ARE

Re EC ed

Rite:

PAPE RM

Objecté. (Le témoin va chercher les Comptes Publics.)

— Vous êtes maintenrut en possession des comptés publics pour les pnnées 1887 à 1891 ?

Jui,

"Voulez-vous regarder les comptes publics 66 nous dire quel est le montant voté, dépensé pour l’année 1887, FOR papeterie pour eh Législative ?

Je coustate à la page 31 des compres publions qu'il a été payé pour papeterie %8,585,24. ñ

— Lt pour impressions, maintenant ?

——Pour impressions, à la page 32, #33,574.01.

Que renferme cet item pour impressions. Etuit-ce le papier ow seulement l'imprimé ?

(Ca comprend les frais d'impression et de papier !

Quel montant, -dessus représente la papier et quel montanb représente l'impression ?

-Fe considère que le papiar représente au moins un tiers de ce imontant-à.

— (Je qui frit #11,090 ?

— Un pea plus que $#11,000.

—AIOTS, Pour papeterie et papier pour l’année 1887, pour l’Assemblée Législative, 1} paraïîtrait avoir été payé... 1

Musée pour Être plus court, voulez-vous nôus dire quel est le montant total voté et payé tous les ans, depuis 1S87, pour papeterie et papier, dans tous les bureaux publics de la provinse ?

—-Je n'ai pas pour une année en particulier, il faudrait que je ferais les caleuls. J'ai pour les cinq années comprises dans cette période-là.

—-Quel est le résultat ?

—En prenant la moyenne, ec en mettant 33 p.c. pour le papier sur les impressions et 25 pc. sur lés reliures—car ça comprend beaucoup de livres blancs qui sont réellement du papier,- la moyenne pour ces cinq années serait. de $77,424.99, seulement pour les bureaux de la Législature-les deux Chambres—et les bursaux compris duns les bâtisses.

—Maintenant, dans ce montant de $77,424.99 payé chaque année pour papeterie et papier, incluez-vous l:s Cours de justice de Montréal et de Québec ?

Non, C'est seulement pour les bureaux des ministères et les deux Chambftes.

Lans ce montant de $77,424.99 dont vous venez de parler, n'est pas inclus non plus le papier pour la Gaxeite Officielle?

-Oui, ie papier pour ln Gazette Officielle est compris, mais le papier pour les statuts n'est pas compris. Les statuts c'est à peu près $5,000 par annee, cela ferait à peu près 2,000 par année pour le papier.

— Maintenant, à part de cela, quelles sont les autres sommes, pour

autres bureaux publics, que le gouvernement est appelé à payer chaque année ! à

—T1 y a le palais de justice de Québéc et de Montréal qui dépensent, je considère, au moins $30,000 de papeterie par année. Il y a les palais de justice dans tous les autres districts, —il y en a 19...

—N'en parlons pas de ceux-là.

—-Maintenant, Jes añnées où il y a une élection, il y a nécessairement une dépense pl:s considérable de papeterie, par rapport aux élections, tels que blancs pour ofliciers-rapporteurs, etc ?

—Oui. La période que j'ai prise, les cinq ans, représente une année d'élection. De sorte que ça représente la moyenne sé£néraie,

— De sorte que, en dehors des $77,424.99 pour les travaux publics et les Chambres et $2,000 pour le papier des statuts, faisant en chiffres ronds $80,000, il y a les $30,000 que vous estimez représenter le coût de la papeterie pour les palais de justice de Québec et de Montréal ?

—Oui.

—Ce qui fait $110,000 par année de papeterie ?

—Oui.

—Maintenant, au 23 février 1891, les estimés pour l’année fiscale 1890-91 étaient votés, nécessairement, et puis, par la deuxième de 1890, les estimés pour l’année fiscale 1891-92 ont été votés ?

—Oui.

—Pour ces deux années-là, les deax années fiscales dont je viens de parler, il devait être voté en moyenne, pour papeterie dans les bureaux publics seulemente $77,424.99 par année ?

Oui. s — Et les $2,000 pour l'impression des statuts à part ?

—Et les sommes nécessaires pour l’approvisinnnen:ent des bureaux des protonotaires à Québec et à Montréal ?

