80 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1865.
MONDAY, May 22.
On motion of Mr. CONNELL, the House
went into Committee for the further consideration of "A Bill to authorize the
the municipality of the County of Carleton to
issue debentures for a Railway purposes."
Mr. WILLISTON — Are the members of the County of Carleton unanimous in their desire that the lands
of the whole County should be taxed to support the views of the municipality of Carleton?
The Bill which passed this House for the purpose
of aiding the construction of the St. Ste
phen Branch Railway authorizes the taxing of all property in a certain district
which was to be benefitted by the road;
but here the Whole County will have to
be taxed, a large proportion of which will
receive no benefit from the Railroad at
all.
Mr. NEEDHAM. — According to the first
secton of this Bill, the municipality frame
a Bill, which they send down to the
Government to sanction, and all the Government has to do is see that it is in
accordance with the laws of the Province,
thus you give the municipality of Carleton
the right to legislate for that County.
The Corporation of St. John, with its
executive powers and credit, have no such
power vested in them; when they want
to borrow money the whole thing must be
set out in a law, and by that law they
must borrow it ; but here you authorize
the municipality to do the whole legislation, which is to affect the rights of
thousands of people; and the Governor in
Council must sanction their acts if they
are not contrary to this law, or any other
law in the Province. This Bill should
cover the whole thing. It should show
the form of debentures and what security
should be given. It involves a large
amount of money, and we are going
through it with Railroad speed, none of
us understanding its importance. This
piecemeal legislation is the worst kind we
can have. We are giving up our rights as a legislative body and putting it in the
hands of a municipality, investing them with a power they ought not to hvae, and which
we have not right to give them. They should have inserted in their Bill all that we
required to render it of value so that it would have protected the rights of all parties,
for if we do not secure those rights to the people we depart from the true principles
of legislation.
Mr. LINDSAY. — I would be willing to amend it if the President of the Council thinks it necessary,
for the people of Carleton are anxious to develope the resources of the country, but
are not now asking for anything, but the privilege of assessing themselves for the
purpose of carrying on a public work, and I do not
think any public rights are invaded by doing so; if we were going to tax the whole
country there might be some reason in the arguments of the hon. member for York, and
if he would bring in a similar measure for his County, I would encourage it, for I
believe we should encourage those who are willing to help themselves.
Hon. Mr. SMITH. — If the hon. members for the County of Carleton will take the responsibility of
this measure, I will support the Bill; but I object to giving the people the power
to legislate on this question, because it is inconsistent with our constitution; reference
has been made to the Seho[....] Law, but that is not a parallel case with this; that
merely gives permissive power to the people to accept the provision of a law already
made, I want to record my opinion against this measure
which entirely ignores the principle of
representative Government.
Mr. KERR. — It appears to be the impression of the hon. member from Carleton that. this is
a local matter, and no other
part of the Province is interested in it.
If the hon. member will raise the money
in the County of Carleton; if the people of
Carleton will agree to tax themselves, and
raise the money among themselves, it
would be well enough: but under this
Biil there is no mention made of where
thesé bonds are to be sold. They may be
sold in the English market at fifty per
cent discount, and by that means still
further depress our Provincial securities,
which are now selling at eight per cent
discount; therefore, every. man in this
Province is interested in this matter. I
feel satisfied we are entering upon. what I
consider to be a dangerous principle; that
a law can be made by this Legislature
and then rendered nugatory by an assembly of the people. It is not so in the
School law to which reference has been
made. That law still remains the law of
the land; people do not have to pass a vote
upon it to say whether it shall be the law
of the land or not, but have simply to say
in each locality whether they will accept
its provisions or not. By adopting the
principle contained in this Bill, we are
entering upon a course which if followed
up, will be utterly disastrous. We are in
a different position in regard to building
railroads from Canada; we have to import
from abroad nearlyn all we require to build
them, and by that means are involved in
an amount of expenditure which has reduced our revenue very materially; whereas
In Canada they have the most of the material in their own Province. It is, therefore,
absurd to say this Bill will not affect
the welfare of the people of the whole
Province, for every pound our debentures
are sold below par is a loss to the whole
country.
Hon. Mr. HATHEWAY. — if we had never
constructed a line of Railway in this Province our revenues would have been in a better
position than they are at present; but having commenced their construction, they will
not yield a revenue until extended.By grants and legislation we have a line of Railway
to within eleven miles of the village of Woodstock, which will be extended upwards,
and if there will be any line likely to pay it will be the connection between Woodstock
and the St. Andrews Railway. The people of Carleton have just as good right to put
their debentures in the market as the people of St. Stephen; but there is a principle
involved in this Bill, and I shall vote against it without the members of the County
of Carleton take the responsibility, for they are here as the exponents of public
opinion in that County. If they will strike out that section f the Bill which refers
it back to the people, I will vote for it.
Mr. HILL — One objection taken by the hon. member for Northumberland if, that those debentures
proposed to be issued by the municipality of Carleton, if floated in the English market,
will depress our Provincial debentures. I think this apprehension is most unfounded.
If the debentures of Carleton sell at a discount it is not reason why the Provincial
debentures should any more than the debentures of a city in Massachusetts would affect
the bonds of the State. Capitalists in buying those bonds look at the security, and
if the municipality of Carleton cannot give good security they cannot sell those debentures,
and in consequence cannot build this road. Reference has
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1865. 81
been made to the town of St. Stephen
putting their debentures in the English market. I do not think they will go beyond
the river St. Croix, there being only $150,000 required. Suppose the city of St. John
had, by its Common Council, asked this Legislature to authorize them to take stock
in Western Extension to an amount not exceeding $400,000, and an "Act" for that purpose
had passed without a clause submitting it to the people, would there be anything to
prevent its being submitted to the people ? They could say the law authorizes us to
issue bonds to that extent. Now, shall we take stock to the extent of ten, fifty,
or a hundred thousand dollars. It would be perfectly legal to do so, and the Legislature
could not interfere with them. In like manner, if we pass this Bill without that section,
it will be perfectly legal to refer it to the people.
Mr. Hill. - Then the law would become
inoperative. We passed a law authorizing the Magistrates of St. Stephen to make an
assessment, but they need not order that assessment unless they choose to do so. It
has been said that " all power emanates from the people," but now it is stated that
it is not constitutional, or in the power of the Legislature, to give back into the
hands of the people any of that power. This is going back to the old doctrine of the
" divine right of Kings;" that doctrine was held sacred and it was contended that
Kings had no power to divest themselves of this right, or delegate it to others. In
this Legislature the doctrine is advanced that its powers are so sacred that we cannot
delegate any part of those powers back to the people of Carleton, by accepting a Bill
which allows them to decide whether they will tax themselves or not. It has been said
that the members of the County of Carleton should represent the opinions of that County,
they may represent their political views on Confederation, but may not represent the
views of a majority of the County on finance ; therefore, I should like to see this
question submitted directly to the people in order to guard their interests, for I
believe it is an important measure. This road will be a great benefit to the town
of Woodstock and the surrounding country, by bringing them nearer to a market, and
consequently enhance the value of Agricultural produce. As soon as Western Extension
is built, it will bring them into direct communication with St. John, and this branch
will be a feeder to that road. I believe the only way in which private enterprise
can build railroads in this country, is by the assistance of counties and towns in
the shape of guarantees.
Hon. Mr. Allan. - As this discussion
is likely to occupy a great deal of time, and as the introduction of this dangerous
principle is not fully understood, I intend to move that the Bill be referred to a
Select Committee ; if this is not done, I shall vote against the Bill. If we adopt
the principle contained in the Bill, we could refer every measure involving a tax
to the people - even to the building of any public building, court house, or gaol
- and divest ourselves of all responsibility.
Mr. Lindsay. - The building of a Court House or Jail is a necessity, and if we passed a Bill
to provide for the erection of those buildings, we could issue a mandamus and compel
the people to erect them.
Mr. Connell. - The whole population are interested in this road, except a few
in one Parish, and leaving this Bill to the
people will remove their objections. In reference to the motion of the Attorney General,
I would rather see the Bill postponed for three months than to have it referred to
a Committee, for that would be evading the question and prevent us from getting a
railroad at all.
Hon. Mr. Smith. - I think we had bet-
ter test the question whether this House will affirm the principle of referring these
questions to the people, or not.
Mr. McMillan. - I do not see why, in a mere local matter, the people of Carleton
should not be the best judges of whether they will adopt that Bill or not, as they
have to pay the tax ; we have established the principle in our School law, and in
the construction of public works the Government often state that if the people will
do certain things the Government will aid them ; as for instance, the Facility Bill
granted $10,000 a mile for railroads, upon condition that Companies would build them.
We have established the principle in the St. Stephen Branch Railroad, and why should
we deal in a different manner with the people of Carleton? It is a charge made against
their intelligence and common sense to say they should not have the liberty to tax
themselves to carry on a certain work, and this argument put forth by some of the
members of the Government, is a doctrine from which I entirely dissent.
Hon. Mr. Gillmor. - We are charging
the people of Carleton with a great amount of ignorance when we charge them with having
elected men who do not understand their wants. I do not see why they should not take
the responsibility of this measure. I would make it imperative upon members representing
localities to take the responsibility of their local Bills. In regard to the School
law, that is not a parallel case ; according to that law any particular locality can
avail themselves of its provisions, but cannot disannul it ; but I think we established
the principle in the case of the St. Stephen's line, and it is a dangerous principle,
and should not be carried out to any great extent, and only under peculiar circumstances.
In this case a large majority of the people must be benefited, and if they are willing
to tax themselves, I will, under these circumstnces, vote for the Bill, for I do not
believe a few individuals should retard any great work.
Mr. - Connell moved the following as
the 6th Section of the Bill, " Before any by-law passed under the authority of this
Act shall be transmitted to the Provincial Secretary for the apaproval of the Governor
in Council, it shall be published in a newspaper published in the County, and a copy
sent to the Town Clerk in every town and parish, who shall call a meeting of the rate-payers
on property for the purpose of considering the by-law at the time and place to be
prescribed by the County Council, by posting up notices in three or more of the most
public places in the Parish, at least twenty days before the day appointed for the
meeting. The meeting shall be organized and the votes taken for and against the by-law,
and certified by the Chairman of the meeting to the Secretary Treasurer of the municipality,
in the same manner as in the case of the election of County Councillors, or Town and
Parish officers. If it is made to appear that a majority of the rate-payers on property
at such meeting vote for such by-law, the Governor in Council is authoto approve thereof,
otherwise the said by-law shall be made inoperative."
Mr. Wetmore read an extract from a
law passed in 1862 establishing municipal authorities, and proceeded to show that
the people could take the benefit of that law if they thought proper, and he could
not see the distinction between the principle of that and the measure now before them,
authorizing certain parties to take advantage of the Facility Bill and tax themselves
to construct this portion of Railroad.
Mr. Needham. - The hon. member who has last addressed you has mistaken the point
; that law regarding municipal corporations is not disannulled ; if the people adopt
it in one County they can in another. The section introduced by the hon. mover of
the Bill renders the whole law inoperative, provided the people reject it, and is
an introduction of republican institutions.
Mr. Connell. - The vote on this section will either prevent the road being built,
or aid and assist it.
Mr. Needham. - That is an unfair way
to state it. I do not vote against the people of Carleton having the benefit of the
Facility Bill, but I vote against the principle which it establishes.
Mr. Cudlip. - The case is one of emer-
gency ; it is one of vital interest to the people, and not an every day matter ; if
it was an ordinary matter I should vote against it. The members of the County have
made themselves responsible for the measure by advocating the principle that this
Railroad is necessary, and are willing the people should be taxed for it. I shall
take no vote as a precedent, and shall not be bound three years hence by my vote now,
for I may change my opinions. I hold that a man has a perfect right to change his
opinions when he sees they are wrong.
Mr. Beveridge. - The hon. members
for Carleton will be disappointed if the Bill does not pass, for two-thirds of the
people of that County are in favor of it, and they have a right to be heard.
The House was now divided on this section, when there appeared 13 yeas and 14
nays.
Mr. Connell. - I move that the Bill be postponed for three months. If we force
this Bill upon the people it will create a great deal of dissatisfaction. In Nova
Scotia a Bill was passed to tax the people for the purpose of constructing a road
from Halifax to Windsor, without the people being heard on the question. The consequence
was that the people resisted the measure, and the difficulty was so great that it
had to be abandoned. When the Liquor Law was first introduced, I understood it contained
a clause to refer it to the people, and I was in favor or it. I believe if that clause
had been in the Bill, a majority of the people would have sanctioned it, and probably
now it would have been the law of the land. People have told my colleague and myself
that we were going to force this measure upon them. I said I never would give my consent
to have a Bill of that kind pass without being referred to the people. There is hardly
a place in Canada where the principle is not adopted. If the hon. members wished to
prevent us from building this Railway, they have accomplished their object.
