{"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.14288\/1.0376488":{"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierAIP":[{"value":"67fe059f-0e2d-4b6c-99d7-7506d583a993","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider":[{"value":"CONTENTdm","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/alternative":[{"value":"Speech delivered by the Honourable W.J. Bowser, K.C., Attorney-General, on the matter of the Dominion Trust Company","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isReferencedBy":[{"value":"http:\/\/resolve.library.ubc.ca\/cgi-bin\/catsearch?bid=2726776","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isPartOf":[{"value":"British Columbia Historical Books Collection","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator":[{"value":"Bowser, W. J.","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued":[{"value":"2019-02-19","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"[1915?]","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description":[{"value":"\"Speech dealing with the failure of the company.\"-- Edwards, M. H., Lort, J. C. R., & Carmichael, W. J. (1975). A bibliography of British Columbia: Years of growth, 1900-1950. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, p. 24.","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO":[{"value":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/collections\/bcbooks\/items\/1.0376488\/source.json","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/extent":[{"value":"27 pages ; 23 cm","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/elements\/1.1\/format":[{"value":"application\/pdf","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note":[{"value":" SPEECH\nDELIVERED IN THE\nLEGISLATURE\nOn Thursday, February 4th, 1915\nBY THE |H\nHon. W. J. Bowser, K. C.\nATTORNEY-GENERAL\nON THE MATTER OF\nThe Dominion Trust Company\nVICTORIA, B. C.\n  SPEECH\nDELIVERED BY\nThe Honourable W. J. BOWSER, K. C.\nATTORNEY. GENERAL\nON THE MATTER OF\nTHE DOMINION TRUST COMPANY\n\"I wish to preface my remarks. Mr.\nSpeaker, with the statement that the\nGovernment does not propose to offer\nany opposition to the motion which has\nbeen placed on the order paper by the\nhonorable Member for Nanaimo (Mr.\nPlace) being carried. So far as the\nDepartment of the Attorney-General is\nconcerned, this Government takes exactly the same position in this matter as\nit does in connection with the administration of any other portion of the\npublic business. We have nothing to\nhide. The return which has been called\nfor will show exactly what the correspondence has been, either between my\ndepartment and the Department of Justice at Ottawa, or between the Department of Finance and the Dominion\nTrust Company, or any person else with\nwhom we have had any correspondence.\nSo far as the Government is concerned,\nin connection with the unfortunate failure of the Dominion Trust Company we\nhave every consideration for those\nwho have been unfortunate enough to\nbe connected as creditors or otherwise\nwith that company.\nGovernment Regret\n\"It would appear from what the Liberal press and the Liberal speakers say\nthat the sympathies of this Province\nwith these unfortunate creditors are\nconfined entirely to the Liberal party.\nThose of us who adhere to the truth\nclaim that there should be no monopoly\nof sympathy to any particular party in\nthis Province. It is, indeed, unfortunate\nthat there should have been these victims. No one regrets it more than the\nGovernment;    no   one   regrets   it   more\nthan the Conservative party, and we\nhave every sympathy with those who\nhave lost money in this unfortunate and\ntotally unforeseen failure. Perhaps it\nwill be found later by those who have\nbeen unfortunate enough to lose money\nthat they can expect more from the\nGovernment of British Columbia than\nthey can from the Liberal party, no matter how vehement are the professions of\nsympathy.\n\"I take the stand, in speaking at this\ntime in this connection, that it is not\nonly on account of the Government's\nposition, but on account of the attacks\nmade on myself personally, that I feel\nthat the public have a right to, hear\nfrom me, as a public man taking some\nsmall interest in the public affairs of\nthe Province, in answer to the charges\nmade against me.\n\"It is quite unfortunate\u2014quite unfortunate so far as the public credit is\nconcerned\u2014that this occasion should\nhave been seized upon by political parties in opposition to the present administration to attack the Government,\nand especially to attack myself personally, not with any idea so much of bettering the position of the creditors as to\ngain credit for the Liberal party. It is\nunfortunate in that it brings down not\nonly the confidence of the public for a\nman in public life, but it reduces the\ncredit of the Province now held so high\nin Canada, and the Motherland as well.\nJournalistic Tactics\n\"I wish to keep away from political\ndiscussions, as much as possible, but\nyou can see that in making a defence of\nmyself,   where   all   these   organizations\n rallied under the Liberal banner have\nmade an attack upon me, not in the\ninterests of the depositors and the\ncreditors of the Dominion Trust\nCompany so much, but more, perhaps, to put me out .of public life in\nthis Province, if at all possible. In\norder to prove that this is so, I have\nonly to refer to a newspaper quoted by\nall my Liberal opponents, the South\nVancouver Chinook. Along in December, this paper issued a Christmas number. Across the top of one page he\nhas the heading, 'Hon. W. J. Bowser's\nAdmission of Government's Betrayal\nof the People in the Gigantic Dominion\nTrust Swindle,' and underneath this\nfollows what the writer alleges to be\nan 'official statement of the Attorney-\nGeneral of British Columbia to the committee of depositors.' On the right\nhand side of the page is a picture of\nthe late W. R. Arnold, and on the left\nhand side a picture of myself, placing\nme in the category of being one of the\nwreckers. There is no other inference\nto be drawn from the juxtaposition of\nthe two pictures and from the captions\nwhich the editor has placed under them.\n\"Christmas number! Peace and goodwill towards men'! That is what you\ncan expect from the Liberal party!\nThey could not discuss me honestly\nand fairly, but they go to work in this\ndastardly way, and statements are\nmade which, as I will show you have just\nenough truth in them to be damnable;\nbut I will show you what is true. I will\nshow you, too, how they have, in a\nnewspaper of good standing, The Victoria Times, without waiting for my\nanswer, or for me to speak, as was\nsuggested, in my place in this House,\nquoted this article in full; but I\nwill say, to their credit, they did not\npublish the pictures. But, later on, not\nhaving yet gained the lesson of what its\ndue was to men in public life, The\nChinook, on January 30, again produces\nthe picture of Mr. Arnold on its front\npage to the right hand, and my own to\nthe left, and inserted in the middle is\nthat of the Premier of this Province. If\nthat is not the worst kind of dastardly\ntactics, I am content to stand for all\ntime branded as a man who does not\nknow anything of what is due public life\nin this country. According to the Member\nfor Newcastle, I should hold my head in\nshame.\nIs   Unafraid\n\"I have never in this country, either\nin my public or in my private life,\ndone anything as a result of which I\nam afraid to face any man. (Loud\ncheers). I hold my head just as high\ntoday as I did before the Dominion\nTrust   swindle.      (Renewed   cheers.)\n\"Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to go into\nsome questions with reference to the\nposition of the Government and the\nDominion Trust Co. I wish first to\nask those interested in the failure of\nthe company, and the public of this\nProvince, as well as the Members of\nthis House, not to judge the Government\nor the department of which I am the\nhead by what has taken place in\n1915, but to cast their minds back to\nthe early part of 1913, when certain\nlegislation was passed by this House.\nIn the year 1915 it is easy to say that\nthis man is to blame, or that, but the\n'charge is laid at my door that I allowed legislation to go through in\nMarch, 1913, which allowed this company   to   take   deposits.\n\"I say, Mr. Speaker, that there is\nsome little fairness due to a man in\npublic life and one thing he has a right\nto expect from the electorate is that it\nshould hear his defence. (Hear, hear.)\nI wish the public to go back to the\nsession of 1913 in order that we may\ndiscuss   the   matter   carefully.\n\"The Dominion Trust Co. as a company was founded by Mr. J. B. Mathers\nand Mr. W. R. Arnold, its late manager,\nwas then one of his clerks. It started in\na very small way, but it grew from\nsmall proportions and from -its first\nsmall office on Hastings Street to the\nlarge proportions which we find it had\nattained in October last, when its\ndoors closed, with its branch offices\nin London, Edinburgh, Glasgow and\nelsewhere. The company that was first\ncarrying on business was incorporated\nunder the Prov'ncial Companies Act,\nand was known as the Dominion Trust\nCo., Ltd. In 1912 they went to the\nFederal Parliament and had an act\npassed there known as the Dominion\nTrust Act, which gave them power\nto take over the assets of the Dominion\nTrust Company, Ltd., the company incorporated under the local British\nColumbia   Act.     Section   14   of  the  Do-\n minion Trust Company's Federal Act of\n1912 stated that the company may\nacquire the business, rights and property\nof the Dominion Trust Company, Ltd.,\n'conditional upon the assumption of\nthe obligations and liabilities of that\ncompany with respect to the property\nso acquired.'\nIncorporated at Ottawa\n\"That is to say, in incorporating\nthe Dominion Trust Co., which is the\ncompany under consideration today, by\nthe Federal Parliament in 1912, by\nSection 14 they allowed the company\nto acquire the stock and the whole or\nany part of the business of the original\ncompany, and at the same time, all\ntheir duties, liabilities and obligations.\nAmong these one of the principal\nparts of the business of the Dominion\nTrust Company, Ltd., prior to 1912\nwas the taking of deposits. When it\nwas incorporated at Ottawa in 1912, it\nnot only took over the business of the\nold company, it assumed all responsibility in connection with the people\nwho had then made deposits with the\nold company. In another section of\nthe act, sub-section (g) of section 7,\nwe find this authority: 'To receive\nmoneys in trust for investment and allow interest thereon for a reasonable\ntime, until invested.'\n\"It is important to remember these\nwords, because this is the crux of the\nwhole situation, and we will see later\non how important that section of the\nDominion Act is. In 1913 the management of the Dominion Trust Company\nthought it necessary to go to the different provinces to ask for enabling legislation. As a result application was\nmade to that end in the different provinces and the company came here in\n1913, introduced a private bill, under\nthe auspices of. the fifth member for\nVancouver (Mr. H. H. Watson) and Mr.\nHarold B. Robertson, of the firm of\nBarnard, Robertson, Heisterman & Tait,\nwas the solicitor in charge of it. It\nwas brought in as a private bill; the\nGovernment had nothing to do with it.\nIt passed through all the usual courses\nin this House and went to the Private\nBills Committee, where it was discussed.\nIt was an enabling act, confirming to\na certain extent the powers given to the\nCompany by the Dominion Government.\nMoney Upon Deposit\n\"Two things struck me about that\nbill. First, not of great import, because\nI did not think it had great weight, as\nto its constitutionality; that is, as to its\ntaking money under deposit. We had in\nmany provinces that power given to\ncompanies. We had here, in that same\nsession, one known as the Colonial\nTrust Co., with power to take money on\ndeposit. So far as that phase was concerned I did not think it made much\ndifference, as this was a power given by\nvarious provinces. Millions of dollars of\nmoney had been deposited with such\ncompanies throughout Canada, and it\nwas never, so far as I know, suggested\nby the Dominion Government that the\npower to give this right was one to be\nconfined exclusively to the Dominion\nParliament.\n\"There was another point, however,\nand one, to my mind, about which there\n' was considerable doubt\u2014that is, adding\nto the Dominion act's powers. As the\ncompany solicitor explained, they had\npower to receive moneys in trust for investment and allow interest for a\nreasonable time until investment, but\nthe section they had in the act\nthey introduced here was a section\nempowering them \"to receive money\non deposit and to allow interest on\nthe same.\" There was, in my mind,\nsome doubt as to whether we had a\nright to add to Federal legislation, and\nI was afraid if it was passed and went\nto Ottawa that, under the power to\ndisallow Provincial legislation which\nis given to the Federal Government, the\nMinister of Justice might advise the\nGovernor-General-in-Council to disallow\nthe act. I wanted to be sure that this\nwould not occur, because we have always been very careful with our legislation, and we had had no experience\nwith the Federal Government along the\nlines of disallowing any of our acts.\nOpinion on Power\n\"I had in connection with my department a gentleman who was acting as\ndepartmental solicitor\u2014this was his\nfirst year\u2014and it was part of his duties\nto go before the Private Bills Committee\nand advise as to the different sections\nof the bills which came before it and\nthe position we took as to the legality\n of any particular bill or any section in\nthe bill. The departmental solicitor\npointed out to the committee in this\ncase that he held and I held that there\nmight be some question about this point,\nparticularly when the Dominion act was\nsilent upon it. The result of that argument or discussion in the Private Bills\nCommittee was that the departmental\nsolicitor, with my consent and approval,\nfiled an opinion as to how far he\nthought the Private Bills Committee\ncould go. This opinion was at once\ncombatted by the solicitor in charge of\nthe bill. We had then as chairman of\nthat committee, in the person of the\nhon. Member for Grand Forks (Mr. Miller), a gentleman who had given great\nattention to private bills work since he\nhad entered the House and was also a\nman of no mean standing in the legal\nprofession and looked up to by the members of the committee. He considered\nthat there was not the weight in the\nargument there should be, and, on that\nview, the bill in that shape passed the\ncommittee.\n\"We must remember that we are now\ntalking about the situation in 1913.\nWe were always trying to extend\nand enforce the Provincial jurisdiction\nin regard to companies as against the\nFederal powers. The Companies Act\nwas not then tested in the courts.\nSpeaking now in 1915, the situation is\nentirely changed. By the decision of\nthe Privy Council in the John Deere\nPlow Company's case, the judges have\ndecided that it is wrong for any Provincial Legislature to either check or add\nto any Federal act. It is all very well for\nLiberal politicians to say now that was\nthe law in 1913; that was not what\nanybody thought then, and all the Provinces were united against it. It is very\neasy to be wise after the event. We\nhad the Companies Act submission dragging its weary way along through the\ncourts and not yet reached the Privy\nCouncil, which it will not reach until\nJuly next. The John Deere Plow Company's case came up in the meanwhile,\nand the whole question of the British\nColumbia Companies Act, in connection\nwith this particular question of jurisdiction, was fought out, and it was then\ndecided that we had no right to add to\nthe Federal   enactments.    But  this  was\nnot the law in 1913; we did not know\nwhat the position was in 1913; we had\nno decision. It is now all very well\nfor Liberal politicians or public .men to\nsay that this was the law in 1913. It is\neasy, as I have said, to be wise after the\nevent. I am keeping my mind, and I\nwish to keep yours, in 1913, when this\nwas before the House.\nCompany's  Reputation\n\"The bill came back into the House\nfrom the Private Bills Committee.\nThe Dominion Trust Company then had\na reputation second to none in banking\nand financial circles. W. R. Arnold, its\ngeneral manager, was an energetic\nyoung man of great financial ability,\nwho had succeeded in building up a\nwonderful trust company. No man was\nbrave enough at that time to say they\ncould not look after every responsibility\nand contract into which they had entered. This affected the Private Bills\nCommittee; it certainly affected me.\nThey took the stand, their solicitor took\nthe stand: 'Why should you take this\nposition; why not let it go to Ottawa,\nand, if it is disallowed, the Dominion\nTrust Company takes the burden and the\nProvincial Legislature does not take it?'\nI could not suggest, in my place in this\nHouse, that the Dominion Trust Company was not able to meet all its liabilities. No man would be foolish\nenough to suggest that, with the reputation they then had, and, rather than\nbring up such a doubtful question, I\ndid not state anything as to my own\nprivate opinion in the House as to\nwhether or not, we should take this\nview, owing to the unsettled state of the\nlaw.\nVancouver Paper's Attack\n\"This South Vancouver penny scribbler, with power to write articles in the\nChinook, says I told the depositors at a\nmeeting in Vancouver that the reason I\ndid not oppose it was for fear the Government would be defeated. I do not know\nwhether the public is aware or not, but\nmembers of this House know how foolish that statement is, and it shows how\nlittle the writer knew of what he was\ndiscussing. Members of this House\nknow that the passing of a private bill\nhas nothing to do with the fate of the\nGovernment.     The   Government   is   not\n sponsor for it. Any private member has\na right to introduce a bill. If I, as Attorney-General, wish to advise in connection with legislation going through the\nChamber, which the Government has introduced, that is within my duty, but\nfor me to express an opinion with reference to the legality of a private bill,\nit is my own opinion only, and no private\nbills committee need follow it. The\nresult is if I had gone to the committee and explained this doubt as to the\nposition of this legislation, as a matter\nnot settled in the' Privy Council, it\nwould be my own opinion only, and the\nmembers of the private bills committee\nor of the House would have been at\nperfect liberty to vote as they thought\nfit. If I had stated my opinions, it\nwould not have affected the vote as\nfar as this bill is concerned. Everybody knew the standing of the Dominion Trust Co., and my view, not being\nas strong then as it is in 1915, as to\nwhat the law is, they would have voted\nas they saw fit, the bill would have carried, and the private bills committee\nwould have been upheld by the\nmajority of this House. This statement\nI made at the meeting of the committee of depositors in the city of Vancouver\u2014that I had a doubt about the\nlegislation; that we had filed an opinion from the departmental solicitor, but\nthat the standing of the Dominion Trust\nCompany was so good that they would\ntake the burden of disallowance, if the\nact should be disallowed, and that\nrather than take the position on a question of law so doubtful, T refrained\nfrom saying anything when the bill\ncame before the House and it was carried unanimously; perhaps my friends\nfrom Newcastle and Nanaimo voted in\nfavor   of  it.\"\nMr. Parker Williams\u2014\"There was no\nvote taken.\"\"\nAll  in  Same  Position\nHon. Mr. Bowser\u2014\"No vote was taken? Well, my honorable friends were in\nthe same position as the rest of us. No\none would say then there was anything\npeculiarly wrong about the legislation\nwe put through. We were all in the\nsame position in regard to it. My honorable   friends   were   the   same   as   the\nrest of us. Let me go further. This is\none of my; reasons for not having\ndone anything, not having the courage that my opinion was well founded\nto the extent that we could interfere in\nthis way. The writer in the Chinook\nsays, and my honorable friend from\nNewcastle has shown that he was foolish enough to take up an argument of\nthis sort, that this was discussed before\nsome financial committee, showing that\nthe man who wrote the article knew\nnothing of the practice in this Parliament. The member for Newcastle says\nthat there is no finance committee in\nthis House. We all know that. But he\ntries to work around it in his ingenious\nway to show that it was discussed in\ncaucus, but that the influence of Mr.\nArnold was so great and his power was\nso great, that sooner than defeat the\nGovernment I let this go through. What\npiffle! Rather than defeat the Government, our caucus apparently decided,\naccording to the member for Newcastle,\nthat the Dominion Trust legislation\nshould go through. The matter was\nnever discussed in our caucus.\n\"What is the fact? I am not the\nonly attorney-general that has made a\nmistake. There are other attorneys-\ngeneral in the Dominion of Canada, and\nI am sorry to say that some of them\nare in the Liberal party. We all understand the great wisdom of Liberal associations and we know that no Liberal attorney-general can make any mistake\non a question of law. Our legislature\nassented to the bill dealing with the\nDominion Trust Co. on March 1, 1913.\nOn January 3, 1913, the Province of\nSaskatchewan, advised by a Liberal attorney-general, passed a similar bill\nwith a similar section to that in the\nBritish Columbia act. Well, then, can\nmy Liberal friends blame me if I took\nMr. Turgeon's law on that subject?\nOur bill became law on March 1, and\nwith the precedent of my Liberal friend,\nthe attorney-general of Saskatchewan,\ngiven two months before, can I be blamed for saying: 'You Liberals are so wise,\nI take your advice, submerge my own\nopinions, take the advice of Liberal\nAttorney-General Turgeon of Saskatchewan and allow the bill to go\nthrough.\"    (Laughter and applause.)\n Other Precedents\n\"There are other precedents. On February 15, 1913, a similar section in a\nsimilar act passed through the legislature in the province of Manitoba on\nthe advice of Hon. J. H. Howden, K. C,\nthe attorney-general. Can I be blamed\nin British Columbia when I have the\nprecedent of two attorneys-general for\nwhat I have done?\u2014one, the Liberal attorney-general of Saskatchewan, and\none the Conservative attorney-general,\na lawyer of high standing in Manitoba,\nboth prior to the bill being passed in\nthis Legislature. But I go further.\nLater on, after our bill had been passed,\non March 20, 1913, in the province of\nNew Brunswick, the province which\ngave me birth, the legislature passed a\nsimilar a,ct and with a similar power\ngiven in addition to the Federal Parliament's grant of power, and this on\nthe advice of. Attorney-General Grimmer, now occupying a seat on the Appeal\nCourt bench in that Province.\n\"Now, Mr. Speaker, in face of that you\ncan see the animus in the cowardly and\ndastardly political attack made by the\nLiberals and their Socalist allies on me\nin connection with the Dominion Trust.\nIf I was wrong in my law in 1913\u2014and\nthe people of this country must be fair,\neven though there have been victims of\nthis unfortunate smash\u2014they cannot\ncome back and say that the Attorney-\nGeneral of British Columbia, and the\nAttorney-General of British Columbia\nalone, is to blame. We four Attorneys-\nGeneral may all be to blame. I do not\nwish to shield myself behind anyone,\nand I take the full burden on my own\nshoulders, but if I am to blame, then\nMr. Turgeon, the Liberal Attorney-\nGeneral in Saskatchewan, Mr. Howden,\nthe Conservative Attorney-General in\nManitoba, and Mr. Justice Grimmer of\nNew  Brunswick,   are  all   to   blame.\n\"In this connection I wish to ask you\nwhat would have happened if we had refused to put through this legislation in\n1913. The Dominion Trust Company\nhad never stopped taking deposits. They\nwere taking deposits under the old\nDominion Trust Co., Ltd., charter, prior\nto the Federal legislation of 1912, and\nbetween, the date of that, April 1, 1912,\nand March 1, 1913, when they came to\nthis  Legislature,   they  were   taking   de\nposits for a whole year in Vancouver\nunder the Dominion section to which I\nhave referred; taking them first, perhaps,\nunder the section giving them power to\ntake over all the responsibilities of the\nold company, and second, under subsection (g), giving them power to 'receive moneys in trust for investment\nand allow interest thereon, for a reasonable time until investment.' For a\nwhole year that went on, and the public\nhave forgotten that for a whole year\nfrom the time of this legislation passed\non April 1, 1912, in the Dominion House,\nto March 1, 1913, they were taking\nmoney in the city of Vancouver and in\nall their other agencies and giving interest. Am I to blame for that? Who\nis to blame for that intervening period?\nThere is only one person, and that is the\nman who is gone, and perhaps the unfortunate depositors who did not take\ncare to see what was the condition of\nthe Company when they deposited their\nmoney with it.\nCompany's 1913 Report\n\"Now, what was the condition of the\nCompany in 1913? I have told you\nthat they were of high financial standing. I have Only to refer you to the\nreport of the Dominion Trust Company\nfor 1913, placed before a meeting, a\ngeneral meeting, held at the head office\nof the Company in Vancouver on February 24, 1914, which was some months\nafter we had given power in this Legislature to take money on deposit\u2014though\nthey were taking it before that, and it\nmight be argued that they were taking\nit under the Dominion legislation. You\nwill find from their balance sheet as at\nDecember 31, 1913, that the authorized\ncapital of the Company was $5,000,000;\nthe subscribed, $2,500,000; the capital\npaid up was $2,167,570, and there was a\nreserve of $800,000. In order to show,\nso far as the public knew, the absolute\nconservative way in which the business\nof the Dominion Trust Company was\nsupposed to have been operated, I want\nto read from the annual report where,\nin speaking to the question of the correctness of the policy pursued by the\ncorporation, Mr. Arnold says: 'The result of the work and the correctness of\nthe policy will, I think, appeal to you,\nwhen it is noted that the trusts of various   kinds   under   administration   have\n grown from   $6,217,983  at  December 31,\n1912, to   $13,480,221    on    December   31,\n1913, or more than double within that\nperiod.'\n\"It is most important we should not\nforget this as significant of the standing of the Company in the year we put\nthrough that legislation, and as giving\nweight to the argument that no man\nwould have had the temerity in 1913 to\nhave said that the Dominion Trust was\nnot in a strong financial position. Mr.\nArnold goes on:\n\" 'Notwithstanding the above, however, the gross profits of the business\nwere   $621,000   in   1913,   while   those   of\n1912 were $626,000, or a decrease of\nonly about' $5,000 during the period\nrecognized as one of great financial\nstringency. This fact will, I believe,\ndemonstrate very clearly the solid nature of the business of your company.\nWhile the policy of 1913 was an aggressive one, so far as the securing of desirable business, present and future,\nthrough wills was concerned, yet it was\nvery conservative in other ways. The\ndebentures held as investments by your\ncompany were materially written down\nto bring the book value well within the\nmarket value. The value of these investments stands in the books on\nDecember 31, 1913, at $55,470 less than\nthe same securities showed on the books\nat the close, of 1912\/\nStatement of Auditors\n\"Now, Mr. Speaker, what is that in\nplain English but the desire of the late\nmanaging director of the Company at\nonce to show his directors, to show the\npublic, to show this Legislature, to show\nthis Government, to show the Attorney-\nGeneral of this Province, that on his\nyear's handling of the business in 1913,\nhe saw there must be a depreciation, a\nwriting down of the value of the\nassets held in connection with the\nsecurities, and he points out that\nhe reduced them in that year by\n$55,000.      