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

Maxrch 25 @umenmeemencmmmemntemmmmmg «_ Hepburn to Appear Before Public Accounts Commit-- tee of Legislature .--_--_'----- The Public Accounts Committee yesterday ordered Premier Hep-- burn to appear before a special * session of the committee April 22, when charges that he and J. J. a Glass (Lib., Toronto --St. Andrew) interfered with Liquor Board ad-- ministration will be investigated. New evidence concerning the charges was claimed by Arthur Ellis (Cons., Ottawa South). He offered to give his information to Attorney--General Arthur Roebuck "privately and confidentially," and, in heated debate with Morgan Baker (Lib., North York). offered to stake his seat that the informa-- tion justified a thorough probe of * the charges if Mr. Baker \\'ould, 'stake his seat on the outcome of| the inquiry. | _ Others ordered to appear before , f '?h" committee are Mr. Glass; E. G.iclear]y point to interf@renc(\'" he |Odette, Ligquor Commissioner; !said Walter and Nina Osborne, whose|"°",..' A t names were signed to an affida\'it, You have only one object--to | alleging -- interference; Becchorlkeep this matter before the people, Dennis, proprietor of the Hotel| and have it published all over, Ei"":::)':'Cf':)';im'?:.:?::"irsm"h' Deputy \again," said Morgan Baker. | 1 To * "I have more evidence. Are you| Interference Charged. 'willing to hear it?" retorted Mr.} "I can prove that there has been| Ellis. | interference in the administration| "I do not want to hear what you of the Liquor Control Board," de--|assume," the Liberal member re--' clared Mr. Ellis. He was supported |plied. Mr. Morgan charged the af--| by Hon. George S. Henry, who read| fidavits were signed by "political' the affidavits in the House on a|thugs." previous occasion. "The affidavits| '"Then why not bring them before w m m mssn omm memnmentemenmenmmeomene sctmmmmmmemmmatens mm o m the committee and get the thing whitewashed?" asked Mr. Ellis. Mr. Baker again assailed Mr. Ellis, charging the whole affair was a "vile attack." "You are opposed to it because you are afraid there might be something behind it," replied the Conservative.