The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

| _ @Q--Why not? A.--Because I was ignorant, I guess. _ The following questions and answers me when the examination centred s m Howard Gunning: i 7 "This department has not now, and never has had, anything to hid> with relation to Gunning, Walker, Fifec, or anybody else, and no doubt the case will get a thorough airing in the evi-- »dence that come up before the court." team's time, and I asked him would it be all right to put his name in in payment of my truck. I said the work had to go in as team's time, and he said: "I don't think you are doing anything wrong or dishonest. I think it is all right." So he knew the cheques were all right. At a later period: @--Why dkin't you put that item there in your own name? A.--That is what I should have done. @--And in so far as the Depart-- mers of Highways know, these cheques were 'ssued for work done by W. Fife? A.--Possibly so. @.--Please don't "possibly." Did you give them any other explanation? A.--No. I did not. Still later in the examination: Made Explanation. @--These cheques for work he never did? A.--I asked Mr. Fife be-- fore T ever put his name on. I went to Mr. Pife and told him Howard was going away from home to work, and that the truck's time had to go in as @.--For cheques made out in Pife's name, you signed pay sheets, didn't you? A--W. Fife signed the pay Pife? A.--Yes. @.--You went to Fife and got Pife to endorse the cheques? A.--Yes. Q@--And Fife didn't receive any money for it? A --No. Q--And you collected the money? A.--Yes, for honest work done. Q.--And that is the story? A.----Yes. _ Later, the examination was as fol-- This was obviously the correct course to take. It indicates that the do-- pantment was diametrically opposed to &ny hushing up of the case, but on the contrary was anxious that it should have a thorough airing. Q@.--Now, let's have the story, the beautiful story, that you as foreman of this highway department had @--And you collected the money? A.--Yes, in payment on my truck. Writes to Walker. The Minister of Highways on Dec. 15 last wrote H. M. Walker, stating: "You caomplain that you have in no way slandered Mr. Gunning. As Mr. Gunning thinks most positively that you have, and has taken his case to the courts, I cannot see why we should be asked to intervene. The case is now before the courts, and, so far as we are concerned, should take its course. Q@.--Didn't work on the highway? A.--No. Q--And Pife signed the cheques? A.--Endorsed the cheques. @--PFP'fe newr had a team on the highway? A.--No. At that examination, Gunning was asked, in the course of questioning: "In other words th> truck was in your name?" In Sor's Name. He replicd: "No, the truck went in as team's time, and right there I did firhaps what I should not have done,. t I did nothing dishonest. I put the truck's time in in my son's name, whereas previously the tcam's time went n in my son's name. Q@.--Your son didn't have'a team? A.--He is joint owner. Q.--Did your son have a team? A.--No, not own it out and out. Q.--Was your son working at home? A.--When? Q.--The year you ars talking about A.--Yes, he was. Q@.--What was he doing? A-- Farming. @.--What was your son's name? A.--Elbourne. The questioning then centred on the maitter of W. Pife. Q.--I am talking about Howard. A.--Well, Howard. NQ.--Di'd Howard own a team? A.-- 0. @.--You had him sign them? A.-- truck at all? A.--No. issued ir the name of W. | HM2ad TUsed Horses. " 'On one of your divisions, you have a foreman who has been padding pay shoets for a number of years. Is there any possible method you can use to bring this man to justico. I have put an accomplice of his on his oath. He swears he signed a number of cheques, but did not get any of the money.' "5. In the face of the foregoing facts, I considered it my duty, and most assurodly do yet, to notify the department which had jurisdiction over the hishways, whereupon, in the fall of 1932, I directed a letter to the Superintendent of Highways at Toronto, advisinz of the conditions existing as hereinbefore mentioned, which letter I substantially read as follows: Padding Alleged. * 3. I consider this a matter of very serious public concern, and do so re-- gardless of what political party is in power. This is particularly im portant because I, up to the present time, have always supported Con-- servative Administrations, in fact I have yet to cast a Liberal vote. _ The examination of Gunning was taken Oct. 3, 1933, and certified by I. D. Cameron, examiner, and Mar-- garet Thayer, stenographer. 5 On Jan. 26, 1934, at London, Henry M. Walker of the hamlet of Talbot-- ville, El¥m County, made the follow-- ing declaration, sworn before R. J. Myors, a Commissioner for oaths: j "1. I, as a resident of the County of Eligin, and a citizen, have for some time past had my attention drawn to the condition cxisting in so far as the payrolls were and are concerned of the Department of Hichways, patrol' numbers 2--16--17--18, being a stretch of 2. Information came to my atten-- tion that Janiecs Gunning, foreman on that part of the said Provincial highway abovementioned, had placed on the monthly pay sheets names of parties, representing that the said parties performed certain work on the highway, which said parties in fact never did work, yet the cheques were coming through covering said items. **4,. I naturally became more in-- terosted in the matter from time and approached ons party whose name was falsely put on the pay sheets, and in whose name cheques cams through from the department, and I learned from him that such was the case, and that he did not receive these mon>ys, but that James R. Gun-- ning, the ?rman as aforementioned, had received the moneys therefor.. Provincial highway between the Vil-- lage of Lambeth and the Village of Port Stanley, in the Counties of Elgin and Middlesex. Charge Is Made. Q.