— Oui.

— De sorte que vous déclarez qu’en moyenne, après avoir consulté les comptes publics pour ces différents effets dont il est question dans le contrat en cètte cause, chaque année il était voté, en moyenne une somme de $110,000 À peu près ?

—Oui.

Transquestionné

—Où avez-vous trouvé le deuxième chiffre que vous nous avez

donné, pour ce qui regarde les impressions ?

-À la page 32 des Comptes: Publics pour 1887.

Le suce WurreLe.—Les montants que vous avez mentionnés là, comprennent non seulement le papier, mais tous les articles désignés sous le nom de par:terie ?

La somme de $110,000 par année a été payée pour de la pape. terie comme ceïle à laquelle il est référé dans le contrat.

BE D Pompe

Voici les endroits, dans les Comptes Publics, où se trouvent les

montants payés pour papier et impressions pour l’Assemblée Législative: *

Comptes Publics de 1887, page 31. Papier... ..,.... $ 5,585.24 Impressions, .. ...... 33,574.01

” 19908, OR Rte UT EST

$ Impressions... ...... 23,598,85

‘ 1669, % 145 Papier. ......:.. 6979.64 Impressions... ..... 33,000.00

st 1890". 48: Papi... ..... 5,182.63 Impressions. .. . .... 62,609.00

, 1891, 90.7 PNbiR...:....... 6060207

: Impressions... .. … 59,600.00

Ce qui donnerait, pour le papier 833,810.07, soit une moyenne de $6,712.01 par année ;

Et pour le papier pour impressions (le tiers de #212,367,86) savoir ; $43,475.57, soit une moyenne de $14,491.19,

Je dois faire observer que ces chiffres ne comprennent pas la papeterie pour le Conseil Législatif, qu’on estimme être à peu près le quart de celle de l’Assemblée Législatire,

—Cet état comprend le papier des rapports publics, des documents publics que le Gouvernement aurait pu faire imprimer !

— Ça comprend seulement les impressions de la Législature. Ca comprend les journuux de la Chambre, les procès-verbaux, et tous les documents qui sont imprimés par ordre de la Légisiature.

ns ge ets

DISCOURS DE M. GREENSHIELDS, C R.

La défense déclare qu’elle n’a plus de témoins à faire entendre, et la parole est aux avocats des accusés.

M. Greenshields se lève au milieu de l'attention générale et dit :

May it please the Court, and gentlemen of the Jury :

Never before in the history of the criminnl Justice, has a man who has been one of the advisers of his sovereign, been called upon to answer before a criminal Court for acts performed by him in connection with a Department which he has administered. When a sovereign has called to his councils a subject, and that subject has been guilty of reprehensible acts, in the administration of his Department or Government, the sovereign, recognizing the dignity of the office has never before cited him to appear before a criminal Court, but before the high Court of thé nation, the House of Parliament, to which alone he is responsible, In this instance the Defendant whom FE have the honor to represent, was the Frime Minister of this Province. A year ago, he was in the enjoyiment of puulic esteera

confidence and regard. He was high in honor, high in office, high in dignity, and had a great mandate from the people of his country. He was the trusted head and leader of the Government and responsible to the Parliament of the people for his acts of administration and to no other body. Today he is compelled to defend himself as an ordinary criminal before the criminal Conrts of his country, and that vo0 upon a charged based upon his certain acts as a minister Of the Crown. We were told that this was not à political case, that the defendants were called before this Court as ordinary citizens to answer criminal charges, that there was no political animus or political feeling, and that you should iudge this case in the same way as you would judge an ordinary ca. before the Courts, Why did it become necessary for the learned Counsel for the Crown at the opening to say this ? Was it not because they felt that this case was initiate, had its beginning and was bruughx before this Court, to serve a political purpose. To satisfy yourself on this point, all you have to do is to look at the record, We find that the information in this case was preferred, not as is usually done by an agrieved or wronged subject but by the Attorney-General. Not satisbed with lending the weight of his name and authority before the Courts as having initiated these proceedings, he went further. You will find when the indictment is laid before you, the signature of the Attorney-General there and that signature is unecessary and uncallrd for by-law. There was à preliminary charge made and an investigation held, and the Honorable Mr. Mercier and Mr. Pacaud were comitted to stand their trial. When the Crown prosecutors had the sign manual of the commitüing magistrate they required no other authority than that to lay the facts Lefore the Grand Jury, and present them to them an indlictment. ‘Tnat is provided for under section 140 of the Procedure Act. It was unecessary and uncalled for that the Attorney-General should sign the indictment, and this indictment contains at the bottom, over the signature of the Attornev- General, these words,-—ah, significant words,‘ These charges are preferred at my direction.” And shall we now be told that this is not a political prosecution ? The proper place to have called vpon him to answer, would have been before Parliament, since all the facts which you are called to adjudicate upon, are known to the people. You are aware, :it is a matter of public notoriety that a Royal Commission was held, and that the facts upon which this case was based were laid before that commission and since that there has been a session of the Legislature. Not oniy this, but all the documents laid before you here and proven, have been in the posse"sion of the Crown since 17th December 1891, If the Honorable Mr. Mercie, was guilty of an act of mal administration in office, and this charge is nothing else, he should account for

it at the proper place to call him for an account. That was not the

criminal Par but the Great Court of the land, the Legislature of the

Country. All the acts he is charged with, were done by him in his quality of Prime Ministre and leader of the Government of the day, and the place he should be called upon to answer, was on the floor of the house where he was à member, and where the speaker might have cited him. But gentlemen on the Jury, it did not sait the government to bring him there, they thought it would not be sufficient humiliation for him, and so they have brought him here.

" I think, gentlemen, they little counted on the honesty and good

feeling of the men of this country when they did this. TI do not know any of you. Do not know whether you are Conservative or Liberal. 1 do not know what your political sentiments or feelings may be, but 1 know that T am syenking to twelve honest men who will not say that proceedings of this kind are to be tolerated in this free country. If men commit acts in their public life, there is à tribunal, the greav voice of the people and the other tribunal sélected named and appointed ! : the people, the Houses of Parliament, the Legislatures, which in this country take cognizance of these things. Before I enter into the proof I would ask you why, after all this evidence has been put before you, knowing the position hitherto oceupied by Mr. Mercier, has there been shown to you during the whole trial one fact which justifies thé Attorney-General in signing his name to that documeut which will go down to posterity, and future ages will take from it evidence of the lengths to which publie men in our day carried political animosity and hatred. Has there been proof of one single act which in your opinion justifies the Crown and justifies the anthorities in having brought before this criminal Court, the Hon. Mr. Mercier? The government of the day succeeded, after putting the facts before the electorate of this country, in driving hi:n from power. 1 do not propose to enter into the facts in any great detail, but I wish you to fully appreciate the funetions you are called upon to administer. TI have no doubt that you will appreciate them, but T wish you to understand, as I am sure you do understand, the importance of your duties, on this occasion. It is not upon the innccence or guilt of defendants alone that you are called upon to pass, but to say whether in this free country political parties for under our form of government we always will have political parties, and it is well that we should.--but I say, that beyond the mere liberty of two ‘lefendants there is à much greater question, that is the question whether or not, when a political party has been in power and shall by a change in public opinion have to resign its mundate, its members are to be dragged before the criminal court to answer for all the acts they have dome in their official capacity. When the history of this trial shall be written, your verdict will go down to posterity. The public of this country and of the entire Domwinion are looking to your verdict and to your action with eager eyes, to see whether or ot in the Province of Quebec we had a man who enjoyed the confidence of the public to

the unlimited degree which the Hon. Mr, Mercier did, who could be guilty of having robbed the Province of sixty thousand dollars,

In 1887, the Government of which Mr. Mercier was the leader came into pover, Previous to that time the departments had been administered by a political party opposed to the party led by the Hon. Mr, Mercier, That there were reforms ‘to be made goes withont saying. Every government when it has enjoyed power for a considerable time is not to go to extreme length. Among the reforms Mr. Mercier tried to bring about was in connection with the supplies of that the different departments, and I may ell you here that 1 was surprised, and I think you must have been, too, te learn that for years the supplies had been bought at fabulous prices by the different heads of departments. We were expending hundreds of thousands of dollars for the purchase of these supplies, and if there is one thing more than another that à government in this province ought to do it is to seé that the financial management is put on àm economical basis. When Mr. Mercier came into ofice then, he found these departments paying fabulous prices for their goods, without any central control over the expenditure, The matter was brought before the House in 1887, The debates were read to you. It appeared, then, to be the consensus of opinion that a central bureau should be established. That was one of the reforms Mr. Mercier proposed.