Hon. Mr. Smith. - It is not our duty to deviate from a principle in order to
make our legislation harmonize with the promises made at the hustings by the hon.
member from Carleton. If the people of Carleton want this Bill, which is of so much
importance, and a majority of the people of the County are in favor of it, the hon.
member is recicant to his duty
82 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1865.
in not taking the responsibility of it. I
think my hon. friend had better take the Bill as it stands.
Mr. Needham. - The Bill is not imperative, - as it stands they need not act upon it. I am not
going to vote to postpone it, when eighteen out of twenty in the municipality said
they wanted it.
Mr. Lindsay. - We want the matter to
go before the country fairly, that we are not willing to have this Bill forced upon
them. If we pass this Bill it will go into operation under the present Council, and
it is not known whether they represent the wishes of the County on this question.
Hon. Mr. Smith. - Was not the Bill
sent down here by the municipality
without the amendment?
Mr. Lindsay.- The Municipality party
may have been satisfied with the Bill as it stands, but some of the people deny that
they represent their wishes on this subject, and they have no more right to carry
out the provisions of the Bill than the late House would have had to have decided
on the question of Confederation, without leaving it to the people. The promises I
made at the hustings I shall always endeavor to carry out.
Mr. Wetmore. - I cannot discover any
new system of legislation in leaving a measure of this kind to the people. I do not
see why two thirds of the inhabitants of a County, if they choose to impose a tax
upon themselves, should be prevented from doing so, if it was not injurious to the
country generally. It is a local matter, and these hon. gentlemen do take the responsibility
in asking the House to pass a law in this way. Upon the question being taken the
Bill was agreed to as amended.
Hon. Mr. Allen moved the House
into a Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a BILL RELATING TO
THE MILITIA.
Mr. Cudlip, in continuing the discussion on the 24th Section said, - I do not think there will
be the least difficulty in finding men to form this camp, without drafting them. The
draft works unfairly, and will tend to make the Bill unpopular, for it favors the
rich to the detriment of the poor man, because if a rich man is drafted he can afford
to hire a substitute, but a poor man has not the means to do so, but is compelled
to leave his home and attend this camp, however unwilling he may be. I think that
even in actual invasion the Government should find material to carry on the war out
of the property of the country without resorting to a draft. I shall move this amendment
to the section ; instead of the words Commander-in- Chief, substitute " His Excellency
the Lieutenant Governor, or the Commander-in-Chief for the time being, by and with
the consent of Her Majesty's Executive Council."
Mr. Needham. - I do not know what
the advice of the Executive has to do with the Commander-in-Chief in the regulalation
of the militia and the appointment of officers ; it would be inconsistent with this
law, and would make it a mass of
heterogenious conglomorate nonsense. The Government should have nothing to do with these militia promotions, calling
out men and drafting them, except it is a question of finance.
Col. Boyd. - We had better let the section stand as it is.
Hon Mr. Allen. - The civil branch
of the Government has nothing to do with advising the Commander-in-Chief about military
movements. The hon.
member for Resigouche speaks of having one head for the forces under Confederation
; that would be in Canada ; surely it would be better to have that head in this Province.
The hon. member for Carleton said there was no such thing as drafting men in England.
If the hon. member will take the trouble to look in the militia law of England he
will find that there is a compulsory law there to compel men to attend military drill.
The volunteers are a separate branch of the service, and can attend or not as they
see fit.
Mr. Lindsay. - Do you say they draft
the militia in England?
Hon. Mr. Allen. - I do ; the Queen
is the head of the army and the militia, and she has power to raise companies by a
draft. It is the same in this country, the Commander-in-Chief is head of the militia,
irrespective of the advice of the Executive Council. This has been the case formerly,
and when we passed a militia law in 1862, there as no such objection taken to it as
there is now. I do not say the hon. gentleman has not a right to change his mind if
anything has occurred in those years to make it necessary to repeal the law passed
then, but unless they can show some reason why this power should not be vested in
the Commander-in-Chief, it is wrong to insert those words. If the principle is right
that the Commander-in-Chief has power to call out the militia for five days, the same
principle will apply to twenty days. I do not think the members of the Council desire
the patronage of appointing the officers, for they have plenty to do, and plenty of
responsibility without it. Those appointments have been generally made in accordance
with the recommendation of the Colonel of the Battalion, and I do not think it is
desirable to make any change.
Mr. Gilbert. - I think my hon. friend,
the Attorney General, does not like to assume the responsibility which this amendment
would impose upon the Government. The Queen cannot draft the militia, or exercise
her prerogative on any question of importance, without the consent of her Privy Council.
When the militia bill of 1862 was before the House I took exception to it then as
I do now.
Mr. Connell. - I think the Government should advise in those matters where the people are interested.
We have been a Government of progress, but I fear as matters are going now we can
call it by that name no longer, for we are going back to the dark ages. It has been
stated that such a thing never existed as the Commander-in-Chief being advised by
his Council, but if you look back to the year 1838, you will find that such a law
did exist in this Province. At that time the whole resources of the Province were
voted by the Legislature in order to put down the rebellion
in Canada ; and the third section of a law passed at that time says, "The Commander-in-Chief,
by the advice of his Executive Council." That Bill was passed for the purpose of defending
our institutions and aiding our fellow colonists in putting down what was called the
rebellion. If the Government choose to force this Bill through the House they should
take the responsibility of advising the Commander-in-Chief. At present they have nothing
to do with the Bill after it passes the House, and the whole thing will be carried
out by some militia colonels who will get a sword by their side and a feather in their
cap,
and lord it over the rest, being responsible to no one.
Mr. Gillmor. - In reading the first section of this Act, passed in 1838, you will
find that the " Commander-in-Chief of this Province, for the time being, by and with
the consent of Her Majesty's Council, be and are hereby authorised to enroll and organize, &c.," but you look at the sixth section you will find that the power to call out
is entirely with the Commander-in-Chief. Thus it will be seen that this law does not
strengthen my hon. friend's amendment.
Hon. Mr. Allen. - The hon. member
for Carleton has been in the House for a number of years, but he has never raised
an objection of this kind before. He does not take the same view of it as he did when
he was in the Government. Has any practical evil resulted from the power being vested
in the Commander-in- Chief? because some persons in Carleton choose to wear cocked
hats, the hon. member thinks it is all nonsense. Is it not a principle that all militia
power should be vested in one head, who should direct their movement and disband them
when necessary? When money is to be expended it is done by the advice of the Council,
and it is a check upon the Governor. He may call out men, but unless the Executive
appropriate money they would not stay long. The ruiling power by this means remains
with the Exective, because they have the control of the finances, without which these
organizations could not take place at all. I think if this amendment is to be carried,
it will affect the whole principle of the Bill, and our entire militia organization
be subverted.
Mr. Gilbert. - Let me call your attention to the 29th section: " The
Commander-in-Chief may makearrangements for the transport of such companies to the place of assembly
and for their return thence, and in case of companies coming more than -- miles may
pay their reasonable expenses of transport."
Hon. Mr. Allan. - You will see in the
2nd clause of the 28th section that the pay is to be reegulated by the Governor in
Council, and I thought I had regulated the 29th in the same way. The right to control
the money is invested in the Governor in Council.
Mr. Gilbert. - Where is the difference between loss of time and money? Is not the loss of time
a loss to the country in the shape of loss of labor?
Hon. Mr. Allan. - I cannot say it is
not a loss of time and money, but something of this kind is necessary in every country.
To pass this amendment would interfere with the whole arrangements of the law. It
might be necessary to do something with the militia when it would be impossible to
call the Council together. It is a principle that there should be one head to the
army and navy, and why should it not be so with the militia?
Mr. Lindsay. - That case applies only
to actual invasion. The Executive know when it is necessary to call out the militia,
therefore it should be left to them, for they are responsible to the country, and
know its wants and wishes. But after the men are called out let the Commander-in-
Chief take the responsibility of their manouvering.
Mr. Needham. - The Government are
responsible for everything connected to the political interestes of the country, but
the militia is a separate organization, and is not connected with the political Government
at all.
Mr. Allan. - The law passed in
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1865. 83
1862 declares the Governor shall be Commander-in-Chief in the absence of the Governor
General. The same provision applies to Nova Scotia, although it may not be in precisely
the same words. It applies also to Canada, for our militia law of 1862 was copied
from the Canadians, and is nearly identical in terms. If we pass this amendment it
will repeal that law, and there will be no uniformity in the militia law of the three
Provinces.
Hon. Mr. Smith. - In Canada the principles of Responsible Government exist in all their purity,
and if it was desirable to have this alteration, it would have been claimed in that
Province. The Governor of Canada is
ex-officio Governor of the other North American Colonies, and it is desirable that there should
be uniformity in our legislation, so that we should not have a different law from
the other Provinces.
Mr. Gilbert. - Could the Commander-
in-Chief in Canada call out the militia without the consent of the Executive ?
Hon. Mr. Smith. - He could, though any prudent Commander-in-Chief should consult with his Council,
yet there is no such thing as the Governor's being obliged to do so. If hon. members
think it is desirable that the Government should be consulted in regard to the appointments
made in the militia, it should be discussed independent of this Bill, and I am not
prepared to say which side I will take on the question.
On the question being taken on the amendment the House divided - yeas 9, nays
14.
Mr. Gilbert moved that all the words
in the 26th section after "Officer of the Battalion" be struck out. Motion lost.
Mr. Cudlip moved that the following clause be inserted in the 28th section : " The pay of any
officer shall not exceed that of a Captain in Her Majesty's infantry regiments, to
be determined by the Governor in Council." in lieu of part of the first section which
says - "The officers shall receive during the time of service the same pay as offiers
of corresponding rank in Her Majesty's infantry regiments."
Col. Boyd. - The Colonel will select the best officers he has to go to this camp, and if they
are not well paid they will not be willing to go, and that will be the end of this
camp instruction. There is a responsibility attached to those officers, besides a
great deal of expenses, such as keeping horses, thus making it necessary for them
to have full pay.
Mr. Wetmore. - I am at a loss to know why these officers should be put to extra expense. They
attend this camp because they have a very proper zeal to look after the interests
of the force and render it efficient. They ought not to expend more than the men,
if they have their rations. (Mr. Allan : They do not.) They should receive rations
the same as the privates, otherwise the colonels might be disposed to lord it over
them. They might keep horses and an orderly or two, and though I might admire this
sort of thing, yet I do not think it would conduce to the advantage of the military
service.
Mr. Lindsay. - The gallant colonel has disclosed the secret. The officers are going to have horses,
&c., the same as if they were going to meet an enemy, while the privates have to lose
their time by coming to this camp to support their dignity. In this camp instruction
there should be no distinction made between the pay of the private and the officer,
for the private may be the better man of the two.
Mr. Connell. - In Canada they have a
military school, in which the officers are divided into two classes, the first class
get $100 and the second class $50, and they drill until they understand the thing
perfectly. It would be better for us if we were guided more by Canada, not only in
this, but in the Confederation scheme.
Hon. Mr. Hatheway. - It would require a great stretch of the imagination to think that the Government
could form any scheme that the hon. member from Carleton would agree to. I was told
that he said he would resist the draft if his son was drawn - my boys are only too
anxious to go without the draft. He said it was going to be a useless Bill, and he
would fight it through section by section. If it is such a useless Bill, he had better
allow it to be made as ridiculous as possible, and then the odium and ridicule thrown
upon it will defeat it. The question now is, whether or not we shall give the $30,000
under a Bill as nearly in accordance with the acts of Canada and Nova Scotia as it
is possible to make it? The Attorney General has spent a great deal of time preparing
this Bill, and I hope it may be allowed to pass, although some of the members of the
Government have doubts whether any great amount of good will result from it.
Hon. Mr. Allan. - I think the scale mentioned in this additional section is high enough.
Mr. Lewis. - I am in favor of this amendment, because you should allow what is fair and right
to the officers, for they have to spend money for accoutrements.
On division of the House this amendment was carried.
Col. Boyd moved that the following be the 84th section of the Bill : That no Militia man employed
in the deep sea fisheries shall be liable to be called on to do duty as such in any
camp instruction during the fishing season between the months of April and November.
Hon. Mr. Allan. - Any person drawn can procure a substitute, and if you make one class of people
you will have to make another.
Col. Boyd. - It is well known that we
have in the County of Charlotte a number of vessels that go to Labrador and the Gulf
of St. Lawrence. These vessels have to depart by the middle of April, and if they
are drafted the voyage must be broken up.
Mr. Lindsay. - If you draft a man that
is working a new farm, you break up his business just as much as you break up the
fisherman's, and " justice when it ceases to be even handed, ceases to be justice.
"
Mr. Hill. - If the farmer is drafted, he
simply loses a month ; but the fisherman loses the whole season. The Attorney General
did not take into consideration the fact that this country requires a navy as well
as an army, and these fishermen are training for a navy, and should not be called
upon to serve on land.
Mr. Gilbert. - This draft will be doing
the fisheries a great injustice by taking them away from their business ; these sailors
may be required when a draft for a navy is enforced.
Hon. Mr. Smith. - The Attorney General should have excepted this class of people. This draft is
taking their employment from them, for they sometimes have a share in the vessel,
and it is absolutely necessary they should go on their voyage in the Spring.
Mr. Gilbert. - I am prepared to sustain the amendment, and believe there
should be no draft at all, because there will be hundreds of volunteers from all parts
of the Province. The same arguments that apply to the fishermen will apply with equal
force to the farmer, manufacturer and lumberman. The farmer may be prevented from
putting in his crop. The manufacturers of lumber may, during the sawing season - that
is in the spring of the year during the freshet - have the men drawn out of the mills,
and thus causing them a great deal of trouble and inconvenience. The exception should
also be extended to the Grammar Schools and Universities throughout the country, for
there is no greater injury you can fix upon the young men of the Province than hastily
calling them from their homes to attend this drill exercise for twenty-eight days.
They will never become good citizens afterwards, for they will have a desire to be
engaged in this sort of calling.
Hon. Mr. Smith. - I thought we had
determined that question about the draft, but my hon. colleague has made an attack
upon his constituents that I feel called upon to answer. He says the men attending
this camp will be useless hereafter. It is a slander upon the young men of the country,
for there are plenty of young men who can stay twenty-eight days in this camp without
spoiling their morals, or unfitting them for becoming useful citizens.
Col. Boyd. - The care of fishermen is
not parallel with that of the lumberman or farmer. The lumberman can work in the woods
all winter, and the farmer can work on his farm all summer, but the fisherman loses
his whole year's work, therefore he should be exempt.
Mr. Wetmore. - This is a very reasonable proposition, and should be extended to all fishermen
instead of those only who are engaged in the deep sea fisheries, for I do not see
any reason why they should be exempt more than the others.
This amendment was lost - yeas 11, nays, 14.
Mr. Wetmore called attention to the 97th section, which says : " If any person shall wilfully
interrupt or hinder any Militia man at drill or on duty, or at target practice, or
shall trespass upon any lands or range marked out or set apart for that purpose, every
such person shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding - dollars for each offence,
and may also be taken into custody by verbal order of the Commanding Officer, and
detained until such drill duty or practice is performed;" and remarked that these
powers were too extensive, for the Commanding Officer might have a spite against some
person, and would walk him off into limbo, keeping him there for the remainder of
the twenty-eight days, simply because he might happen by chance to walk on the grounds
set apart for drill exercise.
Hon. Mr. Allan. - Some persons may
interrupt the practice, by running through the men or standing by the target, and
there should be some power to arrest him at once, instead of having to go to the Magistrate
and get out a summons for him to appear next day, the men thereby losing a whole day's
practice, and this man probably not worth a farthing.
Mr. Needham. - I think it better be
amended in this way, " Any person wilfully interfering, or shall willfully trespass
on any lands set apart for such purpose, may be taken into custody by the verbal order
of the Commanding Officer until such practice is over, and for every succeeding offence
he may be fined."
Mr. Gilbert. - Who is to decide whether it is a willful trespass or not ? It should
84 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1863.
be, " if he is ordered off, and refuses to
go, he should be taken into custody. It is very hard for a man to be deprived of his
liberty ; some men are very sensitive and would remember it all the days of their
life.
Hon. Mr. Allan. - My hon. friend says who is to decide whether it is a willful
trespass or not ; the distinction is well known ; if a man goes upon the ground after
he has been forbidden, he is willfully interfering with the practice, and should be
taken into custody for that day by the verbal order of the commanding officer.
Hon. Mr. Smith suggested that the
words " and refuse to leave after being requested to do so," be inserted after the
word ' purpose' in the Section. This suggestion was adopted.
Mr. Wetmore moved that the following be the 102 Section of the Bill :- "That no
Militia man employed in the salt water fisheries shall be liable to be called on to
do duty as such, in any camp of instruction during the fishing season between the
months of March and November in each year."
This Section was lost.
On motion of
Mr. Hill the following additional clause was inserted in the 83rd Section, " Members of Fire
Companies, and Hook and Ladder Companies in any city or town, shall be exempt from
duty beyond the limits of the same respectively."
The Bill was then reported as agreed to, with certain amendments.
The House then adjourned until nine o'clock tomorrow.
T.P.D.
This individual participated in:
