun himself. We went to\nthe City Hall and put the question to Mr. Mohun. He said the trenches would have to be\ncarried out according to the specifications. We said we thought that was all right; we wanted\nto figure accordingly.\nQ.\u2014How much reduction would that have made in your tenders?\nA.\u2014I couldn't tell you, because we wanted the information before we tendered.\nQ.\u2014Did you inform Mr. Mohun that you were about to tender?\nA.\u2014No, we did'nt tell him ; but I suppose he had an idea what we were after.\nMr. W. J. Smith.    Examined by Mr. Bodwell :\nQ.\u2014Your occupation is ?\nA.\u2014Contractor.\nQ.\u2014Did you put in a bid on the sewerage works ?\nA.\u2014We did.    Mr. Elford and I.\nQ.\u2014You are a partner of Mr. Elford.    Well ?\nA.\u2014Well, we got a copy of the specifications, and we found that the trenches were a great\ndeal wider than was necessary. We went to Mr. Mohun and asked him if these widths were\nto be carried out. He said the specifications and quantities would have to be carried out, or if\nnot a deduction would have to be made on the work that was not done.\nMr.  Richards :    How did you tender?\nA.\u2014We tendered on the quantities and specifications. We knew that if we didn't take\nout what was stated there would be a deduction. That is what I understood from the specifications.\nQ.\u2014What harm is done ? You tendered a large sum to take out certain quantities, and\nif a narrower ditch would answer there would be so much taken off the tender ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ._Well ?\nA.\u2014We figured so much per foot running, or the width of these trenches as specified in\nthe specifications.\nQ.\u2014You would not lose anything if you did not take out that quantity ?\nA.\u2014That all depends. If a man carries these trenches a good deal narrower and the\namount is not deducted he gets a good deal of advantage.\nQ.\u2014You understood that there would be a deduction for all the work that was not done ?\nWhy didn't you tender as low as the man who got the work ?\nA.\u2014He may have got some other information.    Has this reduction been made ?\nQ.\u2014Do you know that it has not ?\nA.\u2014I am just asking has it?\nThe Court: As a matter of fact, do you know if the trenches have been dug less than the\nspecifications call for ?\nA.\u2014No, I have never measured them.\nThe Court: As a matter of fact, in the trenches that are covered in is it possible to\nmeasure the deficiency of the cubical contents ?\nA.\u2014No, I don't think it is.\nMr. Macdonald.    Recalled by Mr. Bodwell:\nQ.\u2014Have you measured any of these ditches to know whether or not they have been\ncarried out to the width of the specifications ?\nA.\u2014I measured two or three in different streets, and I find that the ditch is not at all\nwhat is called for at the bottom.\n cxxii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014What trenches did you measure ?\nA.\u2014I measured one on Blanchard street,  one on Store street, and one on Chatham street.\nQ.\u2014Do you know what size pipe was on Blanchard street ?\nA.\u2014I could not tell for sure.\nQ.\u2014What did you discover on Blanchard street\u2014what  was  the result  of your measurements ?\nA.\u2014Two feet and a half on the surface.\nQ.\u2014Did you measure at the bottom ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014And Store street\u2014what did you find ?\nA.\u2014Three and a half at the top.\nQ.\u2014What was the other street ?\nA.\u2014Chatham street.\nQ.\u2014Now, on Chatham street what did you measure ?\nA.\u2014Three and a half at the top.\nMr. Bodwell:    Store street calls for a four foot trench, and I think Chatham street is an\n18-inch pipe, and calls for a three foot nine at the bottom.\nMr. Richards :    When did you measure these ditches ?\nA.\u2014I measured them two or three different times.\nQ.\u2014Are you in the employ of the city ?\nA.\u2014No, sir.    I only done it to satisfy my own curiosity.\nQ.\u2014You felt a little annoyed you didn't get the contract?\nA.\u2014No; I am never annoyed if I am beaten on the square.    It was to satisfy myself if\nit was taken out to the width that was called for that I measured the trenches.\nQ.\u2014When you found this out why didn't you go to Mr. Mohun and tell him ?\nA.\u2014It was none of my business.\nQ.\u2014It was none of your business to go and measure, was it ?\nA.\u2014That was my privilege as a ratepayer.\nQ.\u2014You didn't feel sore you didn't get the contract ?\nA.\u2014Oh, no.    There was two or three below me ; I wasn't next to the lowest?\nQ.\u2014You were up pretty high ?\nA\u2014There was only two or three below me.\nQ.\u2014You have done a good deal of work contracting ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ._Where ?\nA.\u2014From the Atlantic to the Pacific.\n' Q.\u2014Did you have anything to do with the Roman Catholic Church ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014You are not that Macdonald ?\nA.\u2014No, sir.\nT.  F. Sinclair, called by Mr. Bodwell :-\nQ.\u2014Your full name is-\nA.\u2014Temple Frederick Sinclair.\nQ.\u2014Occupation ?\nA.\u2014Contractor.\nQ.\u2014Did you tender on the sewerage works for the city of Victoria ?\nA\u2014I did.\nQ.\u2014Was your attention called in the bills of quantities to the widths that were specified\nfor these trenches ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Did you notice anything particular ?\nA.\u2014Certainly, I did.\nQ.\u2014In consequence of that, did you see anyone, or have any conversation with anyone\nabout it ?\nA.\u2014I looked over the specifications and the pipe that was to be laid in these drains, and\nI asked the engineer if that width was necessary. He said the specifications were to be\ncarried out,\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. cxxiii.\nQ.\u2014Did he say anything more ?\nA\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014Did you inform him that you were a contractor, or did he have any reason to know\nthat ?\nA.\u2014I daresay he had reason to know it.\nMr. Richards: I suppose you knew from the specifications that a certain quantity of work\nwas to be done, and if that was not done there would be a deduction made ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I suppose so.\nQ.\u2014How much was your tender ?\nA.\u2014My tender was pretty high.\nQ.\u2014How much above the others ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nQ.\u2014How much did yours amount to ?\nA\u2014$400,000.\nQ.\u2014And McBean's tender?\nA.\u2014I don't know, but much below that.\nQ.\u2014How many thousand?\nA.\u2014Something like $150,000 below mine.\nQ.\u2014You don't think you have any ground for complaint that you did not get it ?\nA.\u2014No, I don't know probably that I had.\nMr. Richards to Mr. Bodwell:    Have you any more disappointed contractors or engineers ?\nMr. Bodwell :    You may have a disappointed engineer before we have done with you yet.\nThe Court, on rising, stood adjourned till Monday morning, January 4th, 1892.\nMonday, January 4th, 1892.\nThe Commissioners took their seats at 12 o'clock, noon.\nMr. Bass, who had from the commencement been reporting the sittings of the Court, was\nunable to attend, and his place was taken by a stranger, who late in the day said he could not\nreport the witnesses.    The following is a transcript of what was reported :\u2014\nJ. L. Stamford called.    Examined by Mr. Bodwell:\nQ.\u2014What is your full name ?\nA.\u2014James Leonard Stamford.\nQ.\u2014You live in Victoria ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014Your business,\u2014Plumbing ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014You know the position of the concrete sewer and the present sewerage works being\nconstructed in the city ?\nA.\u2014Part of it.\nQ.\u2014Have you at any time made any personal observation as to the state of that sewer?\nA.\u2014One Saturday afternoon I was past it.\nQ.\u2014Will you tell the Commissioners what you observed ?    Where did you commence ?\nA.\u2014At this end of Cook street, and went along Cook as far as Clover Point.\nCourt.\u2014Then you followed the sewer all along ?    About what Saturday would it be ?\nA.\u2014It would be about two months ago.\nQ.\u2014Will you state what you saw ?\nA.\u2014The only thing that struck me was that there were man-holes left open in the lower\npart of Cook street, and I saw water running down. Going a little further, the bottom of the\nsewer was dry.\nQ.\u2014For what distance was it dry ?    Did this excite your curiosity ?\nA.\u2014I naturally wondered where the water was going to, and saw that it was leaking\nthrough ; where it went I do not know.\nQ.\u2014Did you make an examination ?\nA.\u2014I took my pen-knife and put it into the concrete where the water was leaking through.\n(Pen-knife produced.)\n cxxiv. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nCourt :    What do you mean by quite a way down ?\nA.\u2014About two and a half inches.    That was the only place I tried it.\nQ.\u2014Did you see anything else worthy of note ?\nA.\u2014I did not try to find fault. When we got a little further on it seemed to me that the\nwater was running in the wrong direction.    It may have been a sag in the sewer,\nQ.\u2014Did you look for any reason for the water running the wrong way ?\nA.\u2014I went down and found there was a ditch, as far as I could judge.\nThe Court:    The sag was the only apparent reason for the water running that way ?\nA.\u2014That was all I could see. I did not go out to criticise the sewer. I was out for a\nwalk.\nQ.\u2014Did you come to the conclusion that there was anything wrong 1\nA.\u2014The sewer was not filled up then and the earth was not thrown in. Man-holes were\nleft at certain points all the way down Cook street. These man-holes were pieces of earth left\nout, I do not know for what purpose.\nQ.\u2014How far apart were these openings?\nA.\u2014 I should judge about fifty feet; large enough for a man to go in. After I left Cook\nstreet I did not see into the sewer until I got to Clover Point. It was open at the outlet, and\nI do not think the sewer was in there.\nM r. Richards, cross-examining :\nQ.\u2014Was the water you speak of all along Cook street ? At the first hole the water was\nrunning in its proper course. At the third one you saw the water disappearing. When you\nput your knife in did you find anything hard ?    Did you come to any wood ?\nA.\u2014I suppose that could have been mended when they came to close up this hole, and it\nmight have happened through the holes being left open while they were going on with the work.\nQ.\u2014Did you come back to see what became of the water ?\nA.\u2014I was not sufficiently interested to find that out.    This was all on Moss street.\nThe Court : The sewer was all covered up except at these man-holes, and if you had\nwanted to see where the water was running you would have had to go along the sewer, which\nyou did not want to do ?\nA.\u2014Yes.    It was not my business to look into such affairs.\nQ.\u2014Are you sure about the holes being fifty feet apart ?\nA.\u2014The openings were about four or five feet in width, and at intervals of about fifty feet.\nQ.\u2014At what time was this ?\nA.\u2014On Saturday afternoon, between three and four.\nQ.\u2014In what month ?\nA.\u2014I do not remember.     I think it was about two months ago.\nMr. Bodwell: I have no more witnesses to call. There is one thing that strikes me\u2014that\nis, that there are two causes of danger to the sewer on the evidence given : the danger of the\nbox drain giving way, and the danger of the soil from either side giving way. If there is any\ndoubt upon that question, it appears to me that it would be a proper thing to have the Commissioners make inquiry.\nThe Court: I do not think the Commissioners' power extends to that. We shall give an\nopinion. What we can do is to report what is the result of the evidence before us, and leave\nthe authorities to take such steps as they think fit.\nMr. Bodwell: I think it would be useful, and I should like to give some evidence on\nthat point, but I am not in a position to do this at present. The specifications seem to have\nbeen changed and I want to know by whom.\nThe Court:    I presume the Corporation can explain.\nMr. Mohun called.    Examined by Mr. Richards.\nQ.\u2014Have you the plans upon which the tenders were made? This is the plan which was\nput up on the wall?\nA.\u2014These are the original plans upon which the contractor tendered. I proposed to drain\nthe swamp and keep that section of the land dry. The Corporation would not consent to that.\nThere was no use putting them in part of the way. The specification says that the contractor\nwill have to put this in if he is called upon to do it.\nQ.\u2014Would he be paid any more for that ?\nA.\u2014Yes.    At schedule rates.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. cxxv\nQ.\u2014Did the plan, which you sanctioned up to the time of the plans going out contain\nanything about a box drain ?\nA.\u2014I did substitute a box drain. I had power to alter, which it was absolutely necessary\nthat I have.    There is a clause, No. 12, with reference to the subsoil drain.\nQ.\u2014Was the contractor to supply the material ?\nA.\u2014Not the pipes. The pipes are supplied specially by the Corporation. They did not\nthink they could bear the necessary cost of putting it through this subsoil. It would have to be\ncarried between three and four thousand feet further than this wooden one. The whole of that\npiece of ground and every piece of timber is saturated with water from one year's end to another.\nQ.\u2014Your theory is that the bottom of the concrete trench is always under water and that\nthe whole of the timber on the outside is under water?\nA.\u2014The greater part of it all the time. This September there was a lot of water in it.\nIt was built in July and August, and we had to pump to keep the place dry.\nQ.\u2014Is there any of this wooden drain on Moss street ?\nA.\u2014There is a piece laid to carry the water off, and as a consequenee we have to make\nthe bottom of the sewer much deeper. 1 do not know the distance; about a couple of hundred\nfeet.\nQ.\u2014Why did you put wood in ?\nA.\u2014I did not require pipe ; it would have been a waste to use it. The Council declined\nto incur the expense.\nQ.\u2014As you read it, the expense of purchasing this pipe had to be paid by the city and not\nby the contractor. You say the Council refused to incur the expense, and you did the next\nbest, sanctioned the wood.\nA.\u2014It was necessary that the water should be drained away. It was drained to manholes and pumped out,\n(Plan showing section of wooden drain produced.)\nQ.\u2014That was put in first, and the water pumped out and the drain made dry.\nA.\u2014The box was put in 100 feet in advance of the concrete. Probably 100 feet in\nadvance.\nQ.\u2014Where was one of the pumping stations ?\nA.\u2014At the corner of Moss and Snowden streets.\nQ.\u2014Did that take the water from all of Moss street ?\nA.\u2014-We had to begin to work on Moss street and work across, pumping as we went.\nQ.\u2014What is the size of the wooden drain ; that is, inside.\nA.\u2014Six inches deep and eight inches wide.    Not 8 x 8 as was stated.\nQ.\u2014What is the thickness of the plank ?\nA.\u2014Two inches.\nQ.\u2014What was the nature of the soil ?\nA.\u2014There was some clay, some sand.\nQ.\u2014A good deal of sand ; there was more sand than clay ? A dangerous soil ? It had to\nbe close timbered up ?\nA.\u2014It was not safe to leave more than two feet of the soil without timber.\nQ.\u2014What excavating was there for this box drain ? Anything more than to admit the\noutlet sewer?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014What is the inside measure ?\nA Three feet ten inches; four inches more for timbers make four feet two inches.\nQ.\u2014When was this timber put in 1\nA.\u2014When they got the bottom done.    To guard this they laid the box drain in the centre.\nQ.\u2014Was there a mould over it ?\nA.\u2014The bottom was first laid.\nQ.\u2014But there were lumps of concrete laid on the top of the timber ?\nA.\u2014On top of the drain.\nQ.\u2014Was each of these lumps well rammed as they were put in ?\nA.\u2014Yes.    I could not say how many lumps.\nThe Court:   How deep was that bed of concrete ?\nA.\u2014Nine inches.    I rather think it would exceed that.\nQ.\u2014What was the specification ?\nA.\u2014Nine inches in the bottom. When the channel pipe was being laid the mould was\nput in, and then the concrete at the sides, and rammed in.\n cxxvi. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014What was the concrete made of ?\nA.\u2014Five to one. After the concrete was laid a sufficient length of time to settle hard,\nthe mould was removed and the top covered with grout\u2014a very strong cement. This was to\nfill up any cracks and finish off the surface. This was allowed to stand for some time before\nwe put any earth on it, so that we could be able to detect if there were any cracks on the\noutside.\nQ.\u2014What was the width of the concrete?\nA.\u2014Nine inches. Until the whole thing was finished we had wood in; then it was\nremoved piecemeal.\nQ.\u2014After this was hardened was there any danger of it cracking ? The charge made was\nthat the wood was giving way and the sewerage was going to run out into the soil. Is there\nany danger of that happening?    Suppose the wood in the bottom were to rot ?\nA.\u2014It cannot. When the concrete hardens it is almost sufficient to hold up if twenty\nfeet were taken out and it left suspended. I do not think it would do any harm if the wood\nin the bottom were to rot.\nQ.\u2014You have heard what was said about leaking ?\nA.\u2014I saw the crack on Cook street. We filled it up with concrete. It was vertical from\nthe top.\nQ.\u2014How do you account for the water running in the wrong way?\nA.\u2014I can only account for it by saying that the man does not know what he is talking\nabout. Water was pumped into the sewer to protect it from the sun. If a man came along\nthen he would see it running in the wrong way.\nQ.\u2014Is there much of a fall there ?\nA.\u2014About one foot in each 200.\nQ.\u2014It is said that your ditches or trenches where you put the pipes are unnecessarily wide ?\nA.\u2014It is not the case.\nQ.\u2014Did you widen the ditch in any way, and would the ramming of the pipe move and\ncrack it ?\nA.\u2014If I find a cracked pipe the contractor has to take it up and replace it, if he rammed\nit a little more on one side than on the other. Every pipe is tested. (Exhibit \" 7 \" produced.)\nI think it was stated that the widths called for were four feet eight inches and two feet ten\ninches.    The thickness of the walls was nine inches on both sides.\nThe Court: That is the main sewer. The only complaint about the trenches was the\npipes.\nMr. Richards :    I think this evidence had reference to laying the pipe through the street.\nA.\u2014When I drew out the specifications I had to guess what space would be used.\n(Measurements here given which were to be handed in afterwards). In the eight inch pipe we\nfound the actual width taken out.\nMr. Bodwell: I wish to know if Mr. Mohun is speaking from his own knowledge ?\nA.\u2014I am speaking from knowledge. Down on Cook street it requires two platforms on\neach side of the trench. Each of these platforms is two feet wide. One man throws the earth\non to one of the platforms and another throws it up to the top. There must have been five\nfeet taken off in some places instead of four. In a great many cases there were no openings\nand a tunnel was made under crossings, which was a great convenience to the City.\nMr. Richards : What was the ditch for a small pipe ?\nA.\u2014A nine inch pipe calls for two feet nine inches at the junction ; an eight inch pipe\nfor two feet six inches. That is, supposing the sides of the trench are exactly parallel with\nthe street.\nThe Court: It is absolutely necessary to be observed that the width is as called for, and\nthat every pipe is tested, and if not right, taken up and relaid.\nMr. Richards : It appears that some of the unsuccessful contractors\t\nMr. Bodwell objected : They were not making complaints.\nMr. Richards : Did you hear these men making complaints ?\nA.\u2014I have been asked whether the specifications have to be carried out. No one will\nreceive any other answer than that the specifications must be carried out,\nThe Court : My impression is that there are cases where the specifications called for a\ncertain amount of work which was to be subtracted from the contractors' pay.\nMr. Bodwell here read clause 12, and Mr. Mohun read clause 5.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. cxxvii.\nThe Court: An alteration does not mean that some of the work is to be omitted. The\nspecifications call for a ditch three feet wide and ten feet deep. The allegation is that some\nhave been only two feet wide.\nMr. Richards : On the average I should think that the contractor has received less than\nhe should have if each ditch had been cut exactly to the width.\nThe Commission then adjourned for lunch.\nMr. Richards :\u2014Did you hear this gentleman say the other day that it would be difficult,\nalmost impossible, to make junctions with some of these drains ?\nA.\u2014He said it would be difficult where there were curved junctions in the wall at the\ntime the concrete was being constructed.\nMr. Richards : Can you point out to the Court what these junctions are?\n[Plans here handed to the Court by Mr. Mohun].\nThe Court: Are these laid through the concrete at the time the concrete is applied ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nThe Court: Then all you have to do is to effect a junction with these pipes ? It would be\na very difficult matter to effect a junction from the houses, but you have made provision for\nthis by putting in the tubes ?\nA.\u2014There is one every 40 feet on each side.\nMr.\u2014Richards : Is there any way in which you can inspect the work before it is taken\noff the hands of the contractor ?\nA.\u2014Yes, we can inspect the whole system. The work has not been taken off his hands.\nOn the completion of the work we can inspect it, and at the end of six months we inspect it\nagain, and the contractor receives the balance of ten per cent, due him. The eight inch sewer\nis inspected by lanterns. Through the eighteen inch sewer a man can go. By holding a\nlantern at one end you can see from man-hole to man-hole.\nQ.\u2014Have you lately discovered any pipes broken.\nA.\u2014Yes, a week or two ago, on Store Street. (Clause 33 read.) We ascertained\nthat some pipes were improperly laid. The contractor is now taking them up and making\nthem good.\nQ.\u2014How did you discover that they were broken.\nA.\u2014Examined them. Mr. Wilmot can tell you the details of the work. Owing to the\nnature 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\nof feet, and very difficult to work, insomuch so that it has to be timbered from the top in\nnearly every ease.\nQ.\u2014Is not that kind of soil easily disturbed by making a box drain.\nA.\u2014The soil was filled in along with sand.\nQ.\u2014Do you call that a solid foundation ? Is it not the custom with that kind to put in\nsome solid soil ?    Why did you lay the two-inch plank ?\nA.\u2014Because the concrete has to settle before it can be used.\nCourt : Was the only object in laying the two-inch plank to make a false work for the\nconcrete 1    Is is not possible that the concrete will settle irregularly ?\nA.\u2014It will not.\nQ.\u2014On what do you base that ?\nA.\u2014 On considerable experience.\nQ.\u2014Did you ever build a sewer of that kind before ?\nA.\u2014I built a piece of one in Vancouver.\nQ.\u2014Did you have any of this class of soil ?\nA.\u2014We had some places pretty bad.\nQ.\u2014Did you build it in this way 1\nA.\u2014I drove piles.\nQ.\u2014Why did you do that ?\nA.\u2014To rest the pipes on.\nQ.\u2014Is there any danger of an irregular settlement of the concrete ?\nA.\u2014The sand makes a good foundation when you get the water out of it.\nQ.\u2014How do you get the water out of the drain ?\nA.\u2014We pump it out.\nQ.\u2014How do you get the water out of the earth beside the box drain?\nA.\u2014By keeping a steam pump going.\n cxxviii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014What do you know about the details of the work in question ?\nA.\u2014I was there three or four times a week, and know that if the bottom is clear an inch\nor two of water will run at a very good rate.\nQ.\u2014Do you know if the bottom is settling?\nA.\u2014It did not at the time, and I am confident that it has not.\nQ.\u2014What did you do besides put a two-inch plank in the bottom of the peat bog ?\nA.\u2014Nothing but put it in the earth.\nQ.\u2014You simply put back the earth ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014I am informed there is a danger of the sewer settling irregularly.    Do  you think so ?\nA.\u2014No, sir.    I should not object if the plank were removed now.\nQ.\u2014Does the contractor pay for the excavation ?\nA.\u2014Yes.    We pay for the lumber.\nQ.\u2014So you pay the contractor for this timber drain. That is a change in the specitica-\ntions.    Did you consult the Sewerage Commissioners ?\nA.\u2014I probably did inform them. That is an engineering point on which the Commissioners have to take his opinion.\nThe Court: I have a recollection of a clause in the specifications about this.\n[Clause 58, page 15, read.]\nA.\u2014We pay for the timber for this drain.\nThe Court : Why should you provide him with timber?\nA.\u2014For the purpose of keeping the drain dry. It says that he shall do all pumping and\ndraining.    It does not say that he shall do it with his own pump and use his own timber.\nQ.\u2014That was the lumber left in the drain ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And was that contracted for ?\nA.\u2014Yes, there was provision made for this.\nQ.\u2014And is the contractor to be paid for this lumber ?\nA.\u2014I suppose so, but it can't be much. Clause 76, page 17, provides for it: \"In the\nevent of it being necessary to leave any temporary timber in the trench, to avoid the danger of\nsetts, the contractor will, upon the written certificate of the engineer, be paid for such timbering\nas may have been left in the trench.\"\nQ.\u2014And you think that covers this case ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I do.\nThe Court :     Could it have been removed ?\nA.\u2014No, my Lord.     If wTe tried to take it out we would have had the trench falling in.\nMr. Bodwell:    And you think this a good arrangement to make ?\nA\u2014I do.\nThe Court: Any other drain might have been made. Supposing he didn't use the pump,\nhe would have had to adopt some other means. He used the pump. He might have bailed it\nout for instance ?\nWitness :    He could not have done that, my Lord.\nThe Court:    Why not ?\nA.\u2014It could not be done.\nThe Court: You have heard of the man who declared that while there might be a\nfinancial difficulty there was no engineering difficulty.\nWitness :    It is practically impossible to bail it out.\nThe Court : However that may be, he put in this pump for purposes of economy. He\nthought it the cheapest way I suppose.    You didn't provide him with the pump ?\nA.\u2014No, my Lord.\nThe Court:    That is not what you would call temporary timber, is it ?\nA.\u2014It had to be used, and under certain conditions might have been removed.\nThe Court: It is not for the purpose of making the trench, seeing that it had been\nalready made.    After all, this is only a matter of a few hundred dollars ?\nWitness :   And we can knock it off next time.\nMr. Bodwell:   What is going to be the cost of this timber ?\nA.\u2014It can't be much ; not more than a few hundred dollars.\nQ.\u2014But you will have to pay for it ?\nA.\u2014We only pay the contractor sums on account. Another drain would have cost more.\nThe pipes alone would be 6c. per foot.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. cxxix.\nQ.\u2014How far does this drain extend ?\nA.\u2014To Snowden street, and part on Cook street.    I don't exactly know.\nThe Court : You told us that the man-holes were a certain distance apart ; you can\ncalculate from that ?\nWitness :    Mr. Wilmott will be able to tell you that; I think it goes to Southcote street.\nMr. Bodwell:    How is it now ?\nA.\u2014It is choked with earth where it is not full of water.\nQ.\u2014Choked with earth ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014And full of water?\nA.\u2014It is under water.\nQ.\u2014Then, as I understand you, you say that it won't be destroyed as it is as lumber\nunder water ?\nA.\u2014It is wet mud\u2014mud in a liquid state, which has the same preserving effect as water.\nQ.\u2014But it is choked now ?\nA.\u2014Yes.    The water is bound to remain there, from the nature of the place.\n(Plan and drawings of pipes submitted.)\nQ.\u2014These are connections.    What size are these ?\nA.\u2014That is simply a typical plan, representing any pipe.\nQ.\u2014Supposing this to be the typical, you say it would have to be taken at a certain width ?\nA.\u2014It would require three feet eight inches for the trench itself.\nQ.\u2014If that was not done what would have to be ?\nA.\u2014They would have to be cut out.\nQ.\u2014If that were the 20-inch pipe what size pocket would be required ?\nA.\u2014If it were cut through you would either have to cut the trench from the top or undermine.\nQ.\u2014If you didn't dig the trench how would you put in that junction ?\nA,\u2014We would have to make a hole about a foot longer.\nQ.\u2014When a contractor has 20 feet for his excavations does he do that ?\nThe Court.   He told us all that in his examination in chief.\nWitness : For both 18-inch and 20-inch pipes the trenches were taken out. He had two\nstages, making 4 feet 4 inches, and we only called for 3 feet 9 inches. A great deal of that\nwork has been done.\nQ.\u2014What have you done with the smaller pipe ?\nA.\u2014We use them considerably.\nThe Court: You have heard it stated by two witnesses that there was a crack in the\nconcrete, and you say that it is impossible that it could be so ?\nA.\u2014I never saw a crack in it.\nThe Court: Two witnesses proved it. One of them produced the knife he inserted in it.\nThere can be no mistake.\nA.\u2014I never saw that crack.\nThe Court: Call it a crack, or an aperture, or a hole, or whatever you will, but it has\nbeen proved that it was there. Then it has been stated that the water, instead of flowing out\nof the sewer, was flowing back towards the City.\nA \u2014I don't think it is. I saw leaves floating up, but I believe they were driven by\nthe wind. There were a series of dams put in, so that there has not been any outlet from the\nsewer for months.    There has been a lot of water standing in the sewer.\nThe Court : Do you think it was the draught through those man-holes that forced those\nleaves back ?\nA.\u2014I think so.    There has been a lot of water in that sewer.\nMr. Bodwell :   Now, with regard to that crack which has been spoken of ?\nA. \u2014I would like to see it. I would also like to see where there is but three inches of\nconcrete, and I would make the contractor attend to it.     We call for nine inches.\nQ.\u2014How are you going to test whether these joints are water-tight or not?\nA.\u2014They must be; they are cast to fit in the moulds,\nQ.\u2014Were they tested ?\nA.\u2014They were\nQ\u2014Where?\nA.\u2014In the shop\n cxxx. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014How were they tested ?\nA.\u2014When they fit after grease and tallow we think they are tight.\nQ.\u2014Have you tested whether the sewer pipes are ?\nA.\u2014Yes, we tested them for absorption.\nThe Court : About two months ago, it is stated, the water run up on the Chinese farm.\nYou say it was impregnated with water.    Did it run to the crown of the concrete arch ?\nA.\u2014I think it went to the inside of the crown.\nThe Court: Then the water could not run out ?\nA.\u2014It could not.\nThe Court : If there was a crack in the sewer the water could run out but could not run in.\nThe Court: It could not run if there was a dam there.\nThe Court : Do you know that the earth was saturated ?\nA.\u2014The bottom of the outlet is higher than the crown of the sewer.\nMr. Bodwell : How did you ascertain what the levels were ?\nA.\u2014We took the levels all along. Of course we didn't know what we were going\nthrough until we tried it.\nQ.\u2014When the pipes were laid, and before the trench was filled in, did you make any test\nas to whether these joints were water-tight or not ?\nA.\u2014No.     There is no means of testing until you have the whole sewer complete.\nQ.\u2014Could you not block up one end and see if it would stand the test ?\nA.\u2014No, but they are supposed to stand a pressure. As a matter of fact, these are the\nbest pipes made.\nRe-examined by Mr. Richards : As a matter of fact the water is all over ground from\nCook to Moss streets ?\nA.\u2014It is.\nQ.\u2014And the natural consequence is that those pipes are surrounded by water ?\nA.\u2014It is.\nQ.\u2014Before this work is taken off the hands of the contractor it will be tested ?\nA.\u2014Yes. If they stand this under water for five or six months it is all right, but they\nwill have to stand a year's trial.\nQ.\u2014A lot has been said as to who is to pay for this timber, but it will only amount to\n$200 or $300.    Is that so ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Do you know where they tried to have this little drain at the side that my friend\nspeaks of?\nA.\u2014No; I would have objected to it.\n[Rough sketch by the Chief Justice handed to witness.]\nQ.\u2014Your theory is that the water would have to run in that way ?\nA.\u2014It would run into the crack and not out of it.\nThe Court: Is it not a square box and water-tight ?\nA.\u2014It is a wooden box.\nThe Court : May water not be dropping into the sewer on Moss street ? How does the\nwater run out of the sewer into the box drain ?\nA.\u2014I don't know.\nMr. Richards :    If this water was not taken away by this it would have to be carried off?\nA.\u2014Yes. The water could not escape, as the bottom of the drain on Moss street is five\nfeet or six feet above the level of this box.\nThe Court: This box drain is too small to keep the place dry and the sewer clear.\nWitness : We pumped water into the sewer to keep the concrete wet and allow it to set,\nAlexander McBean.    Examined by Mr. Taylor :\u2014\nQ.\u2014How deep is the average run of concrete in this sewer ?\nA.\u2014Nine inches. That is, nine inches all through; you may find a place where the\nconcrete has \" lumped,\" where it would be a half an inch or so less.\nQ.\u2014There is no more than an inch variation, to your knowledge ?\nA.\u2014There is not an inch anywhere.\nQ.\u2014I don't know whether you heard this statement about the penknife being put in\nthrough the concrete by Mr. Stamford ?\nA \u2014 Well, I have been putting down concrete for about thirty-five years, and I can say\nthat you can't lay concrete without having here and there little cracks.    You can't help it;\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. cxxxi.\nthe sun or hot weather will make little cracks ; but after we are finished then we send a man\nalong with what we call grout, and he plasters up these little cracks. This is very strong.\nOur concrete is five to one, but this stuff we make two to one. It may have been that they\nwent along there some time before this was clone, and so found one of these little cracks.\nQ.\u2014You heard Mr. Keene's reference to a number of places ; he swore it was only two to\nthree inches thick, and that Mr. Stamford stuck a knife into the sewer below ?\nA.\u2014I will give him $50 if he will point out to me a place where there is six inches.\nQ.\u2014You say that that could not have occurred?\nA.\u2014No, sir; it could not have occurred. He might have found a small crack next a rock\nand put his knife in there.