MP ‘HE

Goverament would get the benefit of wholesale prices, and finally, after tions extending over 4]l these years, the contract now in qu was given in February, 1891. I need not for the purposes of my nt argument go iato further details of the nego: tiations which led up to the awarding of the contract. . Upon receipt of the letter notifying him that the contract wos finally given to him, Langlais wrote the Prime Minister, asking that the Government should in some way facilitate his financial arrangements, and in answer received the two letters of even date with the contract (23rd February, 1891) and s0 frequent}y called in these proceedings letters of credit. Armed with the contract and the two letters, : Langlais applied to the Caisse d'Economie for an advance of mon and the President of the Bunk agreed to advance him #$56,772, taking as collateral security for the loan the contract and the two letters which were eadorsed over to the Bank. The cheque b means of which the loan was made was cashed at the Union Ba by Langlais, who gave $50,000 to Pacaud as a subscription to the general Dominion Election Fund and applied the balance of 86,772 to his own private purposes. Langlais since the contract was awarded has furnished goods there under to the amount of $8,000.00 thereabouts, for which he has not been paid and the Governement has not paid any portion of the $60,000. The Caisse d'Economie is a creditor of. lais for the amount of their advance to him, and he having become insolvent the Bank has filed a ‘claim on his estate and ranks as a creditor for $60,000,

I will now again repeat : the charge is that Mercier and Pacaud — not Langlais & Pacaud, —— not Langlais & Mercier—but Mercier & Pacaud obtained from the Bank $60,000 by false pretences. I : urge in the first place, that the action of the crown in omitting Mr. Langlais from the charge, treating him as innocent and putting him in the box, is practically an acquittal of the defendants. For how can there be a conspiracy to defraud either the Crown or the Bank to which Langlais is not a party ? The contract as it is called was made with him, the letters of credit handed to him and drawn in his favor, the money obtained from the Caisse d'Economie by him, and by him in part handed over to Mr Pacaud. Under the cireumstances no conspiracy is conceivable of which he was not necessarily a promoter, Let me now ask my learned friends who proscecute for the Crown to point out to Your Honors that portion of the evidence which shows or tends to show, the existence of x combination between Mercier and Pacaud that in any Me Es in or contri- - buted to the obtaining of this sum of $56,772. Is there any evidence : which your Honors can recall to establish that on the 23 February,

= 1894, or at any time previously Mercier in any way directly or

:: indirectly came into contact with the Bank or its offcials ! Is there. | amy evidence to show that Mercier and Pacaud met on that day, or

any way discuss the question of obtaining this sum or any sum either from the Bank or from the Province? I admit what my learned friends will probably convend that it is not necessary for the Crown to prove any direct concert or even any meeting of the conspirators, as the actual fact of conspiracy may be collected from the collateral cireumstances of the case—and “if two persons pursue, by their acts, the same object by the same means, one performing one part of it, and the other another part of it, 80 as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the object they are pursuing, the jury are at liberty to draw the conclusion that they have been engaged in a cons to effect that object. The evidence shows that the only act done by Mercier which can be in any way construed as contributing to attain the unlawful objecv which he and Pacaud are alleged to have been pursuing, is the signing by him as Prime Minister of the contract and two letters. Such being the case, if Mercier has not, in consequence of his connection with these letters become criminally liable, the charge must fail as to hiïn and in that event Pacaud must also be acquitted, as the nature of conspiracy requires that more than one person should be concerned in it,

Your Honors will remember that in signing these letters Mr Mercier did not act in his individual capacity ; on the contrary he is careful throughout the whole transaction to assume his official position as head of the Government. In the first of the series of letters Mercier says that, after having consulted his colleagues, he. as their official head, conveys to Langlais the information that they (the Executive Council) have finally awarded him the contract which he had worked to obtain during four years, On receipt of this letter Langlais replies, saying that to enable him to execute his contract he will require some financial accommodation from the link and asks Mr Mercier to say if the Government can help him. le l’rime Minister again replies officially. Let us now read the letter.

(Those letters are printed in Mr Languedoc's opening speech.)

On their face these letters hear no appearance of criminal wrongdoing, and as Î will have oecasion to argue later, they are consistent with a due regard for the best interests of the Province. But let us first see if, in consequence of his connection with these letters, criminal responsibility attaches to Mr. Mercier. When as Prime Minister be signed these letters, did he do a lawful act, and if so can he be held responsible it they were subsequently used for an unlawful purpose without his knowledge ? Commôn sense and justice require that ‘“ a man should not be made answerable except ‘ for the natural or probable result of his own act” Bramvwell B, in R. vs. Horsey 3 F. & F. 287. If in signing these letters the Prime

Minister did that which he had the right to do or at least did an act

which of itself did not carry with it eriminal liability, then it must be assumed that this act legal or indifferent became corrupt and

legally punishable because of some circumstance which preceeded or

been honestly executed, that the quality of the materials would have

accompanied it. ‘There is an undoubted principle of Euglish law which says that the presamption of wrongdoing pan always be rebutted by proof that the person who did the act could not know that it was wrong or could not help it. Here the Executive Council of the Province, after full deliberation, decided to award Mr. Langlais the contract for Stationery and of this he is informed by a letter signed by him who was then Prime Minister of the Province and President of the Executive Uouneil.

And why should he be criminally responsible for his action in this matter to a greater extent than his colleagues ? Further should it not be open to him to show as à matter of justification that 80 far as he is concerned he acted throughout merely as the mouth piece or the agent of the Executive Council and against his own better judgment ? Yet this we are precluded from doing because the law says that the proceedings of the Executive Council are State secrets which the ministers are bound by oath not to divulge. Then Mr. Mercier is placed in the anomalous poti ‘nn that he is proceeded against criminally by the Crown for an act done by him in his official capacity, as one of the advisers of the Crown, and he is told that he cannot prove the justifying or extenuating circumstances under which the act was done, because he and his colleagues are debarred from doing so by the terms of their oaths as members. of the Executive, This of itself is suflicient to show the injustice, not to say, the absurdity of the present proceedings. Further inore I . submit that, for such an official act, Mr. Mercier is not liable to ordinary criminal prosecution. In Bishop’s criminal law, paragraph 462, there is tne following passage :—‘ Tt is sufficiently settled that legislators, the judges of our highest courts and of all the courts of record, aeting judicially, and probably such of the high oflicers of the government as are entrusted with responsible discretionary duties, are not liable to ordinary criminal prosecution like indictm at for official misdoings, however corrupt.” Same doctrine will be found in May’s Constitutional History of the British Empire. We are without other precedent to guide us, because T cannot admit that the King vs Bembridge, 3 Douglas, reports 327, or the Queen vs Valentine Jones, 31, State Trials, are at all cases parallel to this.

Let us now examine the letters. It should be unnecessary to refer to that first written further than to say chat on its face it is perféctly unobjectionable—it purports to be the evidence of a contract entered into between the Provincial Executive and Langlais after negocia-

‘tions extending over a period of four years. This contract would

undoubtedlÿ have been profitable to Langlais and to the government, as the Crown itself has already proved. Theretofore each

department purchased its stationery at retail rates and as suited the . sweet will of the departmental employees. Assuming, as we must

assume until the contrary is proven, that this contract would have

been unvbjectionable, the Crown would have had the benefit of the current wholesale rates, which méant to the province a saving of 25 P. c. per annum on purchases amounting to about $100,000, Langlais would have been benefitted by reason of his large sales to the government, and subsidiarily in purchasing for his general business. Tf the r vtter had ended here, could anything have been said or complained Of? Let us now see if, by his subsequent conduct, M. Mercier has incurred cri.ainal liability. Much misconception exists as to the nature of the two letters above quoted in full, and which havé been very improperly called throughout all these proceedings ‘“ letters of credit.” Langlais in his first letter written to the Prime Ministe: after he had received official notification that the contract was awarded to him, says in substance : whaï amount can you advance me to assist me in financing for my contract and when can you srake the advance? To this the Prime Minister replies :in view of the fact that the average purchases have heretofore amounted to $100,000 annually, I say the government will pay you in six months $#30,000,. To this Eanglais replies thot the amount is insufticient, and asks that it be increased to $60,000. Mercier says that he cannot do this, but that Le has no objection to say that in twelve months the amount of goods to be furnished by Langlais will exceed $60,000, and that in consequence the Goverr ment will pay that sum in iwelve mozths from the 1st of March then next. Substantially, the four lacters which bear more directly on the advance ‘of 660,000 may be surmamarised thus : Langlais asked the Prime Minister to say how much would be due him under his contract with the Government in six and twelve months from tbe first of March then next, and the Prime Minister replies, as our average annual purchases have heretofore amounted to about #'10,000, we should owe you, if your contract is honestly execut.., about $30,000 in six months, and $30,000 more in twelve months. Was this estimate absolutely correct? Furthur, in so far as the Bank is concerned, whure is the deceit, where are the false pretences ? There is an elementary constitutionai doctrine, with which every one is faaniliar, “hat ro monev can ieave the public treasury except by vote nf Parliamenc. Thpse letters are signed by Mercier as Prime Minister and they are addressed to Langlais ; thus every body had full notice that Murcier was acting as Prime Minister within the scope of powers defined by law, and, shown to a banc these letters amounted to nothing more than a declaration by the head of the Government that Langlais had obtained the contract for the supply of the stationery to the Gcverament for fonr years, and that if this contract was axecuted there would be due to him there under $30,000 at the expiration of sit months, and #30,000 more at the end of twelve months from the first of March, 1891. It must be further borne in mind thut at that time the Legislature had oy regular vote placed at the credit of the Executive the contingent funds out of which the expenditure for the

4 À 4y UP D Ah “à Fa ts PA NT Et RS RE AE RE AE Ne LA SES EE

DT PER EeS rois

Ne FD:

supply of stationery for the fiscal year then current was to be. made : so that at most these letters could only be construed as an appropriation by the Executive of funds regularly voted to the specific purposes for which they were originally intended, and they did not. in any way bind the credit of the Province for the future. This brings me to the consideration of the charge agairist Mercier and Pacaud contained in the Grst count of the indictment, to the effect that they had conspired together to defraud the Crown of 560,000 of the Crown's money-—My contention is that no conspiracy

such as charged in this count has been either shown or could

possibly exist. Where are the funds out of which the Crown was tobe defrauded ? Apart from moneys assigned specifically by the Legislature, the Crowa here has no resources. The arrangement impugned, the joint action of Mr. Mercier his colleagues, could only prove binding on the Crown when the necessary funds were voted

: by the Tegislature to carry it out, and s0 with the so-called letters

of creht. No lawyer can possibly pretend that they could for à

moment bind the Crown, except as stated above for moneys already: voted, unless ratified by the Legislature and funcs provided by it to

mest them, or that they were intended by Mr. Mercier to impl

more than a promise on his part to ask the Legislature to vote Fra yoer the necessary sums to enable the Government to meet the expenditure necesaitated by the contract, if in the meantime the contract was faithfully carried out by Langlais. This was all he had power to do, In what then does the alleged conspiraey consist ? In Mr. Mercier’s bindiug himself to ask the Legislature to approve the

- arrangements with Langlais, nd to vote the moneys to carry them

out. But this necessarily involved an act of Parliamant-—for every vote is based upon statute, introduced as message from the Governor, passed by both Houses, and accepted by him. Till that was done, the Crown was never vested with a dollar in this Province, out of which it could be defrauded as suggested. So that the charge as expressed on the face of the indictment is a conspiracy to défraud the Crown out of funds which it never possessed, If, on the other hand, that which Mr. Mercier agreed to do had been done, the act. passed, the appropriations to Langlais voted and the money vested in the Crown for that purpose, then the payment over to Langlais or his assigns would have not only been legal but obligatory. How then can this Court find that there was a conspiracy to obtain

money, which could only have been obtained under the sanction of

an authority whose will cannot be questioned ? While we admit. that, under the law of conspiracy there may be à fraudulent combi-

mation, sufficient for the crime, in the attempt to do an act criminal in itself, but impossible of performance, there can be no conspiracy

to do an act, which, as in the present jastance, must, if done,

necessarily be legal.

… In conclusion, £ beg contidently to express the hope that, both on

de FEU AS : the facts as proved by the Crown witnesses and the law as T have expounded it, your Honors will see your way to dismiss the defendants, and so discourage the first attempt to introduce into this country, on the change of an Administration, the disastrous system of the prosecution of fallen political opponents.