RAGE ER TE

SCIENCes rs"

| 7 PROÏORTAPRIC us me : Corporation

ER e E À

concurrence of his colleagues. Langlais writes a second letter. The matter is again discu and the letter is written promising the payment of $30,000 in.six months’ time. Why did Mr, Mércier or did the Cabines give this promise. The reason is plain. It had beea the habit and custom of not only tue Mercier Government, but of governments that had preceded it, to make such advancer, and there was no departure from custota here. And s0 with ühe next so-called letter of credit. We have, then, up to this point, tne facts that for fous years this matter had been under discussion that the contract was awarded by the Cabinet, not by Mr. Mercier alone, and that tle two letters which the Crown are pleased te term letters of eredis were issued on the responsibility of the Government, and that their payment was conditional upon the fulfilment of certain portions of the contract. There the transaction, as far as the Government is concerned, is closed. Now, are the Government 10 be held criminally responsible for anything Langlais may have done with those letters ? I vhink not, and I venture to say that you agree with me. If you read the indietment when you retire to your voom to deliberate upon your verdict, if you do deliberate at all, you will see that we are accuseü of false protence. Now E will take ‘he evidence’ adduced with reference to the second count, which charges defendants with having conspired to defraud the Caisse d'Economie. Langlais had obtained the letters asked for by him to enable him to get a discount in a bank. Having got ‘hese letters he goes to the manager of the Caisse d'Economie and says: “I bave got a contract with the Goverament, Here it is. JL have two letters, here they are; I wish to discount these letters.” Was Pacaud there! Did he make any representations te the Caisse d'Economie ? Did he make any representations whatever to any one! Why there is not one jot or one title of evidence 6f false pretencés, The mannger of the bank was a business man accustomed to such transactions. 21e knew the value of the documents in law and he made the advance not upon any representations made, but upon the fait and character entirely of the contract and the letters laid before him. And yet the Crown persist in their second count. . Vou will be asked, no doubt, gent'emen, to believe that there was a conspiracy to,rob the Caisse d'Economie. Ir the name of éommon sense, can vou say that there has been any evidence of the slightest possible character in support of the charge? Did Mr. Marcoux consider Pacaud in the transaction? No; he was influenced by the documents ana the documents alone. He was influenced by nothing Mr. Pacaud had said, because Mr, Pacavd had

said nothing. Who brings this charge? Ts it the Caisse d'Economie ? :

Are they befors the Court complaining to you. No, but the Attorney-General, Mr. Ossgrain, tells you that he is more vigilant after the interests and rights of the Caisse d'Economie than the

“shareholders themselves. Now £ think ths cuse of the Caisse d'Evo.

ne

pe ren

era

- country make it à criminal offense, If ft were a crime the time of

sn TS à

momie’s interests might be left to its own board of directors in #hom I imagine the shareholders have full confidence. There i: abso'utelv no evidence, then, in support of the second count. Let uns then

cvnsider ke charge of having conspired to defraud Her Majestyé The first fact which stands boldiy forth is that the Government hasf}

never paid a cent of the money. Acting again, no doubt, upon the advice of the Attorney-General, they have repudiated the contract. Now if the Government were not liable and they have not paid, they cannot have been deprived or rubbed of, a single dollar. The’nosition would have been just the same if Langlais having got tho contract had given the Caisse d'Econcmie an order

‘ upon the Government without the letters of credit, so called, at all,

1 shall now discuss the character of the documents upon which the advance was made. It is all important that we should well understand the legal character of these documents, as it is upon them that the Crown base their charge of false preteaces. Now I say that the letters were not letters of credit c? a character to bind the Government, or except under certain conditions. If Langlais had gone to the bank with the s0 called letters of credit alone,dues one of you think as a man of business that he would have got the money ?

0, the commercial value of those vwo letters depend upon the fact that Langlais had got a contract from the Government. Without that contract the Docüments were not in themselves an undertaking on the part of the Goverament. Langlais understood that. ana he aske for an advance first of all üpon the fact that he had a contract and secondly because in so many words the Government had told hir that they would par him when the work was dore. Now the bank confded in the integrity of Langlais, whose reputation in the city of Quebec was good, and they ad /anced the money in the usual course of busins:. All such advances are.rmade largely upon the credit and fa;ch of the man who reveives the udvance. nglais owned at tb: time a stock of $80,900, Now let us give Langluis, credit for -ommon sense. If‘there was a conspiracy between Pacaud and Mercier there must have been also a conspira:y between Pacaud and Langlais. Tt must have been betweeu the thres. Now, what was Langlais to get hy the transaction ? He pledges his credit for $60,000, for what ? For nothing. For, mark this, if Langlais never expected to falfil his contract, would he in all common sense go and borrow #60,000 and make himself personally liable and then pay over $50,000 to thesé parties ! If you believe that Langlais meant to carry out his contract, then all element of eriminality is removed. For with what Langlais would do with his money after obtaining it, we have no soncess. Well, Langlaïs gets the cheque, draws the money and makes x subscription to the party funds, It was à large subsenption if you like, but the accused axe not being

sk Le] AY

tried for the erime of having accepted it. Nor do the laws of the ni.

a the criminal courts would be largely oczupied in tryirg offenders on je . both side of politics. ‘Well, Langlais hands the money to Pacaud as à political subscription. Pacaud gives $24,500 to his own account. and causes 825,000 to be remitted to Montreal. Here is the first {point where there is the faintest indicatic4 that Mr. Mercier had an idea that ahy money was paid as a political subscription. You will be told that the money was placed tu Mr. Mercier’s credit and that ths presumption is that he knew of it. It is upon that presumption that the Crown case #5sts and on nothing else. But has the justice : : of the presumption been proved? You will also be told that as far as the political oTense is concérned'it makes no différence how the money was expended. | “ Gentlemen of the jury, the great séfeguard to the public provided by the jury system is that a juror, drawn from the ordinary walk of F ht life, a man who has had experience and knowledge of the motives M which actuate humanity under certain circumstances, whatever the rigid lettér of the law may be, when he is aske to find à man guilty of à crime, is able to make a distinction between a man who knew cf ühe transaction of which he is accused and him who did not, can be guided in his decision by considering whether the accused profited by the filthy lucre which he ir charged with having receiveu.

“ What are the facts? The money was sent to Mr. Merciers account. The ex-Premier was absent, His brother withdrew the money and paid it to Mr. Geoffrion for the Liberal fund, and my client has been distinctly proved to know nothing of the transaction before, while vr after it took place. You will ba asked to say that

- Mr. Mercier robbed the country. Is there aught in this accusatiop, gentlemen? We were told during a hot political contest all that could be said, all that human ingenuity could devise, and a spirit of animosity generate against Mr. Mercier. Mr. Mercier was accused of every crime in the calendar and public sentiment was awakened,

« and men who: to-day occupy the position of ministers, were the first

to charge him with crimes on every'husting in the country. And they said they would, if returned by the people, bring Mr. Mercier se his colleagues to justice.

“ Oh God, is it possible to imagine that a man who oceupied the * position that he did, who was accused of the acts of which he was accused, should now be called upon to answer nothing more than the charge the Crown is now making? Task you, gentlemen, I ask you as honest men, if there has been proved one act that is dishonorable to the Honornble Mr. Mercier. Can you say that there is on6 dishonest act proven against him ? If there is it, is your duty to say so ; if there is not, it is equally your duty to say ro. Ibis to you a 4 you alone we cppeal. T rely on your decision.

KOne word more. TI khow you are largely composed of French speaking Canadians, and perhaps T should apologize for having “‘spoken to you so longin my own language, but do not apposr im

er RE

& | LA | 02 9 SES 2e # RS ASLPAE ASS L — 2 A en | Î JA | M. LAxGuEgboc * El Ë L Ï