\nMr. Bodwell : You have been digging out these trenches to the necessary width specified\nin the bills of quantities ?\nA.\u2014I have averaged more. I could show you places where there is six feet taken out for\na four feet trench.\nQ.\u2014That is occasioned where there is rock blasting to be done ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Do you consider it necessary for a ten inch pipe to have the trench two feet nine at\nthe bottom 1\nA.\u2014Well, I let my foreman attend to the digging of the trenches.\nQ.\u2014But would you make it two feet nine ?\nA.\u2014I tendered for two feet nine for that. I won't say without I look at it. (Looking\nat specifications.) Yes, sir ; two feet nine for ten-inch pipe. I have got my figures right here\nin my pocket.    Yes, two feet nine; I figured on that.\nQ.\u2014Now, take your 12-inch pipe; what did you figure on that?\nA.\u2014I haven't got that down.\nQ.\u2014It is three feet three at the bottom ; did you make it that width ?\nA.\u2014I have the 18-inch pipe here; three feet nine I have got it.\nQ.\u2014When did you make that estimate 1\nA.\u2014 When I figured on it.\nQ.\u2014 Speaking as a contractor, would you say that a 12-inch pipe ought to have a trench\nthree feet three at the bottom ?\nA.\u2014The specifications are always made out wider than what the pipe is.\nQ \u2014What do you say is the necessary width for a twelve-inch pipe?\nA.\u2014Twelve-inch ? Oh, a contractor would lay as near as he could, I suppose, so long as\nhe lays the pipe. There was an engineer present witnessing the laying of the pipe, and I\nsuppose he would have told us if we had laid any wrong.\nMr. Keefer, of the engineering firm of Keefer & Smith, called by Mr. Richards :\u2014\nQ.\u2014What is your profession, Mr. Keefer ?\nA.\u2014Civil Engineer.\nQ.\u2014How long have you been practising ?\nA.\u2014A little over thirty-five years.\nQ.\u2014On what kind of works ?\nA.\u2014Railway, canal, water works, sewer, and reclamation works.\nQ.\u2014There was an engineer here from New York; Rudolph Hering was his name, I think.\nHow does he stand in your profession ?\nA. \u2014 He ranks pretty high, and he is very well known to the members of the profession.\nHe is at present a director of the American Society of Civil Engineers. That is a pretty high\nrating.\nQ.\u2014Is he considered an authority in the profession ?\nA.\u2014I have always thought so. I have never come in contact with him personally, but I\nhave known him by reputation for the last twenty-five years.\nQ.\u2014Is he a high or low authority ?\nA.\u2014High authority.    I have never heard it questioned.\nQ.\u2014Do you think he would be a proper man to be consulted by the city with reference to\na sewerage scheme ?\nA.\u2014I should place every reliance on Mr. Hering in a matter of this kind.\nQ.\u2014You know this place down here at the junction of Cook street, where the sewer runs?\nA.\u2014Generally ; I don't know the exact location,\n cxxxii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014You know it is covered with water in the winter ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014It seems the sewer has been carried through there. That has been proved to be a\nplan of it ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014You see there is a little box drain below, of wood. It is round here. This is cement.\nHere is the sewer ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014Well, is it necessary in constructing a sewer of this kind to get rid of the water you\nfind in the earth ?\nA.\u2014Invariably.     It is always an item in the contract.\nQ.\u2014You know that is a bog down there?\nA.\u2014I know it is very low ground.    I don't know what the soil is.\nQ.\u2014You think that is a proper way to drain that; as an engineer, are there any objections\nto that ?\nA.\u2014None that I can see at all, provided your foundations are secure.\nQ.\u2014Well, now, is there any probability of that being covered with water\u2014that low part?\nA\u2014That depth would be so saturated that I would consider it practically indestructible.\nI have built walls of masonry under very much the same circumstances.\nThe Court :    Have you ever been in Venice ?\nA.\u2014No, my Lord.\nThe Court told of the age of the famous Cathedral of St. Mark's, which has stood for so\nmany centuries, and whose foundations are built on timber under water.\nMr. Richards : There has been a good deal said about ditches; you have heard the matter\ndiscussed here ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014What is the practice with reference to excavations ?\nA.\u2014It is generally left to the discretion of the engineers; but a contractor must have\nroom to lay his pipe.    It is the duty of the inspector to see to that, however.\nMr. Bodwell:  In concrete sewers it does not matter if there is a slight crack ?\nA.\u2014If there is a crack at all I should say it does matter very materially.\nQ.\u2014In making a concrete sewer you would have to prevent any kind of a crack ?\nA.\u20141 should consider a crack in concrete very objectionable.\nQ.- -All that you say is based on the qualification that you have a good foundation ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What would you call a good foundation in work of that kind ?\nA.\u2014Any ordinary material would form a good foundation.\nMr. H. B. Smith.    Examined by Mr. Taylor :\u2014\nQ.\u2014What is your occupation, Mr. Smith ?\nA.\u2014I am a civil engineer.\nQ.\u2014Partner of Mr. Keefer's ?\nA.\u2014I am.\nQ.\u2014Have you had any experience in sewerage and drainage work?\nA.\u2014Not with sewerage.    Sewerage has not been a branch of my practice at all.\nQ.\u2014What has been your practice ?\nA.\u2014Principally railways and water works.\nQ.\u2014How many years' experience ?\nA.\u2014Twenty-three years.\nQ.\u2014You have heard Mr. Keefer's testimony that has been given here with regard to that\nsub-drain ; what is your opinion ?\nA.\u2014I consider it is necessary to have a drain there.\nQ.\u2014What would be the effect of that sub-drain upon the permanency of this sewer afterwards ?\nA.\u2014If the soil it is in is constantly wet it is practically indestructible. We have examples\nof timber that has been immersed in water that has been there for 1600 years, and is quite as\ngood as when put in.\nQ.\u2014There was some testimony given that in case the sub-drain were to give way there\nwould be a depression caused in the sewer pipe proper ?\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. cxxxiii.\nA.\u2014Well, I made a rough calculation a short time ago, and I think concrete at that\ndistance is able to stand a pressure of 43 tons.\nQ.\u2014Then if that box drain were to rot away, you don't think there would be pressure\nenough to cause a subsidence ?\nA.\u2014I don't think so.\nQ.\u2014Now, with regard to cracking?\nA.\u2014If it is subject to irregular settlement there would be cracks. In any case I presume\nit is not possible to get a perfectly homogeneous mass of concrete at any time ; there is liable\nto be cracks, but I won't say from my own experience.\nQ.\u2014You haven't had much experience?\nA.\u2014Not in concrete.\nQ.\u2014At all events, in your opinion, from that soil as it has been described there is no\ndanger of that sub-drain rotting ?\nA.\u2014I don't think so.\nAdamson Parker, called and sworn.    Examined by Mr. Taylor :\u2014\nQ.\u2014Have you had any experience in the construction of sewerage, Mr. Parker?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014In what capacity ?\nA.\u2014Engineer for the contractor and clerk of the works.\nQ.\u2014Where was that ?\nA.\u2014At Lincoln, England.\nQ.\u2014How long were you engaged on that work ?\nA.\u2014On that work ?    Probably about two years.\nQ.\u2014Have you had much experience in sewerage work?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Well, you had some work in connection with the sewerage work in Victoria ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I have been inspector here, yes.\nQ.\u2014Employed by whom ?\nA.\u2014By the City.\nQ.\u2014 Under Mr. Mohun ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014What were your principal duties?\n\u2022 A.\u2014To see that the work was properly carried out.\nQ.\u2014Can you say anything now as to the depth of concrete in the main sewer ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How deep was it ?\nA.\u2014About nine inches.\nQ.\u2014Did you measure it at all ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; but where it was done it was bound to be nine inches.\nQ.\u2014As inspector, have you been there during the course of construction ?\nA.\u2014Yes, all along.    There was no work done that I was not there to see it was done.\nQ.\u2014Now, how much of the sewer proper had been constructed up to September last ?\nA.\u2014On Cook Street and Snowden Street, the whole of the invert had been done.\nQ.\u2014How far out was that ?\nA.\u2014It is as far out as it changes into tho small sewer.\nThe Court: That is just outside Mr. Drake's house, Southcott Street ?\nA.\u2014I think that is the name, yes.\nQ.\u2014Well, would it have been possible for anyone to go along there, the top of that, and\nascertain the thickness of the concrete in the invert of the sewer.\nA.\u2014They could not.\nQ.\u2014Why ?\nA.\u2014Because, when it was all open a complete egg shape was made.\nQ.\u2014Then you could not tell, going along and looking at it from above, what the thickness\nof the concrete was ?\nA.\u2014No, of course you could not.\nQ.\u2014Can you get to the ends and see ?    You could not tell, except at the ends.\nA.\u2014Not unless you break it open and look in.\nQ.\u2014Can you tell anything about putting a knife into it?\nA.\u2014Could not put a knife into it.\n cxxxiv. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014Could not?\nA.\u2014No, 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\nthe works, and it is about six weeks old, and that is a fair sample of the concrete that went in.\nThe rest of that where that was taken from has gone in.\nQ.\u2014Does not concrete work ever crack ?\nA.\u2014Not when it is set, it can't crack.\nQ.\u2014But in the setting ?\nA.\u2014If it was not set, and anything was to give way, it would crack. Sixteen months it\ntakes to thoroughly set. That is what Grant, who is one of the experts, and Assistant\nEngineer of the Board of Works, London, says; and these are some of his data on concrete.\nQ.\u2014Do you know whether any of this cracked or not?\nA.\u2014Oh, I don't know, if you like to call it a crack ; now I call to mind, it was in August\nand we were going along on Cook Street. During that month there was a lot of heavy rain\nand I noticed there was one place where there had been a stream coming through a little\ncrack there, that they hadn't possibly stopped up at the time. That was on Cook Street,\nabout two or three inches above the channel pipe.\nQ.\u2014Was there any in the bottom of the invert ?\nA.\u2014There could not be any there, because the channel pipe forms the bottom of the invert.\nQ.--I mean the concrete underneath the pipe before the pipe was laid ?\nA.\u2014There could not be, because it is all concrete. The tunnel is split channel pipe, and\nit is surrounded with concrete and laid on concrete, and there is no possibility of a crack in it,\nbecause it is all one homogeneous mass of concrete.\nThe Court: On the top, that is all concrete ?\nA.\u2014All beyond that is concrete.\nMr. Bodwell, cross-examining: I understand you to say that if concrete was properly\nmade, it would be impossible to shove a knife through it ?\nA.\u2014When it was set.    Of course, if you look at that piece you can see for yourself.\nQ.\u2014And that concrete cannot shrink or expand ?\nQ.\u2014I didn't say ;  I was not examined particularly on that.\nQ.\u2014There was a crack in the side that you knew of?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Were you in Court to hear what Mr. Keene had to say as to that ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014It was said here that he had made a false statement. Mr. Keene spoke of this crack\nin the sewer, and you admit that it was there.\nThe Court: It was between Cook Street and Moss Street that this was done.\nMr. 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\nwitness : Did you know about this crack in the bottom ?\nA.\u2014There is no crack in the bottom.\nQ.\u2014You never looked for a crack in the bottom ; that was not your business ? It would\nbe absolutely impossible to put a knife down through the concrete if it was properly constructed ?\nA.\u2014Certainly. See if you can get a knife an inch or so through that (pointing to\nsample). I suppose if there was a place where a space occurred between two stones that you\nmight get a knife half an inch or so through it.\nQ.\u2014That is between stones you say ?\nA.\u2014But not when the work was finished, you could not; because when the work is\nfinished it is quite a smooth surface.\nQ.\u2014You say part of the top half of the arch is not made of bricks but concrete ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How can you make that tight ?    Can you fasten that ?\nA.\u2014Yes, it is done over with cement afterwards.\nQ.\u2014You think that stops up any holes ?\nA.\u2014I know it does.\nQ.\u2014If that was not properly joined, what would have been the effect\u2014there would be a\nspace between\u2014there would be nothing to bind them ?\nA.\u2014No,\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. cxxxv.\nQ.\u2014And there would be a liability of a spring ?\nA.\u2014What do you mean by a spring ?\nQ.\u2014There is nothing there to keep it together?\nA.\u2014There is the earth there.\nQ.\u2014It might fall in from the side ?\nA.\u2014No, from the centre.\nQ.\u2014That would crack in other parts of the sewer if it did ?\nA.\u2014Of course it would if it did.\nQ.\u2014Now, it was a fact that the plan that Mr. Hering adopted was for a brick arch.\nIsn't it the usual plan in building concrete sewers to make them all concrete, and to build all\nat one time ?\nA.\u2014Of course it is.\nQ.\u2014 In the ordinary course of things, you would  not build concrete sewers at all ?\nA.;\u2014The fact is, concrete sewer is better than brick in this case because you can't get a\ngood brick here at all.\nQ.\u2014You can't make connections with that sewer, except where you have made apertures?\nA.\u2014Not unless you take hammer and chisel.\nQ.\u2014Then you ruin the whole work, don't you ?\nA.\u2014Then you don't make connections in that way ; you generally put in junction pipes.\nQ.\u2014You can take bricks out at any place necessary, and there would be a possibility of\nmaking it all right ?\nA.\u2014Of course you can.\nQ.\u2014When you knock off a bit of concrete, you have afterwards to cement the place over\nagain ?\nA.\u2014We go all over it with cement.\nQ.\u2014It will be a question for time to decide whether that makes a good joint or not,\u2014you\ncan't swear whether that is a proper joint now ?\nA.\u2014Oh, yes, I think it is.\nQ.\u2014Have you tested it since it was built ?\nA.'\u2014No : how would you test it ?\nMr. Taylor : Were you in the office when Mr. Hering approved of certain plans and\nalterations ?\nA.\u2014No, sir.\nQ.\u2014Then you don't know what was in these plans ?\nA.\u2014No, except what was altered by Mr. Mohun. Of course it is in his power under\nthe specifications to alter anything.\nQ.\u2014Would it not be possible, before this cement had set, to run you knife down through\ncrevices adjoining the channel pipes ?\nA.\u2014Yes, you see, when the work was green.\nQ.\u2014Would it not be possible (showing witness profile of work) to run a knife down that\nat the side of the channel pipe there ?\nA.\u2014No, because the channel pipe was laid in two to one cement, that is two of cement\nand one of sand in water.\nQ.\u2014When the work was green you say you took a trowel and went all over it with this ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nMr. Bodwell : Doesn't Portland cement expand in setting ?\nA.\u2014I won't say, because I haven't had very great experience in Portland cement.\nMr. Richards : We don't intend to call any more witnesses, my Lord.\nMr. Bodwell: That is the case for the petitioners, my Lord. I don't intend to call any\nevidence in rebuttal.\n cxxxvi. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nWednesday, February 3rd, 1892.\nThe Court assembled at two o'clock in the afternoon.\nPresent : His Lordship the Chief Justice and Hon. Mr. Justice Drake.\nMr. Jordan, examined by Mr. Taylor:\nQ.\u2014What is your Christian name, Mr. Jordan ?\nA.\u2014Frederick George.\nQ.\u2014What is your occupation ?\nA.\u2014Draughtsman.\nQ.\u2014For the ?\nA.\u2014For the City of Victoria.\nQ.\u2014In what department?\nA.\u2014In the Sewerage Engineer's office.\nQ.\u2014Have you had much experience in that capacity, or in connection with public works ?\nA.\u2014Yes, in construction principally, for 25 years.\nQ.\u2014Where, and in what character ?\nA.\u2014In England; principally bridge work and public works, such as bridge building and\nrailway construction in Africa, where I was district clerk of the works.\nQ.\u2014Have you had much experience in the construction of drains or water works ?\nA.\u2014That generally comes in with that kind of work.\nQ.\u2014You have had experience in that class of work ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Where was that ?\nA.\u2014In England.\nQ.\u2014You might just shortly go over what your experience was in that kind of work ?\nA.\u2014System of drainage for the Grand Stand, Newmarket, which was in fact a system in\nitself ; house connections in England; drainage in the precincts of Canterbury Cathedral.\nQ.\u2014You had much experience in water works ?\nA.\u2014Yes, during the time of my articles, and in Africa I had the construction, principally,\nof the Durban water works in Natal.\nQ.\u2014Any others in the Transvaal?\nA.\u2014In railway construction there is always more or less drainage in putting in culverts,\nand building drains to take the water away, and that kind of thing to do.\nQ.\u2014You are employed now in connection with the sewerage works of Victoria ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Have you been over the works at all ?\nA.\u2014That is not my business; that is not my duty.\nQ.\u2014Do you know anything in connection with them ?\nA.\u2014Only as a visitor.\nQ.\u2014You know the system ?\nA.\u2014Yes, of course I know.\nQ.\u2014Now, this system of box drain underneath\u2014what have you to say about that; is it\nproper or improper ?\nA.\u2014I think, under the circumstances, it is the very best possible system that could be\nadopted.\nQ._Why ?\nA.\u2014Simply because it is simple and based on sound engineering.\nThe Court: You are alluding now to the box drains under the sewer between Cook street\nand Moss street ?\nA.\u2014Yes, my Lord.\nQ \u2014You say it is sound engineering?\nA.\u2014Certainly.\nQ. \u2014Upon what principle do you say that ?\nA.\u2014That the material forms a solid level, and clean base in which to lay your concrete\nsewer upon, and makes a solid homogeneous centre, and, being hermetically sealed, it is not\nsubject to wet rot.\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. cxxxvii.\nQ. \u2014You say that is a principle of engineering ?\nA.\u2014Certainly.\nQ. \u2014You say you haven't been over the works, but they can't be very strange to you ?\nA.\u2014 I  have drawn all the plans under the  instructions   of  the   chief engineer.    I am\nthoroughly acquainted with the system.\nQ.\u2014You are not in a position to say whether this is under water ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I have seen it; there is water there.\nQ.\u2014Do you say there will be water there all the time?\nA.\u2014Yes, certainly, unless the Straits run dry.\nQ.\u2014Do you know whether this is not the principle upon which works of this kind ought\nto be executed ?\nA.\u2014Yes ; and it is the principle usually adopted by engineers.\nThe Court: Do you mean that to build a wooden drain under a concrete sewer is a principle\nusually adopted ?\nA.\u2014Yes, my Lord.\nThe Court: To put a wooden sewer underneath ?\nA.\u2014Yes, my Lord.\nThe Court:    Do you mean to say that that is the only method ?\nA.\u2014It is really the only practicable position in this instance for the drain. If you under\nmine the side of the walls, they are apt to cave upon you, and this is certainly the most feasible\nmethod of carrying away your water.\nThe Court: You mean to say that in that particular instance that is the principle any\nengineer would have adopted ?\nA.\u2014Yes; I think nineteen out of twenty engineers would have adopted it.\nThe Court: In that particular instance ?\nA.\u2014Yes, my Lord.\nMr. Taylor : That is why I asked him that question, my Lord. (To witness): That is\nwhat you mean ?\nA.\u2014That is what I mean.\nThe Court : If it was passing through a gravel-bearing strata, not flooded with water,\nyou would not do it ?\nA.\u2014It would not be necessary, my Lord.    There would be no water to carry off.\nThe Court:    There might be a good deal of water ?\nA.\u2014But not at the time of construction, my Lord.\nMr. Taylor : Were you in the office of the Engineer at the time the tenders were called\nfor this work ?\nA\u2014Yes,\nQ.\u2014Will you look at these and tell us whether they were the tracings hung in the\nEngineer's office at the time tenders were called for ?\nA.\u2014Yes, these are they.\nQ.\u2014These are the tracings that were hung in the office at the time tenders were made ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Were these the tracings that tenderers could see at the time ?\nA.\u2014Yes, these were the tracings tacked upon the walls of the office, where contractors\ncould see them at any time.\nQ.\u2014Are these the duplicates from which contracts were made ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Do you know anything of the width of these trenches required by the contract to be\nmade?\nA \u2014The widths of the trenches were specified by the scale to admit the construction of\nthe pipe junction.\nQ.\u2014Have you the widths of these junctions ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I have. 20-inch pipe is 22 from the centre line of the branch ; the 18-inch,\n201; the 15-inch, 19; the 12-inch, 16-L; the 10-inch, 15|; the 9-inch, 15|; the 8-inch, 13|\nThat provides nothing for the thickness of timbers to support the walls of your trench.\nQ.\u2014That does not provide for this ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014These are the actual width of the different trenches right along ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\n cxxxviii. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nQ.\u2014Are these the actual measurements all the way through, or are they the mean or\ngeneral measurements ?\nA.\u2014The pipes vary a little, if you notice. These are what I consider a fair mean, not\ntaking the widest or the narrowest\u2014a fair working mean.\nMr. Bodwell (cross-examining):   So that a trench 3 ft. 8 in. wide means less the timber ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nThe Court: Why do you have your junctions at the side; why don't you put them on\nthe top ?\nA.\u2014Because you could not make your house connections if you put it on the top. They\nare placed a little on the incline anyway.\nWitness illustrated this from samples of pipe in court.\nQ.\u2014Where are these pipes chipped ?\nA.\u2014In the yard.\nQ.\u2014Don't that crack them generally.    There is great danger in that?\nA.\u2014Not all.\nQ.\u2014When pipes are properly made, you should not have to chip them like this ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014How do you know that ?\nA.\u2014Simply because the freshness of the breakage in tho material gives it proper adhesive\nqualities.\nQ.\u2014And the sewerage works\u2014have you charge of them?\nA.\u2014None at all.\nQ.\u2014Have you ever had any experience in making joints of this kind ?\nA.\u2014No, but these are from the ?\nQ.\u2014You are speaking from theory ?\nA.\u2014No, practically.\nQ.\u2014Where have you seen it done in practice ?\nA.\u2014If you take a clean pipe that is not chipped, there is more or less smooth surface.\nA joint made when a pipe is in that condition is likely to part sooner than would one that is\nchipped and which has an uneven surface.\nQ.\u2014Are you not in danger of fracturing your pipe ?\nA.\u2014Not at all.\nQ.\u2014Did you ever see a pipe scored to make that joint ?\nA.\u2014This pipe is scored.\nQ.\u2014Then why do you chip them ?\nA.\u2014Simply to make a better joint.\nQ.\u2014That is to say it is a better plan to take a pipe of that character and chip it by an\ninexperienced workman than ?\nA.\u2014These are not inexperienced workmen, they are expert at it.\nQ.\u2014That is your opinion\u2014in fact you do not know anything at all from practical\nexperience ?\nA\u2014Well-\nQ.\u2014You have been a draughtsman ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Been employed as draughtsman principally?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You never had charge of any work of construction ?\nA\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014As engineer-in-chief ?\nA.\u2014Not as engineer-in-chief, but as superintendent of bridge construction\u2014of the Durban.\nI was also resident engineer of the works for the construction of the Durban water works.\nQ.\u2014What did you have to do there ?\nA.\u2014Look after the building of the works.\nQ.\u2014I am speaking now of sewerage works?\nA.\u2014No, no sewerage works.\nQ.\u2014Your sewerage experience has been confined to ?\nA.\u2014House connections in buildings.\nQ.\u2014What have you been employed in ?\nA.\u2014I was engaged in the renovation works of Canterbury Cathedral\n 55 Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. cxxxix.\nQ.\u2014You had some experience in making house connections for that work ?\nA.\u2014There was always a lot to do there.\nQ.\u2014Were you there as engineer in charge ?\nA.\u2014No, I was one of the assistants.\nQ.\u2014Did you prepare the plans ?\nA.\u2014No, I did not.\nQ.\u2014Did you prepare the specifications ?\nA.\u2014I had to go round the works, take the men's time sometimes, and see generally that\nthe work was done properly.\nQ.\u2014But you were not responsible for any part of that work ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014And the rest of your experience has been in culverts in railway works ?\nA.\u2014And of course to prepare the plans.\nQ.\u2014Then upon what authority do you come here and say this is the proper way to construct this sewer ?\nA.\u2014I haven't said so.\nQ.\u2014I understood you to say that this is a very proper proceeding ?\nA.\u2014Certainly, because it is a safe base.\nQ.\u2014Upon what part of your experience, or knowledge, or authority, as an engineer, do\nyou base that opinion ?\nA.\u2014General experience in dragging foundations, and knowing the way it is to be done.\nQ.\u2014That is the general opinion, but not practical experience ?\nA.\u2014It is twenty-five years' practical experience.\nQ.\u2014I don't find where your practical experience comes in. Did you ever see a sewer\nbuilt under the earth with a box drain underneath it\u2014a concrete sewer ?\nA.\u2014No, I did not.\nQ.\u2014Did you make any changes in these plans ?\nA\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014To none of these plans or tracings that were handed in to Mr. Hering ?\nA.\u2014I don't know what was handed into Mr. Hering.\nQ.\u2014Did you make any change in the plans or tracings ?\nA.\u2014I don't know what\t\nQ.\u2014Oh, you were not employed until afterwards ?\nA.\u2014I was employed in October.\nThe Court: October last year ?\nA.\u2014October twelve month.\nQ.\u2014Where you employed while Mr. Mohun was preparing his designs ?\nA.\u2014No.\nQ.\u2014You didn't come in until after the contracts were let 1\nA.\u2014Before the contracts were let.\nQ.\u2014Before Mr. Hering put in his report had you anything to do with it ?\nA.\u2014No.\nThe Court : Do I understand you to say that you have had twenty-five years' experience\nduring which time you have had practical experience with sewers ?\nA.\u2014Yes, my Lord.    Not with systems of sewerage, but connections with existing sewers.\nQ.\u2014You say all your life you never saw one of these box drains used ?\nA.\u2014I never saw a similar drain.\nEdward Ashley Wilmot sworn.    Examined by Mr. Taylor :\nQ.\u2014You are resident engineer of the Victoria works at present ?\nA.\u2014Yes, sir.\nQ.\u2014How long have you been engaged in that occupation?\nA\u2014Since October, 1890.\nQ.\u2014There has been a statement made here, Mr. Wilmot, that the water flows the wrong\nway in that sewer.    Will you explain to their Lodships regarding the grades ?\nA.\u2014I can't explain.\nQ.\u2014How are the grades?\nA.\u2014The grades are correct.\nQ.\u2014How do you mean\u2014correct according to the plans ?\n cxl. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. 1891\nA.\u2014According to the profiles.\nQ.\u2014Upon what grounds do you state that ?\nA.\u2014On the grounds that I have followed out the grades and checked the levels thoroughly. _\n[Witness explained from the plans the system of checking the grades.]\nQ.\u2014Do you know anything about the width of these trenches ?\nA.\u2014The proper width for laying the pipe, do you mean ?    They are the necessary width.\nQ.\u2014Are they too great ?\nNo.\u2014No, I haven't noticed any that they are too great.\nQ.\u2014Would it be possible in building a sewer of that kind just to excavate sufficient to\nlay the pipe ?\nA.\u2014In a great many cases it would entail a great deal more work. For instance, where\nit is clayey soil it has to be timbered. After that they would have to cut away every 30 or\n40 yards to adjust the junctions.\nQ.\u2014It would be some expense then, to confine the work to a straight line ?\nA.\u2014I should think it would. Because they can't tell where these junctions will come in\nwhen they are excavating the trench, and they can't provide for them at the time.\nQ.\u2014You are familiar with this box drain ?\nA.\u2014I have seen it built.\nQ.\u2014What have you to say to that as an engineer ?\nA.\u2014I think that plank foundation is the proper thing to put there. It is soft material,\nnot hardly what you would call quicksand, but it is a runny, wet sand, and by planking it it\ngives it a uniform bearing ; and as to the danger of going down, I have a little calculation\nhere which will show that the complete sewer, half filled with water, is lighter than the same\nspace occupied by the material that was there before. Thus there is now less weight on the\nfoundation of the sewer than there would be if the excavation were filled in again with earth.\nThe material of the sewer is rather heavier than the earth, but then being hollow, there is not\nso much of it.\nQ.\u2014That is a practical explanation of it\u2014those figures ?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014Is there any danger after this sewer is constructed of it sinking with this box drain\nunderneath it ?\nA.\u2014No, I can't say that there is, because there is no tendency for it to sink.\nQ.\u2014Is there any danger from this box drain of the sewer above cracking ?\nA.\u2014No, I can't see how there could be.\nQ.\u2014Do you say that as an engineer ?\nA.\u2014That is my opinion.\nQ.\u2014Is there any danger of this box drain rotting ?\nA.\u2014No, I don't see that there is. It is constantly wet, and in that position is practically\nimperishable.\nQ.\u2014Is there any danger of this box drain sinking at all ?\nA.\u2014Why, no ; because the drain itself is lighter than the material it displaces, and there\nis no greater pressure in the area of the foundation of the box drain now than there would be\nin the same area if the box drain was not there.\nQ.\u2014Is there any danger of the area above, of the concrete sewer pressing it down ?\nA.\u2014No, not if the sewer is laid evenly.\nQ.\u2014Do you know anything about the thickness of the concrete in the sewer ?\nA.\u2014It is specified for nine inches.\nQ.\u2014Is it executed for that?\nA.\u2014It is executed for that as far as I see, and I see it frequently.\nQ.\u2014What do you mean by frequently ?\nA.\u2014Two or three times a week.\nQ.\u2014Do you see it often?\nA.\u2014I inspected it several times. I could tell by the grade of the sewer every time I\nwent there if the water was running all right.\nMr. Bodwell:\u2014Where was the water running ?\nA.\u2014In the box drain.\nMr. Taylor : There is a sketch put in here by Mr. Keene, Have you looked at this\nsketch at all Mr. Wilmot ?\nA.\u2014No, I haven't examined it.\n Vict. Royal Commission\u2014Victoria Municipality. cxli.\nQ.\u2014Can't you tell whether it is true to the scale ?    What is the scale ?\nMr. Keene :  Quarter full size.\nAfter explanation form the sketch Q.\u2014Then his  sketch  is  decidedly a fancy sketch,\nand does not show the work as actually executed ?\nA.\u2014No, it does not in important particulars.\nMr. Bodwell : You say in clayey soil these trenches would have to be timbered ?\nA.\u2014In some cases.\nQ.\u2014Is that your experience as an engineer?\nA.\u2014Yes.\nQ.\u2014You are an engineer ?\nA.\u2014Yes, my Lord.\nThe Court :    You are acquainted with the engineers of name and fame on the continent ?\nA.\u2014Yes, my Lord, with some of them.\nQ.\u2014Did you ever hear of Mr. Rudolph Hering before he was connected with this\nscheme ?\nA.\u2014Yes, I have heard him spoken of as an engineer.\nQ.\u2014Were you acquainted with him ?\nA.\u2014No, my Lord, I was not acquainted with him.\nQ.\u2014You have been acquainted with his reputation ?\nA.\u2014Yes, my Lord, as a sanitary engineer, that's all.\nQ.\u2014What is his reputation ?\nA.\u2014Well, I think it is a good reputation. He has written works on sanitary engineering\nwhich are considered authorities.\nMr. Bodwell :    What works did he write, Mr. Wilmot?\nA.\u2014I haven't read them myself, but I have heard them referred to. In travelling in\nEurope he wrote several articles with regard to the different systems of sewerage in the\ndifferent cities.\nMr. Taylor : I would just like to put Mr. Keene in the box, my Lord, to see whether he\nis a certified engineer or not.\nThe Court ruled that this was not necessary ; that one of the greatest engineers, Stevenson,\nwas not a member of any institute.\nCounsel not wishing to address the Court on the evidence brought forward at the\nCommission, the Court permanently adjourned.\nvictoria, B. 0.:\nPrinted by Richard Wolfenden, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty.\n","@language":"en"}],"Genre":[{"@value":"Legislative proceedings","@language":"en"}],"Identifier":[{"@value":"J110.L5 S7","@language":"en"},{"@value":"1892_18_481_cxli","@language":"en"}],"IsShownAt":[{"@value":"10.14288\/1.0063298","@language":"en"}],"Language":[{"@value":"English","@language":"en"}],"Provider":[{"@value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","@language":"en"}],"Publisher":[{"@value":"Victoria, BC : Government Printer","@language":"en"}],"Rights":[{"@value":"Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy or otherwise distribute these images please contact the Legislative Library of British Columbia","@language":"en"}],"SortDate":[{"@value":"1892-12-31 AD","@language":"en"},{"@value":"1892-12-31 AD","@language":"en"}],"Source":[{"@value":"Original Format: Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Library. Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia","@language":"en"}],"Title":[{"@value":"ROYAL COMMISSION. IN THE MATTER OF AN INQUIRY INTO THE CONDUCT OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF VICTORIA.","@language":"en"}],"Type":[{"@value":"Text","@language":"en"}],"Translation":[{"@value":"","@language":"en"}],"@id":"doi:10.14288\/1.0063298"}