The     whole     statement     for\n1913 shows clearly the position he\ntook so far as the public was concerned,\nand the whole public, which included\nmyself, must have drawn only one\nconclusion with respect to the Dominion\nTrust Company. We see that the balance sheet shows, first, that he had de-\nia, Winni-\ntwerp. All\nad  securi-\naolder\nalarms\nr   com-\nis   an-\n power was given to accept trust moneys\nthey would always be able to meet all\nresponsibilities in connection with paying them  back.\n\"I have pointed out what was the\nposition in 1913, and that is the time,\nafter all, we must keep in our\nminds in this connection. I want to\ndraw attention to the auditors' reports\nin 1913 and 1914. These are the paid\nauditors, who are supposed to have\nlookea after the business of the Company, and who reported as late as\nAugust, 1914, and its doors closed on\nOctober 12, the same year. Under date\nof August 26, 1913, these auditors\nreport:\n\" 'We have made a detailed examination of all the deeds, documents and\nrecords in connection with the investments made by the Dominion Trust\nCompany on behalf of its clients. We\ncertify that the same are in good order\nand that where the deeds and documents of title are in possession of the\nCompany they are filed separately under\nthe client's name and apart from the\nCompany's own investments. Where no\ndeeds or documents were in evidence,\nreceipts or other satisfactory proof that\nthey had been handed over to the\nclients or disposed of under their directions were exhibited to us. Valuators' reports, certificates of title, solicitors' reports have been produced to us\nin the case of mortgage and other investments  requiring same.'\n\"Under date of August 28, 1914, the\nauditors furnish their certificate in almost identical language. Now, Mr.\nSpeaker, were the auditors honest in\ntheir work in connection with this company, or were they deceived by a greater\nmind than their own? And if that was\nthe honest position the auditors found\nin that year, how was it to be expected\nthat this Government or any of its\nmembers, or the Trust Department of\nthis Government, should be in any better\nposition to know the real condition of\nthe Company when it closed its doors a\nfew months later?\nRight to Take Deposits\n\"I want now to refer to the right of\nthe Company to take deposits. I have\npointed out that the Company had that\nright before 1912, and after 1912 for a\nyear, and under our act.    Am I to blame\nfor that? There are other companies in\nCanada doing a similar business. Our\nTrust Companies Act, passed on March\n4, 1914, also allows trust companies,\nunder certain restrictions and regulations, and after depositing a bond with\nthe department, to take deposits as well.\nBut we come to the further position.\nThe argument will be made in the\ncourts, and I make it here with all confidence, that the Dominion Trust always\nhad the right under the peculiar wording of its act from the Federal Legislature to receive money. Subsection (g)\nof section 7 of the act of 1912 authorized\nit to 'receive moneys in trust for investment and 4HOW interest thereon for\na reasonable time until invested.' Is\nthere anything peculiar about this, Mr.\nSpeaker? Is there any other company\nin Canada doing a similar business\u2014\nand you must remember that when you\nconsider whether there is any responsibility on this Government in connection with this Company\u2014that can show\nthe same power?\n\"We have two large trust companies\nin Canada which have a great reputation, the National Trust Company and\nthe Union Trust Company. Hon. W. T.\nWhite, the Finance Minister of Canada,\nand a man who is known as one of the\ngreatest financiers in the Dominion, was\nfor many years at the head of the former\ninstitution, gave years of his life and\nenergies to build up, and did build up,\na wonderful business in connecton wth\nthe National Trust Company. Under\nthe Ontario law none of these companies\nare allowed to take deposits, and yet today, in the province of Ontario, hundreds of thousands of dollars are on\ndeposit with the National Trust Company and the Union Trust Company,\nunder what they may call an investment\ncertificate, with coupon certificates attached, carrying interest at four per\ncent. The National Trust Company, organized and formerly controlled and\nmanaged by a man like the Hon. W. T.\nWhite, without any legal authority and\nwith not even the authority the Dominion Trust had under its Federal Act,\nis allowed to take deposits and pay interest at four per cent. What is there\nso far wrong in the Legislature of British Columbia giving the same power\nto the Dominion Trust Company?\n There are also the Imperial Trusts\nCompany of Canada and the Canada\nTrust Company (called originally the\nGeneral Trust Corporation of Canada),\nwhich had at that time its head office\nin Calgary but which, since the change\nof its name to Canada Trust Company,\nhas its head office in London, Ontario,\nand we find these are both incorporated\nby the Canadian Parliament, and are\nexactly in the same position as\nthe Dominion Trust with this exception, that the Dominion Trust has\nthis section permitting it to take money\non deposit (which they . had not)\n'to receive moneys in trust for investment and allow interest thereon for a\nreasonable time until invested,' so long\nas it was done within a reasonable time.\nSuppose that anyone would go in and\nask: 'Why don't you invest Jones'\nmoney?' the management would say: 'We\nhave a reasonable time within which to\ndo so; we have -not seen any security\nyet, there have been no securities offered to us, which we consider safe for the\ninvestment of this money, and meanwhile we have the money in our treasury and are paying him four per cent,\ninterest until we get a safe investment\nfor   him.'\nActions of Other Companies\n\"They do not have in the Imperial\nTrust Company or in the Canada Trust\nCompany the same right to take.money\nthat the Dominion Trust had, but what\ndo we find today? Take the report of the\nRegistrar of Trust Companies in Ontario for 1913, and you will find that the\nImperial Trust Company had actually\nreceived on deposit during the year the\nsum of $2,053,382, and paid during that\nyear an average rate of interest 'on\ndeposits' of four and one-eighth per\ncent., and with not half the authority\nthat the Dominion Trust Company had.\nHave you heard of the Attorney-General\nof the Province of Ontario taking any\naction against the Imperial Trust Company or the Canada Trust Company,\ntwo companies doing business in that\nprovince? Have you heard of the Minister of Justice of Canada, from whose\nparliament authority was given to the\nDominion Trust Company to do a trust\ncompany's business, taking any action\nagainst these  two Federal companies.\n\"I could cite other cases of companies\nof equally good financial standing in\nToronto. You have nothing of any\nsuggestion of that sort in regard to\nthem. If that is so in Toronto, am I\nso much to blame, or is the Government\nof British Columbia to blame if I followed the precedent set in these large\nfinancial centres?\" In Ontario they have\nan inspector of trust companies, an inspector of loan companies, and every\nyear they have a statement brought\ndown showing that these companies are\ntaking money on deposit in the same\nway as the Dominion Trust in this\nProvince. It seems to me that if it is\nnot legal to take deposits there and the\nMinister of Justice did not see fit to\nrestrain them it was hardly to be expected that the Attorney-General of British Columbia should have taken steps\nin connection with the Dominion Trust\nCompany in this Province. In this connection I need not further enlarge as\nto the position, particularly as to* the\nsubsequent decision given, settling more\nor  less the law  on  this  point.\n\"The next question I wan.t to ask the\npeople of this Province is, why did the\ndepositors invest their money in the\nDominion Trust? One or two answers\nsuggest themselves, and I think perhaps the most important one was the\npersonal magnetism or personal ability\nof the late manager of the Company;\nsecondly, perhaps the fact that depositors would receive a little more interest\nfrom a trust company than from the\nchartered banks; and, thirdly, the possession of the magnificent buildings that the\nCompany had in different parts of this\nProvince and in other provinces of Canada, and also the fact that such reputable citizens were on the board of directors and the reputation' this company\nhad built up as to its being a strong\nfinancial institution.\n\"Now the claim has been made, Mr.\nSpeaker, that I am responsible personally for the depositors having placed\ntheir money in that Company., The\nmembers for Newcastle and Nanaimo\nhave been rash enough in the statements\nthey have made, more or less of an insinuating character, as to my responsibility in the matter. I will make this\nchallenge to my friend from Newcastle,\nI will give him  one week to bring into\n 10\nthis House an affidavit from one single\ndepositor of the Dominion Trust who\never thought of my existence when he\nput his money into that concern. (Hear,\nhear.) I would also have him ask\nthem if they ever made any inquiry as\nto the record and responsibility of the\nDominion Trust, or its authority to take\ndeposits.\n\"I say, Mr. Speaker, that no man,\nwith the reputation the Dominion Trust\nhad built up, would ever think of asking\nMr. Arnold if he had the right to take\ndeposits any more than I would ever\nthink of doing, if I went over to the\nBank of Montreal to put in my own\nmoney and ask the manager to show\nme the original charter proving the authority of that institution to do a\nbanking   business.\nDemands Fair Flay\n\"It is all very well for the Opposition\nin this House and for their Liberal\nfriends outside to indulge in a campaign against myself in this connection. It seems to be popular for\nthem all to join in the cavalcade, like a\npack of hungry wolves, in full cry after\na victim, especially if that victim can\nbe myself. I have a certain right\nas a citizen of this country and I\nmust* be treated, and I know I will\nbe treated by the independent voters\nof this Province, in a perfectly fair\nmanner.     (Cheers.)\n\"Another point raised is that my\nlegal firm, in which I happen to be\nthe senior partner, has been the solicitors for the Dominion Trust Company.\nIt has been canvassed by the Opposition\nmembers of this House, and it has been\nrepeated by Liberals on the platform and\nin their press. It is an organized attempt\u2014you cannot get away from it\u2014\nto drive me out of public life. Every\nLiberal organization throughout the\nProvince has been brought into play for\nthis end; every Liberal speaker and\nthe Liberal press are actuated, not by\nsympathy for the sufferers through the\nsmash of the Dominion Trust Company,\nbut by the hope that they can relieve\nthe public life of this Province of myself. There is another way to relieve\npublic life of me, and that is at the\nballot box, where I challenge them to\nmeet  me.     (Prolonged   cheers.)\n\"I will give another challenge to my\nfriend from Newcastle. I will give him\ntwo weeks to come into this House with\nan affidavit from any one reputable\ncitizen in which he will undertake to\nswear that when he made a deposit in\nthis Company, he ever even thought who\nthe solicitors of the Company were, or\nthat I was a member of that firm,\n\"We have got to be fair in these\nmatters. We can raise all these arguments, but it is only fair to me to see\nthat reasonable time and opportunity is\ngiven to reply to charges of this kind.\n\"Now, Mr. Speaker, a great deal is\nsaid of those who have suffered in the\nfailure of this Company, and for whom\nwe have g^reat sympathy, the depositors.\nI want to give you a few figures in\nthat connection. In 1912, when the\nDominion Trust Company was incorporated by the Federal Paraliment, the\nold company had 2,135 depositors in\nVancouver. On October 12, 1914, when\nthey closed their doors, there were\n2,702 depositors. From April 1, 1912, to\nOctober 12, 1914, they had only increased the number of their depositors\nfrom 2,135 to 2,702. The affairs of the\ncompany are in such a tangled mess\nnow that I was not able to get the\nfigures for full periods, as I would like\nto have had them, showing the numbers\nin these different periods under the several acts. But I was able to find this,\nthat from January, 1913, onward, there\nwere only 195 new depositors, so that\nwhen you bring the whole matter down,\napparently there has been only an increase of new depositors from January\n1, 1913, to October 12, 1914, when the\ndoors closed, of 195 people. So, if I\nam responsible\u2014if this Government is\nresponsible\u2014for giving them power to\ntake deposits on March 1, 1913, my answer is that only 195 depositors at best\nhave been affected by that legislation.\nThis is a startling statement; it is a\nstatement that would not suit my\nhonorable friends opposite, or my Liberal critics outside the House, because\nthey think there is enough connected\nwith the Dominion Trust, perhaps, to\nput this Government out of existence.\nIf I show you that only 195 new depositors put their money in that company from January 1, 1913, to October\n12, 1914, when they closed their doors,\nyou see how doubtful are the facts that\n 11\nmy opponents are basing their hopes on.\nThe great majority of the people affected, those who are depositors, are\npeople who were in the original company prior to 1912, and with which this\nGovernment had nothing whatever to do.\nThese people constituted a sort of endless chain, in some months putting\nmoney in and in some taking money\nout; but when you bring the matter\ndown to those for whom we are responsible, if you are going to accept the\nargument of the Member for Newcastle,\nthey are very few.\nBetter Than Other Provinces\n\"I wish now to speak as to the position of the depositors and the Government, of what the Government have\ndone to protect the depositors, and in\nthis connection we wish to take every\ncredit for having placed on the statute\nbooks of this Province an up-to-date\nTrust Companies Act, with the result\nthat we have today, what we did not\nhave last year, $250,000 by way of two\nbonds which we can hand over to the\ncreditors of this trust company. And\nthere is this one remark I desire to\nmake that my Liberal Attorney-General\ncolleague, Mr. Turgeon, of Saskatchewan, has not one single dollar to protect the depositors of the Dominion\nTrust Company in his Province; that\nmy Conservative Attorney-General and\nfriend, Mr. Howden, of Manitoba, has\nno bond to protect the depositors in\nthat Province; and that my Conservative Attorney-General friend in New\nBrunswick has no bonds there; so, I\nthink, the people of this Province and\nthe depositors of the Dominion Trust\nCompany may also be proud of the\nfact that we have in this Province,\nthrough the far-sightedness of the Government, some protection for the depositors\u2014not for the creditors of the\nDominion Trust Company in Saskatchewan, or Manitoba, or New Brunswick,\nbut for the creditors who reside in British Columbia.\nThe Trust Act was passed in March\nlast, and the bond was offered to us in\nMay. I want to draw attention to\nthat, Mr. Speaker. The act was assented to on March 4, 1914, and the\nbond had to be given by July 1, 1914.\nWhat do we find? The Railway Accident and Guarantee Company, which\nguarantees   the  honesry   and   bona-fides\nof this and other companies which it\nguarantees, was so well satisfied with\nMr. Arnold and with the financial standing of the Dominion Trust that they\noffered to us in May, two months before the due date called for by the act,\na bond for the maximum amount required in the case of a trust company.\n\"Am I to be blamed for having been\ndeceived by Mr. Arnold? Is this assembly to be blamed? Are the depositors to be blamed? Here are people,\nhere is a reputable guarantee cpmpany,\nwhich, naturally, we suppose, will make\nevery investigation as to the honesty\nand bona-fides of the people they are\ncalled upon to give bonds for. I want\nto say now to the House, I want to say\nto my Socialist and Liberal friends, if\nthe Railway Accident and Guarantee\nCompany, in May last, was satisfied to\nbond the Dominion Trust Company for\n$200,000, do you think the Attorney-\nGeneral was very much remiss for not\nhaving closed the doors of the Dominion\nTrust on that day?  (Applause).\nStringent New Act\n\"There is also to be .remembered in\nconnection with the Dominion Trust\nAct, that this is the only Province that\nhas brought down such a stringent\nmeasure as to deal not only with trust\ncompanies which might hereafter be\nincorporated, but with those which were\nin existence at the time the act was\npassed. Some of the Members of this\nLegislature did not agree with us when\nwe decided that the act should be retroactive as to dealing with all companies,\nand many of the public did not agree\nwith us either. They said we had no\nright to interfere with vested interests,\nand that where companies were already\nbeing allowed to carry on business,\nsubsequent legislation should not affect\nthem. But we had a duty to the public to\nperform; we were afraid of a depression\ncoming upon us; we were afraid of the\nmushroom nature of some of these institutions, and we proposed to bring them\nall under the act, the same as any new\ncompany. Did they do that in any\nother Province of Canada? Not in a\nsingle one. We do not find in the Province of Saskatchewan, where my Liberal critics have a friend of their own\noccupying the high position I have the\nhonor to fill here, the introduction of\nsuch legislation.     The Hon. W. T. White\n n\n12\nbrought in a bill to regulate Dominion\ntrust companies, and that is one section he declined to put in his bill, showing that the Government of British\nColumbia was looking to the interests\nof the people of British Columbia, that\nin the case of old companies, as well as\nnew, we were not going to allow them\nto operate without coming under all\nthe regulations and conditions we considered it wise  to  enact.\n\"That bond was to be filed with the\ndepartment by July 1; it was offered to\nus on May 1. We did not accept it on\nMay 1 because the Railway Accident\nand Guarantee Company was not registered under our Trust Act until July 15,\nand until it was registered we would\nnot accept its bond. Then take the case\nof the London Accident and Guarantee\nCorporation, which gave a bond on\nApril 13, 1913, under a section of our\nDominion Trust Act of that year, in\nconnection with the handling of intestate estates and wills, for the protection\nof the widows and orphans. They gave\nthis bond on April 30, just two months\nafter the Dominion Trust Act passed\nthis House, demonstrating most conclusively the confidence felt by such\nan old established and conservative institution of London, England, in the\ncompany, and showing that they were so\nwell satisfied with the standing of the\nDominion Trust that they gave this bond\npromptly. It is to be taken by the Government and the House\u2014those of us\nwho have experience of companies operating from England know that they do\nnot make any move without taking the\nadvice of their solicitors, so we must\ntake it that they were sure, so far as\nlegal opinion could make it, that our\nlegislation of two months before, allowing them to take deposits, must have\nbeen satisfactory to London. Their\nsolicitors must have said so. There\nwere therefore other people besides the\nmembers of the Private Bills Committee\nand the Members of this Legislature who\nfelt that the power was a proper one to\ngive to  this company.\nArnold's Correspondence\n\"I wish to refer briefly to communications I have sent to and received from\nand interviews I have had with the\nlate manager; and I think, after hearing\nthis correspondence\u2014I must apologize\nto the House for taking up time reading it,  but I  must,  in a debate of this\nkind take every opportunity to make\nmy position and the position of the\nGovernment absolutely clear\u2014you can\ndraw a reasonable inference as to the\neffect correspondence of this sort\nwould have upon me or anyone in my\nposition.\n\"After the Legislature was prorogued\non the 1st of March, 1913, I felt that\nwe should have a Trust Companies Act\nin this Province and took steps for the\ndrafting of one. Some Liberal newspapers are trying to make a point of\nthe fact that I have stated that the\ncontrol of trust companies was under\nthe Department of Finance. It is quite\ntrue I stated that. The 'Minister' mentioned in the Trust Act is the Minister\nof Finance, but as Attorney-General of\nthe Province I am responsible for the\nadministration of all its statutes, and\nif I find anything going wrong in any\ndepartment it is my duty to set the\nMinister straight or give any assistance\nI can. As I had taken the initiative in\nthe preparation of the Trust Companies\nAct I had naturally control of it in the\nHouse and while the officers appointed\nto carry the act into effect are under\nthe Minister of Finance I have been\nbrought more into contact with the\nInspector of Trust Companies than any\nother Minister. Shortly after the session of 1913 closed it was in our\nopinion expedient to have a stringent\nTrust Act. We then started to work\non its preparation so that we would be\nready for the session of 1914. I now\nwant to read this correspondence with\nMr. Arnold. Under date of April 4,\n1913, Mr. Arnold wrote me from Vancouver as follows:\n\" 'Some two years ago when the representatives of certain trust companies\nmet in your office in Victoria, you will\nprobably remember that I suggested\nthat the Government should bring in a\nvery strict trust company bill. Following along these lines the Dominion\nTrust Company secured a charter from\nthe Dominion Government and had cut\nout every clause that would in any way\nenable them to speculate or buy stocks\nor bonds of any speculative enterprises,\nand we have recently secured special\nacts in practically every Province in the\nDominion.\nSuggested  Association\n\" 'I would like now to turn my attention   to    securing    the   co-operation    of\n 13\nother companies in British Columbia\nwho are at least trying to do a\nlegitimate trust business, and I have\nhad a view of the formation of an association to take this matter up and present their views in a petition to you.\nBefore making any move, however, I\nfeel that it would be advisable to have\nany possible suggestions from you, and\nto know whether or not you would feel\ninclined to have a committee of the\nmanagers of the legitimate trust companies in British Columbia work together with yourself or your Inspector\nof Trust Companies, Mr. Runnalls, in\ngetting up a trust bill to be brought in\nat the next meeting of the Legislature.\n\" 'It was my idea in forming an association not only to place the matter before the British Columbia Government,\nbut also to take the matter up with\nthe Dominion Government and then\nwith the Governments of the other\nProvinces, and if possible secure a\nuniform trust act* throughout the Dominion. Very strict legislation has\nbeen brought in in most of the Eastern\nStates whereby trust companies are\ncompelled to carry on a strictly trust\nbusiness.'\n\"I answered that letter on the 9th of\nApril by acknowledging its receipt and\nusing this language:\n\" 'I may say that it is the intention of\nthe Government to bring down at the\nnext session an up-to-date Trust Companies Act with stringent regulations\nso that the public and the investor will\nbe safeguarded so far as legislation can\ndo so. I now have one of my staff\nworking upon this matter, together\nwith the Inspector of Trust Companies,\nin order to have a bill ready for next\nsession.'\n\"Then later on, in February of last\nyear, while the House was in session\nin Victoria, we sent out to the different\ntrust companies and those interested,\nand to bankers as well, the proposed\ntrust bill, which afterwards became\nlaw. Mr. Arnold, after receiving his\ncopy, wrote me as follows on February\n24, 1914:\n\" 'I have had much pleasure in going\nover the proposed bill drafted by you\nregarding the regulating of trust companies. You are most certainly to be\ncongratulated on bringing in this bill,\nas it will forever put trust companies\non   a   right   and   fair   footing   and   will\nenable them to stand up as companies\ndoihg a real trust business and not as\nthey stood in the past.'\nDouble Audit\n\"Further on in the letter, after referring to some of the sections, and\nspeaking of one calling for a double\naudit by a competent accountant, he\nsays, 'I think that this should read\n\"chartered accountants in practice and\ngood standing.\" '\n\" 'As far as the Dominion Trust Company is concerned we will welcome a\ndouble audit, but I really feel that this\nwould be a hardship on some of the\nsmaller companies, who will have to,\nunder the act, do a regular trust business, and the extra expense of a double\naudit certainly would be a heavy burden.'\n\"There is the language of the man in\nFebruary, 1914, that he was inviting\na double audit as far as the Dominion\nTrust was concerned. I am only human,\nlike the people who have been swindled.\nWas I to take this man at his face\nvalue or was I treat him as a scoundrel,\nwith the reputation he had built up for\nhis company? Sub-section (2) of Clause\n36 states that 'every trust company\nshall have and exereise.' Mr. Arnold\nmade an objection to compulsory exercise and thought it should read 'shall\nhave and mav exercise.' He went on\nto  say:\n\" 'We might be offered a certain trusteeship that we did not feel that we\nwere justified in taking, and under this\nclause we would be compelled to take\non   the business.'\n\"Did you ever hear a more honest expression by the manipulator or manager\nof a trust company to the Minister in\ncharge of a bill than that? He was\nafraid he would have the offer of some\ntrusteeeship that he would not feel\njustified in taking and he wished me to\namend the bill so that he would not\nbe compelled to take it. Again on February 24 he writes, to the Inspector of\nTrust Companies:\n\" 'I am indeed pleased to note that this\nact has been brought down and it is an\nact that will give trust companies a\nstanding such as they should have. It\nhas been freely commented on that no\ntrust company in British Columbia with\nthe exception of ourselves can do business under this act, but 1 feel that this\n 14\nis not correct. If the other so-called\ntrust companies want to become trust\ncompanies they can soon become trust\ncompanies under the act, as the public\nwill have greater confidence in companies in the future and their business\nwill build up very rapidly. The trouble\nis, as you well know, that the average\nso-called trust company wants to be a\nreal estate company, a mining company,\ntrust company and a mixture of practically everything for which any kind\nof a company can  be  incorporated.\"\n\"An exact description of what we find\nhis own company to be in 1914. Let me\nread it to you again:\n\" 'The trouble is, as you well know,\nthat the average so-called trust company wants to be a real estate company,\na mining company, a trust company and\na mixture of practically everything for\nwhich any kind of a company can be\nincorporated.\nI 'I understand that a large delegation\nfrom the trust companies is to meet\nyourself and the Attorney-General tomorrow to discuss this. I will not be\npresent, as the act meets with the approval of myself and directors, other\nthan with the few minor changes as\nmentioned in my letter to the Attorney-\nGeneral, all of which I really think are\nreasonable and are founded on practice\nand not on theory. I hope that no\nradical changes in this act will be made\nafter the delegation lays its complaints\nbefore yourself and the Attorney-General.'\n\"What happened at that meeting, Mr.\nSpeaker? All the trust companies doing business in Vancouver were represented, I think, with the exception of\nthe Dominion Trust and the Royal\nTrust. They came over and met me\nhere and I think some of the members\nof the House were also present at that\nconference, in the course of which they\nsuggested that my act of last session\nshould stand over until this year; that\nit was too harsh a piece of legislation,\ntoo drastic. If I had listened to their\nblandishments there would have been\nno $250,000 for the creditors of the Dominion Trust Company today. I told\nthem that the Government had decided\non this legislation as a matter of policy\nand they had better confine themselves\nto suggesting amendments; that we had\ndecided that the time had arrived when\na   proper   Trust   Companies   Act   should\nbe placed on the statute books of British Columbia, and as a result we succeeded in bringing down and making\nlaw last session our act. Where was\nMr. Arnold? He would not be there\nbecause 'the act meets with the approval of myself and my directors,' and\nhe would not be associated with men\nwho were attempting to defeat this\nlegislation. Instead of objecting to the\nlegislation he was doing everything in\nhis power to encourage it. What do\nwe come to next? On February 12,\n1914, when the House was still in session, he wrote me as follows:\n\" 'I beg to enclose herewith statement\nas to December 31, 1913. I also enclose\nconfidential statement showing the business done in certain departments of the\ncompany during the year 1913. This\nstatement will give you a fair idea of\n\u2022 the trust business that can be done if\na trust company confines itself strictly\nto the business for which it is organized.'\nThe Dominion Bill\n\"Was it a studied attempt on the part\nof this man to inspire in me confidence in his own company, or was he\nat that time honest in his effort to convince me that he was running a sound\ninstitution? Now we will see another\nthing he did in this connection. While\nthe trust bill was before the House, Mr.\nWhite introduced his at Ottawa. I was\nrather anxious to see in what direction\nthe Dominion bill had gone and how\nfar they had gone in framing it\u2014and I\nfound afterwards they had not gone anything like as far as ours to protect the\npublic\u2014and to see a copy of the bill. Mr.\nArnold had got a copy of it and he was\nso anxious that I should see it that he\ndid not wait to send it over to me in\nvthe usual way by mail, but he went to\nthe expense of sending it all by lettergram\u2014$15 or $20 it must have cost his\ncompany. He put in the lettergram\nevery word of Mr. White's bill, naturally impressing me with the fact that he\nwanted to do everything possible to\nhave the very best piece of legislation\nan regard to trust companies placed on\nthe statute books of the Province. On\nFebruary 26, 1914, he wrote me as follows:\n\" 'I would like to have, if possible,\nfifteen copies of the Trust Act as\nbrought down by you, as I wish to send\n m\nthese to the leading financial papers in\nthe East and Great Britain, as they\nhave many times commented on trust\ncompany legislation in this Province. I\nam sure that when the same is received\nby them that they will comment very\nfavorably upon it and it will strengthen\nyour hand in having this act passed.'\n\"Now about this time The Sun, the\nVancouver Liberal organ\u2014and I do not\nknow what actuated them in their actions, but it is impossible for me to\nfollow the editorial vagaries of this\njournal\u2014made an attack upon me in\nconnection with this legislation. Mr.\nArnold, whose activities were great,\nhad some influence with The Sun people, and as a result he had them print\nan article written by Mr. Arnold, entitled 'Trust Company Efficiency,' by\nWilliam R. Arnold, referring in the\nmost glowing terms and full of laudatory references to the act. Then we\nfind him in The Monetary Times, one\nof the greatest financial papers in Canada, again dealing with 'Trust Company Efficiency.' Here is what that\npaper has to say about our act, and,\nincidentally,  Mr. Arnold:\n\" 'For some time British Columbia\ntrust companies, generally speaking,\nhave not enjoyed the good reputation\nborne by the older institutions in Eastern Canada. In an article on 'Trust\nCompany Efficiency,' Mr. W. R. Arnold,\nof the Dominion Trust Company, Vancouver, states that this is undoubtedly\ndue to the fact that fully 95 per cent\nof the incorporated trust companies are\nnot living up to the provisions of their\ncharters. The result is that Eastern\nfinancial critics have not looked favorably on any offerings made by Canada's\nPacific .Coast companies, to the detriment of those institutions doing a consistent trust business as represented to\nthe public. It is not to be wondered at,\nthen, says Mr. Arnold, that legislation\nis enacted from time to time to raise\nthe standard of trust companies, thereby placing our own Provincial companies on a higher plane in the eyes of\nfinancial authorities throughout the\ncontinent.'\n\"He was able to get that very nice expression of opinion from The Monetary\nTimes as a result of the article he\nwrote. A little later on The Chronicle,\nanother financial paper of great weight\npublished  in  Montreal,  had  another ar\nticle headed 'Trust Companies' Business Efficiency. New Laws in British\nColumbia Approved. Responsibility of\nDirectors.' And then later on, in The\nFinancial Post of Canada we find another article\u2014all at the suggestion of\nMr. Arnold in connection with the British Golumbia trust legislation. Later\non he forwarded me a copy of an\narticle in The Financial Times of\nMontreal, a paper occupying a high\nposition in financial circles in Eastern\nCanada. I want to read what the\neditor of The Times thought of Mr.\nArnold, to show you that I was not the\nonly person in Canada who was deceived\nby  Arnold.     He  concludes:\n\" 'The legitimate trust companies of\nBritish Columbia, and in particular such\n'companies as the Dominion Trust Company, which have been hampered in\ntheir splendid work in the past, by the\npoor repute attaching to the trust\ncompanies of that Province as a whole,\nare to be congratulated upon the new\nact, which gives the word \"trust\" in a\nBritish Columbia company title a meaning as definite and as reassuring as that\nof the word \"bank.\" '\nDealt With Trust Moneys\n\"Later on, in May, 1914, we find in\nTrust Companies, a journal published\nin New York, another article headed\n'Trust Company Legislation in British Columbia; Scope and Provisions\nof the New Act. William R. Arnold,\nVice-President and Managing-Director,\nDominion Trust Company, Vancouver,\nB. C Allow me to read just two\nclauses from it.\nI 'A most important clause in the act\nis that referring to the segregation of\ntrust moneys. In the past the lack of\nproper restriction in this respect has\nresulted in some cases in the use of\ntrust funds in the interest of the company carrying the trust. Within the\npast two weeks a local company obliged\nto assign admitted in the press that\nclients' funds had been mixed with its\nown funds and improperly used. The\nenforcement of this clause which states\nthat trust moneys must be kept entirely\nseparate from the company's own funds\nwill give the client a much greater\nsense of security and eliminate the danger of misappropriation of trust funds.'\n\"Speaking as an officer of a company\nwhich   unfortunately   was   not   sound\u2014\n 16\nwhether he was honest when he wrote\nthat article or not I give no opinion\u2014\nhe refers to a company here which was\nmixing funds. We know what the result was as regards mixing trust funds\nin his own company. Further on he\nsays:\n\" 'In order that the directors as a\nboard shall become thoroughly cognizant of the operations of the company, it is stipulated that in March of\neach year a committee of at least three\ndirectors shall conduct a thorough examination of the books for the preceding year, make a report to the board\nand file a copy with the inspector. The\nreport is to be most comprehensive, including as it will a statement of assets\nand liabilities, a statement of the collateral security given in connection\nwith loans and investments made by\nthe company, a statement of the investment of trust funds guaranteed and\na statement of doubtful or worthless\ninvestments.'\n\"That is one of the sections of the\nTrust Companies Act, which unfortunately does not come into effect yet,\nbecause it speaks of the first year.\nNaturally the year is not up as the act\nonly came into force on March 4 last\nand the first statement is not due until\nMarch 4, 1915. You see that particular\nsection, so far as the Dominion Trust\nCompany is concerned, was of little advantage. Mr. Arnold's article concludes\nas follows:\n\"It would not surely be expected that\nthe so-called speculative trust companies would be much opposed to such\na radical change in trust laws. Much\npressure was accordingly brought to\nbear on the Government. It is now generally accepted, however, by those who\nhave carefully studied the act, that the\nlaw as now enacted is in the best interests of the people and that in future\na trust company client will have a reasonable measure of protection. The\npassage of the act, placing all companies on such a substantial basis will\nundoubtedly secure for those companies remaining in business greater\nconfidence on the part of those having\ntrust business to transact.*\n\"Now, Mr. Speaker, the cry will at\nonce go up that I am defaming the\nmemory of the dead. That is the only\nthing the Liberal press and the Liberal\npoliticians have left. I read these articles\nto show the influence that man had on\nthe press, on the public, on his customers,\non the Government, and on all with\nwhom he came in contact. It is only\nfor that purpose that I have read these\narticles this afternoon.\nAmendment to Act\n\"There is just one point I wish to\nrefer to now and perhaps the Members\nof the Legislature will be anxious to\nhear my view of it, and that is about\nthe amendment of the act in 1914.\nWhen the return is brought down as a\nresult of the passage of this motion, it\nwill be found that there are only two\npieces of correspondence between the\nDepartment of Justice and myself. As\nyou know, under the British North\nAmerica Act the Governor-General-in-\nCouncil has one year within which to\ndisallow acts of any Provincial Legislature. Towards the end of the year\nafter the Dominion Trust Act became\nlaw in 1913, the Governor-General-in-\nCouncil, through the ordinary diplomatic channels, sent a report on the\nacts of British Columbia for 1913. His\nExcellency mad.e two requests, on the\nadvice of the Minister of Justice, in regard to two of our acts, of which the\nColonial Trust Company Act was one\nand the Dominion Trust Company Act\nwas the other. He pointed out in the\ncase of the Colonial Trust Company\nthat we were allowing them to take deposits and that he thought in his -\nopinion that might be infringing on the\nrights of the banks, a jurisdiction absolutely vested in a Dominion Parliament. I had always taken the ground\nwith the Minister of Justice, the same\nas the other Provinces had taken, that\nthe local Legislatures had power, if\nthey saw fit, to give such power to a\nprovincially chartered company. I had\nalways pointed out to the Federal authorities that it had nothing to do with\nbanking, and that as it was done by\nother companies the Minister ought not\nto disallow the act, but should leave\nit to the courts to decide whether it\nwas unconstitutional or ultra vires on\nour  part  to   give  such  powers.\n\"But he went further and raised the\npoint on which I had doubt when the\nDominion Trust Bill was before the\nPrivate Bills Committee\u2014that was, as\nto adding to the powers given by Dominion legislation\u2014and here is what\nhe said:\n 17\n\" 'It is in the view of the undersigned\n(Hon. Chas. J. Doherty, Minister of\nJustice) open to very grave question\nwhether the powers of the Dominion\ncorporation can be enlarged by a local\nLegislature. The authority to receive\nmoney on deposit and allow interest on\nthe same is moreover questionable, for\nthe reasons hereinbefore indicated in\nthe case of the Colonial Trust Company. The undersigned therefore commends this act to the further consideration of  the local Government.'\n\"On receiving that intimation from\nOttawa I at once took up the matter\nwith Mr. Arnold and pointed out to\nhim that he would have to bring down\na bill striking out the section giving\nhim power to receive deposits and\ngiven him by this Legislature in 1913,\nand notified him that if he did not do\nso the Government would bring down\na Government measure to meet the suggestions of the Ottawa authorities. He\nat once did as I suggested, bringing in\na bill to repeal that power, because he\nsaid he knew he always had that right\nunder the Dominion legislation passed\nby the Federal Parliament in 1912, and\nif we are to draw any inference from\nthe cases of the National Trust Company, the Union Trust Company, the\nImperial Trust Companv and the Cana-\nada Trust Company, it would appear\nthat his opinion was well founded. 1\ninvited the ^Federal Government to\nleave this matter of deposits to the\ncourts by a lettergram, which I sent to\nthe Minister of Justice on February 23,\n1914, in which I said:\nCourts Should So Decide\n\" 'With reference to your report to\nHjis Excellency under date October 23,\nin reference to our bills of last session, I wish to state that a bill is now\nbefore the House, amending Dominion\nTrust Company Act along the lines you\nsuggest. As to the Colonial Trust\nCompany, by referring to section 11 of\ntheir act they are prohibited from engagr\ning in banking. As to whether receiving money on deposit is banking or not\nshould, in my opinion, be left to the\ncourts to decide. Hope this explanation as to both these bills will be\nsatisfactory. Regret that, owing to\nlegislative work, have been unable to\ngive this matter attention before today.'\n\"I received no reply from the Minister\nof Justice, but took it for granted he\nagreed with that view and the legislation went through. As soon as it was\nbrought to my attention that this\nportion of the bill was objectionable to\nthe Federal authorities, we acted at\nonce and acted quickly. What more\ncould we do? Did my friend, did my\nLiberal friend in Saskatchewan follow\nmy example? Mr. Turgeon today in\nthe Province of Saskatchewan has an\nact on the statute books allowing\npeople to deposit their money in the\nDominion Trust Company and in this\nway invited the people to deposit their\nmoney until October 12 last, when they\nclosed  their  doors.\n\"I invite my honorable friend from\nNewcastle to call in his Socialist\nfriends, to call in this Liberal party\nwith which he has made an unholy\nalliance, to call in Mr. Brewster,\nthe leader of the purist party, to call\nin the Macdonalds, the Olivers, the\nMartins, the Smiths to burn up the telegraph lines with wires to their friend,\nPremier Scott, of Saskatchewan, and ask\nhim to hurl from political life the Hon.\nMr. Turgeon, who did not repeal his bill\nlike I did. If he is honest, if the Liberal\nparty is honest, they will at once call\nindignation meetings for the purpose of\nnotifying Premier Scott and Attorney-\nGeneral Turgeon that they will not allow this pure party to have impure\npeople among them. I do not blame\nMr. Turgeon or say he is mistaken, but\nI do not wish to be blamed for doing\nbetter than their Liberal Attorney-\nGeneral in Saskatchewan has done.\nThe Conservative Attorney-General of\nManitoba stands equally guilty. The\nConservative Attorney-General in the\nProvince of New Brunswick is to blame\nalso, because they have not passed any\namendment to their act. If one is\nguilty, so are all the four guilty, but\nthe much-abused Attorney-General of\nBritish Columbia is the only one who\ndid his duty when the matter was\npointed out to him by the Minister of\nJustice.     (Cheers.)\nFersonnel of Board\n\"I will pass along to another point\nin this discussion. We come to the\npersonnel of the men who formed the\nboard   of   directors     of   the     Dominion\n 18\nTrust Company, and I make this statement as an answer to the question,\n'What have the directors profited?' A\ngreat deal has been said about them\nand, perhaps, they are to blame. They\nmay have been deceived by Arnold and\nmay have had too much confidence in\nhim, but I do not think it will be said\nby anyone that any of them have profited in any way. The president of the\ncompany was Mr. W. H. P. Clubb, one\nof the oldest citizens in Vancouver, a\nman who, I think, came there before I\ndid and who has always been held in\nthe highest esteem and has carried on\na large mercantile business. He has\ngiven his public services to the School\nBoard, to which he has been elected\ntime and again by large majorities and\nin most cases at the head of the poll.\nDr. W. B. Brydon-Jack is a man who is\nalso held in high esteem and has been\nthere for many years. Mr. F. R.\nStewart has an office not only in Vancouver, but in Victoria, and his firm is\nwell known here. Mr. David W. Bole\nis the president of the National Drug\n& Chemical Company of Montreal. Mr.\nBole must be a man of some financial\nability or he would not be president\nof the National Drug & Chemical Company. Mr. John Pitblado, of Montreal,\nand formerly of Winnipeg, with a long\nbanking experience in the Bank of\nNova Scotia, one of the best administered banks in Canada who was ten years\nmanager in Winnipeg, resigned and\nbought a seat on the Stock Exchange in\nMontreal, and is honorary secretary of\nthat body. He was present at the annual meeting on February 24, 1914,\nwhen this magnificent balance sheet\nwas shown, and he, shrewd man as he\nwas, apparently was satisfied with the\nstanding of the company on that date.\nHe now states in a public interview\nhe came from Montreal as soon as\nhe learned the news of the smash\u2014\nthat he is a victim to the extent of\n$130,000. He apparently was deceived\ninto thinking it a sound financial institution the same as every other depositor. He has never suggested that\nthe Attorney-General of British Columbia is to blame for his losing his\n$130,000; he has never suggested that\nthe Government is to blame. He is a\nshrewd business man. He is not allying\nhimself with  the Liberal party and the\nSocialist opposition, and so the inference is that he has not given his aid to\nthis attack upon the Government.\nWill Stand by Duty\n\"I suppose a great many people think\nthat because very many people who are\nresidents and fellow-citizens of my own\nin Vancouver have lost money in the\nDominion Trust, that by bringing this\nattack on the Government and on myself in particular I would use my\npolitical influence to have the Government do something for .these people\nin order to save my own political life.\nThose who figure that that will have\nany effect on me do not know my\ncharacter. I will stand or fall by my\nactions in this matter and no flourish\nof a big stick is going to force me to\ndeviate one inch from what I think is\nmy  duty.     (Cheers.)\n\"Mr. John A. Machray, another of the\ndirectors, is the head of a firm of\nlawyers in Winnipeg. Mr. William\nHenderson, who is well known to all\ncitizens in Vancouver, formerly senior\nmember of Henderson Brothers, druggists, and is now local president of the\nNational Drug & Chemical Company for\nBritish Columbia. The next gentleman\nis a man in whom I have a great deal of\nconfidence and whom I always figured\nhad great business acumen, rny own\npartner, Mr. R. L. Reid, K.C. Dr. Riggs.\nthe next gentleman, is a man well\nknown in this Province. Mr. James\nRamsay is the head of the firm of\nRamsay Bros., biscuit manufacturers.\nMr. R. Grey was an elderly retired\ncapitalist from New Zealand, a man of\nconsiderable property. He had invested\nother amounts at the request of Mr.\nArnold, all of which is now found to be\nof comparatively little value. The result\nof the strain was so great following the\nfailure that when his family were taking him to California he expired on the\nway to Oakland. Other directors were:\nMr. T. R. Pearson, of New Westminster;\nMr. Edmund Bell, of Vancouver, and Dr.\nGeorge E. Drew, of New Westminster.\nThen comes one of our oldest and most\nreputable citizens, Mr. James Stark, a\nman in whom I have the greatest confidence, and whom I have counted as my\npersonal friend for many years. He\nhas built up a great business and has\ninterests   in   many   other   leading   con-\n 19\ncerns. Mr. E. W. Keenleyside is\nmanager of a large insurance company,\nand Mr. E. P. Miller was engaged in the\nbusiness of the company and was under\nsalary. Mr. C. W. Twelves, of Belgium,\nwas the representative of the Dominion\nTrust Company at Antwerp. Then we\nfind there was an advisory committee\nin London, one of the members of\nwhich was Mr. J. G. Colmer, C.M.G., a\nmember of the great banking firm of\nThomas Coates & Company, long the\nfiscal agents for British Columbia. Mr.\nColmer must be an able man or he\nwould not be a partner in that\nfirm. He is one of the victims and he\nlent his name to the company in the\nCity of London. The next is Sir Gilbert Parker, and another is Mr. C. W.\nTwelves, of Belgium. I only bring in\nthese names in order to show the\nreputation Mr. Arnold had built up and\nthe fact that people of the whole Province were deceived, and it is not fair\nto pick me out and attempt to unload\non me the whole blame for the failure\nof that institution.  (Applause).\nSome Who Suffered\n\"How have these  men suffered?    Dr.\nBrydon-Jack had 392 shares, or $39,-\n200. Mr. Stark had 200 shares, representing $20,000 paid up, and, again,\nMr. W. H. P. Clubb had 296 shares, and\nthere is standing unpaid on these, for\nwhich he is responsible, $10,360. That\nis what these men have suffered from\nthe smash of the Dominion Trust Company. Mr. E. W. Keenleyside has\n$4,550 still to pay, and the liquidator\nwill see that the moneys are paid. Mr.\nJohn R. Grey, or his estate, is responsible for $8,400, Mr. James Ramsay is\nresponsible for $3,135, and Dr. Drew\nfor $5,110. Mr. T. R. Pearson is liable\nfor $4,200 unpaid on his shares, and\nMr. D. W. Bole is responsible for\n$1,750. It may be of interest in passing to state that while Dr. Brydon-\nJack has 392 shares standing in his\nname, Mr. W. R. Arnold on the day of\nhis death had only 53. Now, I want to\nrefer to the last name, my own partner,\nMr. R. L. Reid, who is still responsible\non stock allotted to him to the amount of\n$4,515, and there is also a question if\nhe and other stockholders are not\nresponsible for certain other moneys for\ndividends     declared   and     which      the\ncourts may decide must be paid back.\n\"Still, my friends, my Liberal friends,\nare so unfair and so uncharitable as\nto say that Bowser knew for six\nmonths before it failed of the condition of the Dominion Trust. If I told\nthe committee of depositors that I\nknew it was insolvent, then all I can\nsay is that I am a \"devil incarnate.\"\nThe idea of allowing men, friends like\nMr. James Stark and my own partner,,\nwho is also an old friend, to lose all\nthe money they could put in and be\nresponsible for more and to keep that\nknowledge to myself, if I had it, would\nstamp me as just what I have\ndescribed. The South Vancouver Chinook, with one of its reportorial mistakes, says I told the committee of\ndepositors that I knew the Dominion\nTrust was bankrupt for years. That\nis the sort of talk and misrepresentation I have had to put up with. This is\na most unfair attack, but they will\nbe \"hoist on their own petard.\" Sensible, honest men will stand behind\nme. The statement is made that I\nknew that the Dominion Trust was\nshaky and that I said so to the committee, and the Victoria Times printed\nthat stuff that came out in The Chinook.\nWhat I stated to the committee was\nthis: I explained to the committee\nas a responsible Minister of the Crown\nthat it would appear from the report\nof Mr. Drayton, the provisional liquidator, that the company was in a\nbad condition for a long time. For\nthis I am blamed by my friends of the\nLiberal persuasion, and I blame the\nMember for Newcastle and the Member\nfor Nanaimo that they have committed\nthe House and tried to lay the blame on\nme for the smash of the Dominion Trust.\nDo you wonder, Mr. Speaker, that I use\npassionate language? There is surely\nsomething left in public life, some\nrespect left for public men, that I\nshould not be charged with crimes for\nwhich I am not responsible. I have\ngone at great length in the desire to\nbring the people of this Province to a\nrealization of the true position of affairs, and I ask them to place the\nburden, to place the guilt of the smash\nof the Dominion Trust, on the\nshoulders to which it properly belongs.\n 20\nQuestion of Prosecution\n\"Now, Mr. Speaker, it has been stated\nthat as Attorney-General I do not propose to carry on prosecutions against\nthe directors of the Dominion Trust\nCompany. I have never yet been asked,\nnor has the Government, to undertake\nany prosecution in this matter, because\nit is a little premature. Until we hear\nfrom the permanent liquidator as to\nwhat is the standing of affairs and\nwhat can be got out of the wreck for\nthe unfortunate people who placed\ntheir money there, we are in no position to act. When the time comes,\nwhen we get a report, it will be time\nenough to think about criminal prosecutions. In the meanwhile, instead of\ncrying for revenge and trying to act in\nadvance of the report, I will make this\npublic statement. If, when the time\ncomes, in making investigations, it. is\nfound that any of these directors have\noverstepped the mark and become\nresponsible criminally, then no matter\nwho the man is, no matter whether he\nis the partner of myself in my law\nfirm, no matter whether he is a personal friend of my own, I will follow\nstrictly the rule I long ago laid down\nand I will see that the proper administration of the criminal law is carried out\nirrespective   of  persons.     (Cheers.)\n\"I  will  next  go  into  what  has  been\ndone by our Government in connection\nwith this trust company. The statement is made that we did nothing that\nwe should have done; that after March\n4, 1914, we should not have allowed\nthem to take deposits; that the people\nwere, in a sense, allowed to go to sleep,\nto go in and deposit money, and we\nmade no investigation. I make the\nsame challenge to my friend from Newcastle; to produce one affidavit from\na depositor who will swear that he deposited money with the company because he thought the trust department\nwas looking after the administration of\nthe law.\n\"The Trust Companies Act was put\non the statute books on March 4, 1914.\nAt that time 358 companies had power\nto do trust business in this Province.\nThe first thing the inspector had to do\nin administering the department after\nthe act became law was to send out\nnotices  to  all  these  trust companies  to\nfind out whether they still intended to\ncarry on a trust business or intended to\ndelete these powers in their charters.\nThis took time; and in connection with\nthe work of following out these duties,\nhe brought in 35 out of the 358, and\nhad them put up their deposit in order\nto protect the public according to the\nsection of the act, which had to be\ndone before July 1. Mr. Arnold was\nanxious, as I have told you, to have\nthe reputation of being the first trust\ncompany in British Columbia to have\nfiled the bond called for. His business\nwas of such magnitude that the maximum amount of $200,000 was exacted;\nbut, as I told you, the Railway Accident\n& Guarantee Company not being a registered Company we were unable to accept\ntheir bond until July 15. The inspector\nhad to go over the security of the 35\ncompanies which we were putting.\nthrough. All the companies did not put\nup bonds. Some ^of the secureties approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in\nCouncil are bonds of municipalities and\nothers, and these took time and attention.\nIf the Ministers were away on public\nbusiness, delay would be caused, because the Minister in charge would not\nbe here to approve of the bonds. With\na large amount of bonds for the inspector to look after, it took him considerable time. It might be thought\nthat from the reputation of the Dominion Trust Company, from the reputations of the directors, from the volume\nof business it was doing in Canada and\nEurope, which would appear to be so\nby the correspondence we had received\nfrom Mr. Arnold, that the Dominion\nTrust Company would be about the last\ncompany the inspector would think of\ninvestigating. That is a plain statement and one that cannot be denied.\nUnfortunate Experience\n\"We can see now the unfortunate experience of the directors and those who\nput money into the company, when I\nrefer to the case of Sir Gilbert Parker,\nwho had actually $25,000 of his own\nmoney in the Dominion Trust Company.\nSir Gilbert came out here in 1913, and\ninvestigated personally the affairs of\nthe company, and was so satisfied\nthat after he went back, early in\n1914, he sent to the Dominion Trust\nCompany $60,000 more for investment.      When    we    consider    this    con-\n 21\nare you surpnsi\nDominion Trusl\nfirst to be inv\nspector of trt\nnegligent in hi\nnails we have\nthe right man\n\"What do we\nfiled, on July 1\nhave been in bj\nbut which coul\nthe guarantee\nI have stated.\nRunnalls made\ntion   to  the   D<\nn   me\nwere\nis act,\nI done\nbeing\nr  also\nDid\nn who,\nDew it\nMarch\ndid not tell me the :\nout in conversatio]\nwas declared. Mr.\non August 3, and x\nsuggestion in\nial institution\nDminion Trust\nof a run, and\n\\ that to save\naer   being   on\n[ had to act oi\nunselled   with\nwere naturaJ\nbut I felt I\nof the Provi\ntering on a\na   sus-\ni  might\nmatter,  but   on\nI was afraid :\nArnold there\nSome\nIrregularities\n\"I   se\nnt\nfor\nInspector  Run\nhe     tol\na\nme\nfrom    h\nsome   i:\nAugust\n4,\nVaneou^\nirer\nto ii\nresult 1\nle\nof Augi\nthe sta\ntion   43\nof\nthe\nTrust  Act, '\nbest ability\nif possible,\n. independent, soiicilo\nwork with the audi\n 22\nnearly every day that they had found\nthings in a most tangled mess. Whether\nthis was due to financial unsoundness\nor to heavy defalcations in the last\nthree months, nobody but the man who\nhas gone can tell.\nStartling   Report\n\"On September 20 the auditor gave\nme an interim report, and this was\nstartling. I instructed him to take\nPresident Clubb into his confidence and\nto call in another director. Mr. Clubb\ncalled in Mr. F. R. Stewart, and they\ntogether called Mr. Arnold in. But apparently, Mr. Arnold put the directors\nto sleep, for the auditor reported to me\nthe futile efforts he had made to induce\nthe directors to see the real position.\nWhen I left for the Cariboo on October\n9, I instructed him to have a final report for me on my return on October\n20. While away on the Cariboo Road, I\nreceived the sad news that Arnold was\ngone,  on October  12,\n\"I am the man\u2014and I take all the\ncredit with the inspector\u2014who first\ngave to the world the startling condition of the Dominion Trust Company. Do my Liberal friends give me\nany credit for that? No; they turn\n\u2022around and state that I knew from\nMarch last\u2014that I knew for two years\nthat the Dominion Trust Company was\nin bad condition. But there is this\nto be said: that the people of the country now know who, perhaps, saved a\nlittle that would have been lost if it\nwas allowed to run on under Arnold.\n\"The next point I have is that in\nregard to the alleged responsibility of\nmy law firm. I see our friends the\nLiberals, and I think the Member for\nNewcastle said something about it. They\nclaim that the firm of Bowser, Reid &\nWallbridge, as solicitors for the Dominion Trust Company, were responsible\nfor the company's position. It is a new\nand a startling thing to hear that any\nfirm of solicitors are responsible for\nthe honesty and integrity of their\nclients. You might as well say that\ncounsel is guilty of the crime for\nwhich the man he is defending is being\ntried. You might say that because we\noccupy offices in the Dominion Trust\nBuilding, there is something heinous in\nthat.     Everybody   knows   that   there   is\nmore or less of a mutual arrangement\nin that sort of thing, where companies\nlike to have their solicitors in the\nsame building. That is what took place\nin Vancouver in regard to the Dominion\nTrust. Nearly all the leading financial\ncompanies in Vancouver have a similar\narrangement.\nQuestion of Responsibility\n\"They might as well say, Mr. Speaker, that your firm is responsible for\neverything that is done by the great\nbanking institution for which you are\nsolicitors across the Bay. You might\nas well say that the honorable Member for Kaslo (N. P. McKay) and the\nhonorable member for Grand Forks\n(Ernest Miller), who are in partnership,'\nare responsible for the business standing of any banking institution for\nwhich they are solicitors. We might as\nwell hold the Member for Esquimalt (R.\nH. Pooley) is responsible for the integrity of the Canadian Bank of Commerce\nbecause his firm happens to be solicitors for it; and it would be just as sensible for anyone, if the Bank of Commerce failed and he lost money in it,\nto say to the Member for Esquimalt\nthat he should pay that money back.\nYou might as well say that the plumber\nwho repaired the pipes in the basement\nof the Dominion Trust Building was responsible for the business integrity of\nthe owners of the building he was\nworking in. It is too absurd for words,\nvbut apparently not too absurd for my\n^friends who represent the opposition in\nthis House and for the Liberals outside. They say also that my firm must\nhave known that the company was\nbankrupt. If I did not hold and occupy\n'the position of Attorney-General of the\nProvince, and if I was not also senior\nmember of the firm of Bowser, Reid &\nWallbridge, there would never have\nbeen any suggestion that we were responsible as a firm. But I have always met that sort of criticism. No\nopportunity has ever been lost by my\nopponents in the twelve years that I\nnave been in public life, to make the\nmost vicious attacks on me. They have\nlonged for the day when I would make\nsome horrible mistake, but hitherto they\nhave longed in vain. They jumped and\nseized on this to bring discredit (on me)\nand discredit on the Province in the\nhope of aiding the Liberal party.     It is\n 23\na most unfortunate matter that we cannot deal with this affair on its merits;\nthat these depositors should not be allowed, in a businesslike way, to talk\nto the Administration on a business\nmatter. But politics are introduced,\nand they have endeavored to make the\nmatter look bad, hoping, not that something may be done to help the depositors, but that something may be done\nto reduce me in the esteem of my constituents and assist the fortunes of the\nLiberal party.\nShould Attorney-General Practice Law?\n\"No one knows better than my Liberal\nfriends in the legal profession that\nowing to the great development of work\nin my department, it is of necessity impossible for me to. give my personal attention to my law practice in the City\nof Vancouver, and therefore it necessarily follows that I have no personal connection' with the clients of the firm, and\nas a result would have no personal\nknowledge of any of the solicitors' work\nIn connection with the Dominion Trust\nCompany. But now my political enemies\nnot only wish to destroy the confidence\nwhich the public have in me as a public\nman, but they wish to take from me\nthe fruits of my labors in my firm which\nI have assisted in building up for over\ntwenty years. This is what I would\nterm in the common vernacular, 'hitting  below  the belt.'\n\"Now let us for a moment consider\nwhat is the practice in this connection.\nWe will first go to England. Prior to\n1895 the English Attorney-General was\nallowed to practice privately as well as\nact for the Crown, but in that year a\nstatute was brought down placing his\nsalary at $35,000, and to receive all\nfees for work that he did for the\nCrown; and to show you the extent to\nwhich this reached I wish to refer to\nthe total received by the Attorney-\nGeneral in 1903, which amounted to\nover $100,000. Here, in this Province,\nI receive $6,000 and give my whole time\nto.the department. Am I doing anything\nmore, or following a different practice\nfrom the other Attorney-Generals in\n\u25a0Canada? Let us take the Province of\nNova Scotia. Sir John Thompson, afterwards Minister of Justice and Premier\n-of Canada, while Attorney-General of\n;Nova   Scotia,   remained   in   very   active\npractice as head of the largest law firm\nin Halifax, and was easily the leader of\nthe Nova Scotia Bar. The Hon. A.\nDrysdale, how Mr. Justice Drysdale, was\nappointed Attorney-General in 1905, and\nstill retained membership and active\npractice in his Halifax firm of Drysdale & Mclnnes. The late Hon. W. T.\nPipes was appointed Attorney-General\nin 1907, and still retained membership\nin his Amherst firm of Pipes & Rhodes.\n\"In Prince Edward Island the Hon. F.\nL. Haszard was appointed in 1910, and\nretained membership in his firm, at\nCharlottetown, of Haszard, Gaudet &\nHaszard. The Hon. John A. Mathieson\nwas appointed in 1911, and is still\nPremier and Attorney-General of Prince\nEdward Island, and retains membership\nin his firm of Mathieson, McDonald &\nStewart. In New Brunswick, the Hon.\nJ. D. Hazen, now Minister of Marine\nand Fisheries, was appointed in 1908,\nand was. also Premier, but still retained\nconnection with his law firm at St.\nJohn, of Hazen & Raymond. The Hon.\nW. C. H. Grimmer, appointed in 1911,\nnow Mr. Justice Grimmer, carried on his\nprivate practice in St. Stephen while Attorney-General, and the present Attorney-General, the Hon. J. B. M. Baxter,\nstill carries on active practice in St.\nJohn. Sir Lomer Gouin, appointed\nAttorney-General of Quebec, in 1905, and\nnow Premier, retained membership in\nhis Montreal firm, (although the Government is situated in Quebec) of Gouin,\nLemieux, Murphy and Berard. The Hon.\nJ. J. Foy, appointed Attorney-General in\n1905 in the Province of Ontario, retained his membership in his Toronto\nfirm of Fay, Knox & Monohan. In\nManitoba the late Hon. Colin H. Campbell was appointed in 1900, and remained Attorney-General for eleven\nyears, and during that time retained\nmembership in his firm in Winnipeg of\nCampbell, Pitblado, Hoskin & Grundy.\nThe Hon. J. H. Howden, who followed\nMr. Campbell in 1911, still remained a\nmember of his firm in Neepawa of\nHowden & Robertson. The Hon. J. H.\nLamont, now Mr. Justice Lamont, was\nappointed Attorney-General in Saskatchewan in 1905, and retained membership in Prince Albert in the firm of\nLamont & Turgeon. The present Attorney-General,   the  Hon.  A.  Turgeon,  was\n r\n24\nappointed in 1907, and still retains his\ninterest in the Prince Albert firm of\nTurgeon & Lindsay. The Hon. C. W.\n, Cross was appointed Attorney-General\nof Alberta in 1905, and is an active\nmember of the large law firm in Edmonton, known as Short, Gross, Biggar,\nSherry and Field.\n\"1 think that so far as the general\npublic is concerned, this statement is\nall that they require to meet the charge\nthat I am acting improperly in remaining as head of the firm of Bowser, Reid\n& Wallbridge.\nCompany's Pass Book\n\"They ask me: 'Why did you allow\nthe Dominion Trust Company to accept deposits after March 4, 1914, after\nthe House repealed the bill? My answer is twofold. It will be an argument that under sub-section (g) of\nsection 7 of the Federal act of 1912,\nthat they had the right to do the very\nthing that they did in connection with\nthese deposits. You have only to take\ntheir books to show you what was done\nin this connection. Take the Dominion\nTrust Company's pass-book, in which\nthey received deposits up to 1912, and\nperhaps to 1913, when our legislation\ncame in. It is an ordinary pass-book, a\nsavings bank pass-book, with the customary reservation of a right to require\nten days' notice of withdrawal, and\nfixing the interest at 4 per cent., an\nordinary savings bank book. But after\n1913, we find that they have a new\nbook, and there is this to be said, that\nthe contract contained in the front of\nthat book is the same as that used by\nthe National Trust Company, of which\nHon. W. T. White, Federal Minister of\nFinance,  was  the founder.\n\"In brief, the company acknowledges\nto have received the sums deposited\nfrom time to time, in trust, to be invested in or loaned upon such securities\nas the trust company shall deem safe\nand advantageous to be taken in the\nname of a trust company, but to be\nheld by the trust company as trustee\nfor the depositor, following the very\nlanguage of the Federal act; and I think\nit can be successfully argued that that\nbrings them within the Dominion act,\nirrespective of our act. It appears also\nto be a matter of fact that the liquidator is estopped from saying this money\nwas received as a deposit and not as an\ninvestment under the Dominion act. That\nis one reason why we did not take action in 19r4. Another reason is that\nArnold had so convinced us by his actions in connection with the Trust Companies Act, by his correspondence with\nmyself and the inspector, by the\narticles he wrote in important financial\njournals, that he would be the last to\ntake advantage of an illegal act, after\nthe power was taken away from him.\nWe had also the standing of the company, and it was not to be suggested\nthat the company would carry on an\nillegal  business.\nDuty of Directors\n\"Is it the duty of the Attorney-General to go around the country and see\nif -companies are exceeding their\npowers? Suppose a company were incorporated to build ships, is it the duty\nof the Attorney-General or that he\nshould have a huge staff of officials\ngoing around delving into people's business to see what they are doing, and\nwhether they are carrying on works\nother than shipbuilding? Is it the duty\nof the Minister of Justice today in the\ncase of the Canada Trust Company or\nthe Imperial Trust Company, to go\ndown to Toronto and find out if\nthey are carrying on an illegal business?\nWe must have some confidence in the\nmen who are carrying on business. It\nwas surely more the duty of the directors of the Dominion Trust, to see their\nbusiness was not being carried on along\nillegal lines than it was mine. If it\nwas anybody's duty it was that of the\ndirectors.\n\"I want to give you another resume\nof a conversation between Mr. Arnold\nand myself. I had an idea at one time\nit might be wise to restrict trust companies from taking deposits. There\nwas a good deal to be said on one side\nand the other. Arnold pressed upon me\nstrongly that such a section should\nbe included. He told me his company\ntook no money except to oblige a client,\nwho put in money who wanted to cheque\nagainst it and save going to a chartered\nbank, but he wound up by saying\nthat it did not matter to him whether\nwe put in the clause or not, for so long\nas he was manager of the Dominion\nTrust he .was absolutely going to cut\nout deposits. And we find he kept his\nword to the extent that when the smash\n 25\ncame he had nearly $1,000,000 of the\nmoney of the unfortunate people on deposit. Having made a statement like\nthat why should I send the inspector or\nany official to prove that he was not\ntelling the truth? I think I have said\nenough to show that we were acting\nin a reasonable manner. I regret that\nit has taken me so long in speaking as\nit has, but it seemed to me necessary to\nsay this, to put myself and the Government as clearly as possible before the\npeople.\nPosition in 1913-' 14\n\"There is one fact I have overlooked, and that is this\u2014that we want\nto remember the position existing, as\nI have already told you, in 1913 and\n1914, and not the position after they\nclosed their doors in 1915. There is this\nto be noticed, that the chartered banks\ncarried on business with the company\n|\u2014to a very large extent in one case\n\u2014and if they had known that the Dominion Trust was acting illegally in\ntaking deposits, were exceeding their\npowers, do you think they would have\ncarried on business in this way? No\nperson whatever, from the highest to\nthe lowest, from the millionaire to the\nordinary layman or professional man,\nsuch was the reputation which had been\nbuilt round that institution, that no\nperson, or Government official, or Government department, or anyone else,\nknew  the condition existing.\n\"The suggestion is made, and I suppose the Members for Newcastle and\nNanaimo will echo it, that the Government should repay the depositors. It\nwould be a very easy way for me out\nof my political troubles, for me to satisfy those with whom I sympathize so\nmuch, the victims of this failure, if I\nwere to convince my colleagues that\nthese funds should be paid back. But\nwe have a trust to perform to the people, and that is to look after the assets\nand the revenues of the Province paid\nin here by the taxpayers of the Province. The men in Cariboo and the other\nportions of this Province who are paying their taxes to the Government will\ntake umbrage if we pay back the people\nwho have lost money in this failure.\nThe Liberal party, with the absolute\nIrresponsibility for which it is noted,\nwould unite on the point; Mr. Brewster,\ntheir leader,  would advocate,  I suppose,\nWith the Members for Newcastle and\nNanaimo, that we should go down into\nthe treasury of the Province and hand\nout millions of dollars to the people inveigled into putting their money into\nthe Dominion Trust. No person with\nany sense of responsibility would ever\nthink of that for a moment.\nNot   Government's  Duty\n\"If we did it with the Dominion Trust\nwe would have to do it with all. Every\nman who was unwise in his speculations, every man deceived by fraud in\ngoing into a. company incorporated by\nthis Legislature or chartered under the\nCompanies Act would have the right\nto come here and say he had been'defrauded and that he expected to be repaid out of the Provincial exchequer.\nNo Government could last for a moment\nthat carried on business in that way. I\nwant to read to you from The Financial\nTimes of Montreal what it says along\nthis line.    It says:\n\" 'With all due deference to Mr. Drayton's opinion that the Governments of\nthe Province and the Dominion are\nliable for the losses resulting from this\nultra vires action, and with the pro-\nfoundest regret that there should have\nbeen no Governmental machinery capable of detecting the illegality and\nstopping it, we are yet unable to accept\nthe proposition that governments are\nliable for the losses incurred by private\npersons as a result of a corporation's\nnon-compliance with their laws. It is\nnot a criminal act for a corporation,\nnot expressly authorized thereto, to accept deposits. As a matter of fact, anybody can accept deposits and act as a\nprivate banker, provided that he does\nnot use the word \"bank\"  in his title.\n\" 'It is an extremely broad and\nrather a dangerous doctrine to declare\nthat governments are responsible for\nall moneys deposited with any corporation created by them or operating under their jurisdiction, if that corporation does not happen to enjoy the\nlegal right to accept such deposits.\nEven admitting that the two Governments in question were aware that the\nDominion Trust was accepting deposits,\nis it the business of the Provincial\nGovernment to read over carefully the\ncharter of every Federal company in\ntheir borders and make sure that it is\ndoing   nothing   which   is   not   expressly\n 26\nauthorized by that charter? Is it even\nthe business of the Federal officials to\nhunt up the charters of their own companies, year by year, and inquire every\nyear whether all of the business transacted is strictly in accordance with the\npowers accorded?\n\"Much as we would like to see the\nmost innocent victims of this particularly deplorable failure reimbursed, we\ncannot lightly accept the doctrine of\nGovernmental responsibility, which\nwould thus be established. There is too\ngrave a tendency already to unload\nupon governments the losses sustained\nby individuals. It is the business of\na Government to protect its subjects\nand citizens as effectively as it can,\nin reason; it is not the business of a\ngovernment to guarantee them against\nloss.\nSad Cases Elsewhere\n\"Now, can there be anything clearer,\nwith more justice and weight, than that\neditorial? I want to put this before\nmy two friends opposite, now crying\ntears over the Dominion Trust; why\ndo you limit the payment of losses to\nthe people residing in this Province?\nThere are just as sad cases along the\nCoast of New Brunswick as there are\nin this Province. There are miners in\nEngland, as well as in Belgium, who\nhave lost their money in this company,\nbut I have never yet heard a word\nfrom the Members who occupy the Opposition benches, nor from the Liberal\nspeakers or papers, that the Government should give back to the people\nnot residing here who are victims of\nthis failure the money they have lost.\nWhat is the reason? The Member for\nNewcastle knows too well. The people\nwho live in other Provinces, who live\nin Belgium, in England, in Scotland,\nin his own native country of Wales\nhave no votes in British Columbia.\nThis shows the fallacy of their whole\nargument, in spite of all their tears\nfor the creditors of the Dominion Trust.\"\nMr. Williams\u2014\"I have suggested\nnothing along this line, allowing one\nor not another.\"\nMr. Bowser\u2014\"I thought, of course,\nfrom the communications that the Hon.\nMember for Newcastle had been having with the leaders of the Liberal\nparty   that   they   had   something   to   do\nwith that, because I notice that the\nMembers for Newcastle and Nanaimo\nhave been taking great bundles of\ntypewritten sheets of paper out of\ntheir desks dealing with the position\nof the Dominion Trust Company, which\nsmelled to me as if they had come\nfrom some good Liberal lawyer across\nthe  Bay.\"   (Applause).\nMr. Williams-\u2014\"I want to assure you,\nMr. Speaker that, so far, I have not\ntaken the trouble to dig up any legal\nnews from any quarters. I have troubles of my own.\"\nMr. Bowser\u2014\"Now, Mr. Speaker, it\nwas only fair that the Members of the\nLegislature and the public, through the\npress of the Province, should be told\nthe position the Government holds in\nthis regard, and the decision they have\narrived at. We had the privilege a\nshort time ago of meeting a number\nof the depositors from Victoria, Vancouver and Nanaimo. At that time they\nurged upon us that it was the duty of\nthe Government to take from the\ntreasury of the Province sufficient to\nrepay them. We have now come to\nthe conclusion that we can make a\nstatement. You can take it from me\ntoday, Mr. Speaker, that it would be\nan improper thing for the Government\nto  agree  to  the  request made  of it.\nGovernment Counsel\n\"There is one thing we can do; we\ncan give a little more than lip sympathy, such as comes from my honorable friends opposite. We can endeavor\nto improve the position and standing the\ndepositors have in connection with the\ncompany. They cannot expect to be\nplaced in any better position than they\nexpected when they thought they would\nbe on the same footing as every other\ncreditor. Every effort will be made by\nthis Government to assist them to occupy that enviable position, and we\nhave decided to appoint counsel to argue this in the courts along the\nlines of the experience of other trust\ncompanies and also of the Federal Act\nand the principle of estoppel, that they\ntook this money, not for a deposit, but\nfor an investment. We have instructed\nE. P. Davis, K.C., of Vancouver, one of\nthe brilliant leaders of the bar, to act\nfor the  Crown  or for  the depositors  at\n 27\nthe expense of the Crown. to fight\nthrough every court and. if need be. to\nthe Privy Council for the right of the\ndepositors to rank on the estate equally\nwith every other creditor.\n\"Next, as regards the two bonds. The\nlarge bond under Section 39 of the\nTrust Act is taken to secure all creditors.\nThe $50,000 bond is to protect the\nwidows and orphans in connection\nwith intestate estates and probate\nestates. The companies have already\ngiven us notice that they intend\nto contest their liability on the larger\nbond. That will mean lengthy litigation. No doubt the other company will\nalso contest its liability, but, as the\nbond is in the name of the Minister\nof Finance, the action will be in his\nname. We have come to the conclusion that we cannot ask the depositors and other creditors to wait until the\ncase is carried to the Privy Council, and\nwe intend in the estimates for this year\nto insert a vote for $250,000 to be administered by the Minister of Finance,\nunder the Trustee Act, to be used to give\nwhat benefit he can to the creditors of\nthat company.\nAnglo-Saxon Privilege\n\"The House has been very patient in\nlistening to me. It is a tradition that\nwe Anglo-Saxons have always exercised that a man should be allowed to\nspeak in his own defence. I am glad\nto have the public know that there are\ntwo sides to the Dominion Trust. I\nwant them to know that outside the depositors there is a great big political\nmachine which is trying to destroy the\nGovernment. We want the people of\nthis Province, whether they are depositors, are friends of depositors or interested in some other way, to be fair to\nthe Government. You have heard for\nweeks past slanders and attacks upon\nthe Government. You have heard, and\nyou have read in the public press, statements trying to bring me into this matter. You have now heard the Government's case, which I have tried, in my\nhumble and weak way, to place\nbefore the House as clearly as I could.\n\"I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite\nto bring into this Legislature documentary evidence that any man has placed\nhis money in the Dominion Trust\nthrough me, through the connection of\nmy firm with the company, through the\nlegislation we passed in this House, or\nbecause of the stand which the Government took. After the matter is over\nwe can know all about it; we can all\nbe wise after the event, and instead of\ngoing back to .1913 we look through the\ncolored glasses of things as they\nare in 1915, which is not fair to the\nGovernment or to myself. My enemies,\nincluding the members for Newcastle\nand Nanaimo have felt that this was a\nparticular opportunity to make an attack on me, and the Member for Newcastle made a suggestion the other day\nthat I should resign from my office.\nSuch weakness! Why do you not face me\nin the next election? Resignation might\nbe an easy way to put me out of public\nlife. But I am not going to satisfy my\nfriend from Newcastle, or my Liberal\nfriends, who also would like to see me\nout of office.\n\"We will fight this out on the hustings. I propose in the next election,\nwhether it come soon or late, to go\nback to my old constituents in Vancouver\nand have it fought out there. I ask the\nMembers for Newcastle and Nanaimo\nwith the small remnants of the Socialist party behind them to join hands with\ntheir new partners to come to Vancouver\nand discuss this question there. On the\npublic reputation I have made in the\nquarter of a century I have been in this\nProvince I propose to stand or fall, and I\nknow that the reputation I have built up\nin that quarter of a century in public\nand private life will stand me in good\nstead and that when the time comes for\nthe polls to close, and the ballots to be\ncounted, they will find to their consternation that the people have given\ncredit where credit is due, and that they\nhave given to my traducers the most\ncomplete answer possible to their\naspersions on my public career.\" (Loud\napplause).\n       ","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Other copies: http:\/\/www.worldcat.org\/oclc\/1036124281","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType":[{"value":"Books","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/identifier":[{"value":"HG4360 .B7B6","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"III-0299","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt":[{"value":"10.14288\/1.0376488","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language":[{"value":"English","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider":[{"value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher":[{"value":"Victoria : [publisher not identified]","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights":[{"value":"Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy, or otherwise distribute these images please contact\u00a0digital.initiatives@ubc.ca.","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/source":[{"value":"Original Format: University of British Columbia. Library. Rare Books and Special Collections. HG4360 .B7B6","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/subject":[{"value":"Bank failures--British Columbia","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"British Columbia--Politics and government","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title":[{"value":"Speech delivered in the Legislature on Thursday, February 4th, 1915 by the Hon, W.J. Bowser, K.C., Attorney-General, on the matter of the Dominion Trust Company","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type":[{"value":"Text","type":"literal","lang":"en"}]}}