It was, as you see from the evidence of the stenographer, considered by the then lealer of the Opposition to be à necessary, usefull and proper reform. Immediately following this debate we find negotiations being entered into looking to the formation of this central bureau and the purchasing of supplies at wholesale prices. With all the multiplicity of cares of business attending the office of Prime Minister, of this province, it would naturally take considérable time to bring about this reform. A contract had been drafted up by Mr. Pelletier, now Provincial Secretary, and you will be told by the Crown that a schedule had been attached which fixed the prices of the paper, though théy will probably not lay se rouch stress upon the fact that that contract was for a term of ten years. Naturally, Lanylais was desirous of obtaining as good a contract as he could, and*when le saw the terms of this one, drawn up by Mr. Pelletier, he was very anxious indeed to get it. Would that have been an advantageous contrat for the Government ? Mr. Pel. letier must have thought so. Why was it not executed ? I will tell you. Because it had to come under the control of the master spirit of the day, the Hon, Mr, Mercier, He would not pledge the

tovernment to buy for ten years at fixed prices, when prices were falling year by year as the resources of the country Gevelopéd. Nor would he agree to pledge the Government for ten years when the people had ônly given them a mandate for four. That contract was hurriedly signed by Mr. Langluis ; but the executive did not sign it

and the wisdom of their refusal to do so can be inferred from the evidence of Mr. John MceFarlane, one of the Crown witnesses, who has testified to the fact that the price of paper has gone down materially of late years.

On the 22nd February, 1891, Langlais saw that his efforts to get the original contract signed had failed. He saw that the Government were unwilling to give him the contract uader those terms. The Prime Minister was about to leave for Europe and, with the summer holidays coming on, Langlais saw that he would have to press for as early as possible a settlement of the matter. So ke telephones to Mr. Pacaud. He had had no communication with Mr. Mercier since November and December previous, when he had pointed out to him the advantages of the contract to the Government, Langlais goes to Pacaud's house and says ‘“ Now, I understand from the newspapers that Mr. Mercier is about to leave for Europe ; but that he will be here to-morrow, and I want to see him to know whether or not I am to get this contract, and L want your assistance.”

‘,You may be told, gentlemen, that there lie the elements of criminality, because Langlais went to Pacaud to ask him to go with him, Well, all men have their friends, and all political parties have their adherents. Some men have greater influence than others with the men in rower. If Langlais had gone himself, he might not have bsen ab,« to get an audience.

At nine c’elock next morning, Langlais and Pacaud meet at the Parliament building. Langlais is told that Mr. Mercier is engaged with a Montreal gentleman. He goes out and on his return tinds that M. Mercier has gone upstairs to a Cabinet meeting, so that it was impossible for hi to have an interview. Then, at the advice of Pacaud, the letter of the 23rd is written. What is done? The Council is in session, al] the members of the Governement are there, and the matter is brought before them. When they have fully discussed it in its details, they authorize the Honorable Mr, Mercier to write the letter awarding the coutrat. It was not the individual act of Mr. Mercier. He acted as the recognized mouthpiece of the Government. Did he tell the truth when he spoke Of having consulted with his colleagues, or did He nut? You have heard the members of the Government of the day tell that they knew of this contract, and Mr. Mercier said what was absolutely true, and every member of the late Cabinet could have corroborated it.

If there was a crime Mr. Mercier was not the only guilty party. If there was criminality then they should, in their great desire for justice, have brought every member of the late Cabinet before this Court to answer for the transactior. But that was not their purpose. They had one man that they were looking for and that was my client. Well, the letter was written, not as the letter of Mr, Mercier, the individual, but of Mr. Mercier, Prime Minister, acting with the