--And I am told that Fife has not worked on the highway since 1928 under your foremanship? A.--I can't say as to that, cither, but I think he did work in the fall of 1928. @.--But not since then? A.--Not with his horses, no. @.--Or with himself? A.--No, I don't think so. Q.--Why put in the horses? A.-- Well, he used to work with the team. @.--Would you mind telling me whether that is a fact? A--Since 19282 Q.--Yes. A.--Well, I can't just tell you, but I think it is a mistake., @.--What year? A..--Possibly in 1928 or-- @Q.--Or carly in 19292 A.--Yes. Q.--But not since then? A.--Nc. Nolt Sure. Q--During that time his name went through the dspartment's rec-- ords as having owned a teani? After counsel's intervention, the an-- swer was given as '"no." Q.--In what way did his name go through? A.--As a teamster. And later: @.--Well, as a matter of fact, I am told that ncither you nor your son ever had horses on the highway since t:;ne year 1928? A.--Who told you that? Q.--Has not since 1926. A.--No. Q.--Yet his name went through as having used horses on that highway? A.--Some time during that time he worked. March, ib 6. As a result of this 1 men came from Tomnt'g, mr'mv:; both interviewed me, at which time T gave them full and detailed infor-- mation as to what was going on, and the method that they might employ. to ascertain the facts as existed, but 1| eard ncothing further of the matter, | ""I. In view ot the fact that the de-- partment allowed the said Gunning, notwithstanding the disclosures, to re-- main on as foreman and receive public | money therefor, it naturally is the| subjecg$ matter of dailv conversation in | that neighborhood. Psople were won-- | dering, and naturally are still wonder-- } ing, in the light of these and subse-- | quent developments, why -- Gunning still has his job. "8. Gunning then wrot. a letter to the St. Thomas Times--Journal, under date of March 16, to which letter I re-- pliecd on March 17. dravwing to th» attention of the public the very facts that the Highway Department learned from me, but tock n> action on. Answer in House. "0. The subject malter of these cheques and so on, was taken un ~1n April 7, 1933, under question No. 130, in the Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, ssme of the answers to which questions were not correct. 10. In December of 1933 I wrote to the Prime Minister of Ontario as fol-- lows: (Then follows what Walker swears is a copy of his letter t Premier Henry). "I, therefore, had the desire of fur-- ther convincing myself of the correct-- ness of the state of affairs and of the facts which an investigation could not help but reveal, if indeed, an investi-- gation was had, and, that being so, I have obtained copies of the pay--sheets from Jan. 1, 1929, to Dec. 31, 1933. and in these pay--sheets I find many irregularities, a detailed statement of which, and the names of all witnesses who can bring forth the truth, are embodied in the said list, which is marked Exhibit 'A' to this my declar-- ation. "I have not had the opportunity of going into many of the details in connection with these lists as is de-- sirable, all of which can be gone into from the witnesses enumerated, ap-- proximating about twenty. Matter Discussed. "In view of the statement in the letter of Mr. Henty of Dec. 16, 'Th2 department had an investigation and were satisfied that there had been no fraud or dishonesty,' I at once asked myself what state of facts must cxist before the Prime Minister or the Min-- ister of Highways would arrive at a conclusion that there was fraud or dishonesty practices. Is not the falsi-- fying of pay--sheets, inserting therein the names of men who never worked on the highway, fraud and dishonesty? "I have had an opportunity of examining pay sheet No. 65,655, dated April 2, 1929, and covering the period between March 16, 1929, and March 31, 1929, and on said pay sheet I find my name appears as a teamster and as having worked ten (10) hours as such on March 2, 1929, earning therefor the sum of five dollars ($5) "I have had an opportunity of examining pay sheet No. 69,468, cov-- ering the period betwesn Nov. 16. 1929, and Nov. 30, 1929, and I find my name appears therson as having worked ten (10) hours as a tramster on the first day of November, 1929, earning therefor the sum of $5.50. *"I am a resident of the Hamlet of Talbotville, having resided therein for about fourteen years, having previous-- ly been a farmer in the County of Elgin. Examines Pay Sheets. "I, however, did have an op-- portunity of dGdiscussing the mat-- ter with Mr. John Brown, a resi-- dgent of Talbotville, and a man of great reputation, and he informed me that if his name appears on these pay--sheets, as it does, as having work-- ed on the highway in any capacity whatsoever during this time, that the same is false, all of which is clearly established by the declaration hereto attached taken by Mr. Brown and rtrixarked Exhibit 'B' to this my declara-- on." The following is a Gdeclaration of John Brown, Talbctville, in the County of Eligin, retired farmer, sworn at Lon-- don, Ont.. Jan. 25, 1934, before R. J. Myers, Commissioner for Oaths: