14 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
WEDNESDAY,
MARCH 14th
HON. MR.
SMITH brought in a Bill
to revive and continue an Act in the Revised Statutes concerning the Export
Duty on Lumber, and said he
was desirous that the Rules of the House should
be suspended in order to enable
them
to go into Committee on this Bill, as
there was no provision at present
for
collecting this duty.
MR. MCMILLAN said, although it
was
a matter of importance which should be
attended to at once, yet they should
not
go into Committee upon it in the absence
of so many of the legal gentlemen.
MR. WILMOT had very little
doubt
about the power of the Legislature, and
he thought that it was absolutely
necessary that this $60,000 which they
had
collected since the old law had expired
should not be lost. It was an oversight
it should be brought forward and
remedied immediately.
Mr. MCCLELLAN said this oversight
had been brought to their knowledge
yesterday by the hon. member for York.
(Mr. Fisher) and as there were
legal
questions involved in it there should be
a call of the House, or have
the consideration of the Bill
postponed until
to-morrow morning, which would be
rushing the Bill through very speedily.
HON. MR. SMITH said he hoped all
political feelings would be thrown aside
in discussing this subject,
for it was desirable to pass this law as soon
as possible, to prevent. law-suits being entered into by persons desirous of getting
this money back. His hon. friend, Mr.
Cudlip, had paid during the past year
£1100 as export duty on lumber, and
another party in the County of Kent had
paid £300. These men say that this
money does not belong to them, although they paid that money down ; but
it rather belongs to every man who contributed to the production of the deals,
because the price of deals was affected by it. This was not the first case
of retrospective legislation. Some years ago
three Commissioners were
appointed in
the County of Westmorland to construct a Canal, and these Commissioners, assuming
they were properly appointed,
went on with the work, and expended
three or four thousand pounds ; but, in
consequence of some legal difficulty, the
case was brought before Judge Parker,
and he decided the Government had no power to appoint them. Therefore,
every man upon whose land they had
gone could bring an action for trespass
against them, involving the whole
country in trouble. To prevent this an Act
was passed in this House legalizing the
acts of those Commissioners. That was
a case similar to the present, and although it was exceptional legislation,
it should be adopted when it tends to
the public interest. He would now
move that the Bill be committed.
MR FISHER said, passing a law for
the future is one thing, and passing a
law to cover all the past is
another. It
would be better to separate these two
propositions. They had better provide
a law for the future and let the
other
matter stand over a few days, until we
have more time to consider it, for it is a
question of great importance,
and will
be a precedent for future legislation. If
this was a case of so much emergency,
why did not they call the Legislature
together in September, at which
time
they state they first discovered
it ? They
should have called the Legislature
to
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.15gether earlier, and not postponed it until this late period, when they
knew at
that time that a vast amount of revenue
was jeopardous. It was only a few
weeks ago that he discovered it,
and it
was no time now to go into a discussion
regarding retrospective legislation, when
they were already engaged in another
discussion. If it is proper in principle
it can as well pass five days hence. Let
the action of public opinion act
upon it.
Let us have time to consider
whether or
no by adopting an
ex post facto law, we
launch a principle that violates every
principle of right and wrong, and may
alter all the contracts in the country.
MR. GILBERT
was prepared to assist
the Government in regard to passing
a
law for the future ; but the consideration
of the great principle of passing
an
ex
post facto law, making lawful what was
before unlawful, would take up a great
deal of time in the discussion.
The case
mentioned by the Attorney General was
agreed to by all the parties interested
in
it. He would suggest to the Attorney
General to exclude the
ex post facto part
from the Bill, and only
legislate for the
future, until they had time to consider
whether this retrospective legislation
would not take away the rights of parties and lead to it great deal of complaint.
MR NEEDHAM
said it did not involve a great principle, and the
sooner
they passed this Bill the
better. If they
delayed this matter it might cost them
trouble, for parties who paid
this money
might bring an action against the Deputy
Treasurer, or the Treasurer who received
it, and those officers must be protected,
which would cause a great expense to this
country. But they say it is not Constitutional to pass an
ex post
facto law, as if
there could be any thing in the Constitution against it. There are
hundreds of
laws in England, and hundreds of laws in
our own country that are
ex post
facto.
The only thing that can be said
is, that it
is exceptional legislation, and done only
in extreme cases, when
the exigencies of
the case requires it. If it was
unconstitutional it never could be done.
This
Legislature has the power to pass
this
Bill, and after they pass it the
Bill becomes law and cannot be unconstitutional.
If the House is going to pass
this Bill to
legalize the collection of export
duty, it is
their duty to do it at once.
HON. MR CUDLIP —If the Government have committed an error in regard
to this matter, they are responsible to the
people for it. This act does not condone
it. They were there to take care of the
public interest, that no wrong should
be
done to the people. A great deal of this
money would go into the pockets of the
men who shipped the deals, and would be
a clear profit to them. That money when
paid, was considered to have been paid according to law. No man will pay this export
duty now, and if they delayed the passage
of this law it would open a door for itigation. He did not wish to get back the
money he had paid, but he wished to see
this
ex post facto law passed in
order to
retain the money in the public chest.
MR. ANGLIN
said his hon. colleague
had stated nearly all of what he had intended to say. He was happy to see that
some of the members of the opposition
were disposed to deal fairly, in this case.
If they passed this Bill no man
could complain that injustice had been done him.
A shipper going to ship deals will ask
what are the charges, and adding those
charges to the export duty, he
will consider what he can afford to give
for them.
This money does not belong to the shipper.
If it belongs to any one but the
Province,
it belongs to everyone that has
been concerned in the transaction ; and
it would
be impossible, by any means, to divide
that money among them all. This export
duty is put on in the place of stumpage.
Suppose a man cut logs on your farm without an agreement to pay stumpage.
If
you could obtain stumpage it
would be
doing that man no wrong. The law, it
appears, is a Revenue Bill, but it is in lieu
of stumpage. He had no interest
in the
matter, but he wished to have it settled.
This oversight was very much to be
regretted. If the Government were
to
blame he would take his share, for it was
as much his business as it was the business of the President of the
Council, or
any other member, to look into
the matter.
MR. LINDSAY
said it was admitted by
a member of the Government that they
knew of it in September. Why, then,
was not this Bill brought in the first day
of the Session. If this question
had not
been brought up by the hon. mover of the
amendment to the Address, it
would not
have been taken up until the Address had
passed. If the Government had said on
the first day of the Session
that this law
had expired, in consequence of being overlooked, and had brought in this Bill then,
he would have given them credit
for it.
for he thought no time should be
lost in
passing this Bill.
MR. KERR
said it was very evident that
every Deputy Treasurer was
liable to have
on action brought against him for money
received as export duty, if they delayed
the passage of this Bill, for in many parts
of' the Province there may be
parties who
think they are hardly dealt with,
and
they, discovering that something had
been done contrary to law, may bring an
action against the officers of the Government to recover their money. The passage
of this Bill will not be the cause of
any hardship to any individual. A retrospective law in punish a man might be
considered a hardship, but this
law to
continue another law will do injustice to
none.
MR. L. P. W. DESBRISAY said he
took a. different view in regard to this
from any he had heard expressed. He
was against any export duty whatever,
for it was his opinion that no
expert duty
should be imposed upon lumber shipped
in this Province. He had always intended when a Bill came before them
to revive
that law to oppose it. This
country
ought not to trammel the exportation of
lumber by imposing an export duty at all.
It is said that is in the place of stumpage,
but we have to pay mileage in place of
stumpage ; we have to pay our £20
a mile
for the ground on which we lumber,
besides the export duty. It was very well
to hear one side of the story, but he could
tell them of men who had shipped lumber
for the last four years, and had received
half price for it, and he would ask whether
it would be a dishonor for those
men to
take the export duty. The hon. member
of the Government may speak of the £1100
he has paid, but he stands in a different
position from the lumber merchant. He
is a broker, and does not give his
eighteen
months credit, as other men in the country do ; he receives an order from the
other side of the Atlantic, and
he fills it.
That law ought to exempt logs cut on
private lands. He would oppose this
law on principle,
for these ought to be no
export duty. The Government should
raise their revenue in some
other way
than by taxing an article, the
property
of poor men. The lumbermen toil hard,
and use their energies from daylight
until dark, and they should be protected
in
their employment.
MR. CONNELL said that it was very
evident that a different law ought
to exist, which would not only be a benefit to
the revenue but to the country ; but it
was no time just now to create difficulties
in regard to the matter. A law
to collect this export duty should be passed
immediately, but more time should be
given to this retrospective legislation.
A
like circumstance occurred, he thought,
in 1827. when the Legislature was called
together to remedy the defect, and called
again five or six weeks after to transact
the business
of the Session. He then
mentioned a case which had occurred
some time ago, in which money had been
paid by individuals who alleged they
had
no right to pay it. The
controversy went
on for some time, but after a calm review
of the matter the principal and interest
had to be repaid. If, after due consideration, we find we have the right
to retain
this money, we had better exercise that
right ; but if it be wrong in
principle to
do so, then no money consideration
should induce us to do it.
MR. CAIE
said the important question
was, whether the money which they had
paid into the Treasury last year should
be refunded or not. He was one of those
who had paid into the Treasury $1200.
and he considered he would be
acting unfairly to withdraw that money,
for it
should be put on the roads and bridges.
If they got their money back, he would
consider it Provincial money,
and should
appropriate it to that purpose.
MR. FRASER said he differed from
the hon. member from the County of
York (Mr. Fisher) in regard to
the law,
in this matter. He would like to ask the
hon. member for the County of Kent, at
what time he became aware the law for
collecting an export duty on lumber had
expired.
MR. L. P. W. DESBRISAY said he
was not aware of it until yesterday
evening, when it was brought forward by Mr.
Fisher.
MR. FRASER —Then at the time the
hon. member was making his
calculations
regarding the men he supplied, and the
men he purchased lumber from, the export duty entered into his
calculations,
and if they paid him the money back, it
would not be his money, and if
he does
get it back, it ought to go on the Roads
(
Mr. Desbrisay.—Let it go so then.)
He would now show that although the
principle of retrospective
legislation is in
many cases injurious, yet that does not
come in here at all, where men pay the
money. It is only when a man refuses
to
pay it, or where it subjects the
party to a
penalty, that it becomes retrospective.
To furnish an analagous case, he quoted
Dwarris on Statutes, 547 :
" An
Act of Parliament made to correct an Error by omission in a former Statute of the
same Session, relates back to
the time when the first act
passed, and
the two must be taken together, as if
they were one and the same act, and the
first must be read as containing in itself,
in words, the amendment supplied by
the last ; therefore goods exported before
the second act passed, but only shipped
16 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
on board before the first passed, were
held
liable to duties subsequently imposed on
the exportation of goods."
To shew that acts of this nature, although exceptional, are fully recognized
in England, he quoted the law
bearing on
that question.
Dwarris 548:
" By an Imperial Statute it is enacted
that where any Bill shall be introduced
into any Session of Parliament for the
continuance of any act which
would expire in such session, and if such so shall
have expired before the bill for
continuing the same shall have received the Royal Assent, such continuing act shall
be
deemed to have effect from the date of the
expiration of the act intended
to be continued—except it shall be otherwise
provided in such continuing act—but nothing
herein contained shall extend to
effect any
person with any punishment,
penalty or
forfeiture, by reason of anything done
contrary to the provisions of
the act continued, between the expiration of the same
and the date at which the act
continuing
the same shall receive the Royal
Assent."
MR.
MCCLELAN said as this was an
important matter, they should not hurry
it on, for the passage of this
expost facto
act might lead to litigation instead
of preventing it. The reason he asked for delay was that the legal gentleman
might
concur in pursuing some definite
course.
He was ready to unite with the Government in remedying the evil ; he did not
impute improper motives to them, but
thought it a matter of neglect, for which
they were responsible.
MR. GILBERT said that connecting
the two bills together might have the effect of preventing
their receiving the Royal Assent.
HON.
MR SMITH said it was a matter
of internal concern in our own jurisdiction.
MR. MCCLELAN asked if any protests
had been entered against the payment of
these debts.
The resolution was then carried.
HOUSE
IN COMMITTEE ON THE BILL.
MR. WILMOT said he had had some
experience in the Crown Land Office, having been in the office for a
number of
years, and he had no difficulty in collecting stumpage ; he had given collectors a
certain per-centage upon all lumber cut
upon unlicensed land. They
brought no
bills, and the revenue
increased.
MR. FISHER said he had no faith in
the whole timber system. It had the effect to encourage inordinate
lumbering.
Every square mile they kept for lumbering on, brought them in four or live dollars
a year for stumpage ; but
if they sold
300 acres, it brought them in a principal
that pays £4 10s. a year for ever, and if
the man who buys it does not use it,
he
pays the wild land tax besides.
It has been said, In regard to this Bill,
that it is unconstitutional, and
again, that
it is constitutional. Every alteration
made in the law, of any kind, alters the
Constitution in that respect ;
for the moment a new law passes, it alters the Constitution to the extent of that
law. We
know, such is the power of
Parliament,
that it can pass any act it pleases,
and
that act becomes law ; and when it comes
into operation it changes, so far, the laws
that govern this country. The power of
the Legislature is unlimited,
and when it
passes a law every one must obey
it.
My hon. friend spoke about the
United
States. There, the people reserve to
themselves certain powers, and
they communicate certain powers to the State
Legislature, and certain other
powers to
the Federal Legislature. When an act
infringes the rights of an individual he
has a remedy. A gentleman in the
United States undertook to run a steamboat on the Penobscot River ; the Courts
of the State of Maine decided against it.
He took the case to the higher Courts,
and they determined that the
passage up
and down the Penobscot River was free
to every citizen of the United States, and
there was no power in the State
to limit
that right. It is not so with Great Britain, or with us. The moment a law
passes the Three Estates and
receives the
sanction of the Queen, it limits,
controls,
and amends the Constitution. That is
the difference between the two
Constitutions. He did not know whether
to support the Bill or not. It would
take a
great deal to induce him to give up
£15,000 of the public revenue ; he must
be perfectly satisfied it was
doing right
to the country, and that it was fair in
principle before doing so. But, if on consideration of the matter, he should
feel
that he was adopting a principle that
would do a great public wrong,
this
money would be no object in the matter.
All he asked for was a little time, so that
whatever they did should be the
result of
deliberation, irrespective of party, or anything else. He was prepared to
pass a
Bill perpetuating this act ; but, as to the
other, it appeared to him, they were
going to pass it without common public
decency, in regard to all the interests
involved, and in regard to all who had
paid money throughout the
country. It
might be, that, after due consideration
of
the matter, we might say, there was no
sufficient reason to interfere to prevent
this money being paid back.
Common
political decency demands us, before passing a law of this kind, to take time to
consider and hear what every one has to
say upon it. Why did not the Government call the Legislature together when
they discovered this early in
September ?
It appeared to him passing
strange that
they did not mention it in the Speech, or
brought it up for consideration. They
knew about it, but they thought they
would slide along, and it would not be
known, until the middle of the Session.
He would now repeat : pass the act to
impose this duty, but give a little more
time to consider the retrospective
act.
HON.
MR. SMITH said, that, in
considering a measure of so much importance
to the country, they should have risen
above all party feeling. In
bringing this
forward, the Government had no view
of
exculpating themselves, and they would
not shrink from any odium that might be
attached to them in consequence
of this
neglect; but it was unkind and ungenerous
for his hon. friend to bring in politics in
considering this question. When
he says
we should allow this thing to stand until
the Session is half through, he
is evidently
trying to make use of it politically. He
was surprised to hear that hon. gentleman
state to them three or four times, that he
had not made up his mind upon this question, when he knew of it last January.
(
Mr. Fisher —I did not say it—I said, a
few weeks ago.) Well, a few weeks ago.
Can you suppose that a man of his expe
rience—when he sees that a great mistake has been made, involving the revenue
to the extent of $60,000, and has not
arrived at any conclusion as to what
should be done—has done his
duty to his
country ? He saw that a large
amount
of revenue was involved, and he should
have turned the thing in his mind
and
arrived at some conclusion about
it. He
(Mr. Smith) had no direct interest in this
matter himself, but some persons connected with him had. His brother-in-law
was interested to the extent of
£600
or £700. The hon. member from the
County of Kent (Mr. DesBrisay)
had
taken a different view of the matter, as
his stumpage comes off
private property.
The principle is the same ; for
if he buys
logs, or private property, he has in view
the export duty, and he takes it from the
man who gets the lumber.
Therefore, it
does not belong to him. He (Mr.
Smith)
could not see how the hon. member, who
had last addressed them, could hesitate, in
justice to the matter. He feared his
mind was influenced by political considerations. This Bill, which is
for the
public interest, should pass speedily, and
he trusted the House would support
it.
MR. FISHER said, that, although he
had discovered it some weeks ago, he
could not make up his mind ; and it was
only on Friday last he had looked over
the acts to see if it was really so. Therefore, in all fairness, they
should have
more time to consider it.
MR MCMILLAN said the proposition
now before them had two points :
one was
to continue the export duty, the
other
was to withhold money received
as export duty. He was not disposed to deprive the country of $60,000 if
it could
be held constitutionally. He
would vote
for retaining this money in the Treasury,
although it does not relieve
the Government from the humiliating
position they
occupy before the country. This
House,
and the country would still hold them responsible for allowing a law to expire,
which was one of the most important
means of collecting the revenues of the
country. As to the principle of collecting this export duty, he did not endorse
it entirely, although the results were very
satisfactory. If they exacted a stumpage
duty, a large portion of the lumber cut on
the Crown Lands would be cut upon private property, causing the revenue to suffer
largely.
MR. L. P. W. DESBRISAY remarked
that he did not intend to make
any further opposition to the bill, as it seemed
necessary for the interests of
the country
that this bill should pass,
although he did
think the rights and interests of the people ought to be provided for ; but there
seemed to be a majority in the House wiling to ignore those rights to a certain extent
in imposing this duty upon lumber
cut upon private property.
MR. GILBERT did not rise for the
purpose of opposing the bill, but
he rose
for the purpose of expressing
his regret
that they had to resort to ex post facto
legislation. He also regretted that it had
ever become necessary that a revenue
should be raised by taxing the
products of
the people, for hardly any
civilized country ever resorted to such a mode of raising a revenue. He was not aware
that it
was so in any other part of Her Majesty's
dominions. If this tax does press severely
upon any portion of the inhabitants of
this Province, it does so, more especially
upon
the constituency which he had the
honor to
represent, as the lands in that
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 17
County were owned by private individuals, with the exception of about
three
square miles, and those owners of private property have to submit to
the duty
upon the lumber which they
export. But
as this duty was absolutely necessary,
the Government having on other means of
rasing a revenue, he would not make any
opposition because this money was
necessary for the roads of the country. There
was another point he would refer
to. A
man who had paid £700 into the Treasury of the Province, without any law,
may think that this money belongs
to him,
and as the Government have thought proper to pass an
ex post facto law to take
away what he thinks is his right, he may
petition the Governor to withhold his consent and the bill go home with a suspending
clause attached to it, and not become
law at all. It was for this
reason he had
proposed dividing the bill into
two parts,
but the Government, having thought proper to unite them, he should
vote for it.
MR.
HILL would not take up the time
of the House, if it were not
that he should
vote for this Bill,
while he did not believe
in the policy of an export duty. It was
utterly wrong, and there was scarcely
a
civilized nation which had adopted the
principle, not even the United States, although it is proposed to put an export duty
on cotton and tobacco, because, they say,
they are products in which other
nations
cannot compete with them. It is wrong
in principle, and has been given up by
every enlightened financier in the civillized world. He would rather see a
stumpage collected, by which he thought
the revenues of the Province
would be
largely increased. In regard to an
expost facto law, it was common to
pass
such a law in the United States, and the
principle was not unknown here.
If ever
there was an
expost facto Bill that
should be passed, it was this one. He
should vote for the Bill, although he did
not believe in the principle.
The House divided upon the Bill, upon
which the Chairman reported the Bill as
agreed to.
The House then took up the order of
the day, viz :-
THE
ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE SPEECH.
MR
FISHER'S AMENDMENT TO THE FOURTH
PARAGRAPH.
HON. MR. SMITH
resumed—The
House listened to me yesterday about an
hour on this "Bill of Indictment." I
hope the indulgence of the House
will be
extended to me for a short time,
for I
will be as brief as the consideration of
what is due to myself and the Government of which I am a member, will
allow.
The House, in passing the Bill which has
just been passed, do nothing to justify
the Government. They did not introduce
that Bill in this hurried way to attempt
to relieve themselves of that
responsibility, that censure, if they were entitled to
censure, that odium, if it ought
to fall
upon them for this unfortunate
occurrence. We are prepared to take all the
responsibility of our conduct.
After we
have offered an explanation to the House,
we stand prepared to receive
their decision. I hope I shall not fall into the same
error which the hon. mover
of the amendment did yesterday; that is, he simply
gave a re-hash of what he said the day
before. It is well known that the election which took place last winter was one
of the most anxious active conflicts which
has ever taken place in this country.
The issue
was of more importance than
any other issue that has ever been brought
before the people. I complain
that the
dissolution of the House upon the question of Confederation, last winter, was
an
act of tyranny perpetrated by the advisers
of His Excellency. That question
had
never been brought forward for the consideration of the people—never
been discussed before Parliament, and according
to the Constitution thee people
are here
by their representatives. The
whole
country was convulsed by this
election,
which took place in midwinter,
and involved in its results the independence,
the rights and liberties of the people,
which were to be surrendered up
by
the
Government to the rule of men of
Canada. The dissolution was an act of
base injustice to the people, as
many of
them were engaged during the winter
session in lumbering operations. In the
County of Charlotte a
considerable portion of the population were far
away in
the wilderness engaged in that
employment, and it was impossible for these
people to be at the polls. If
the day had
happened to have been stormy, the aged
people won, by their industry, have made
this country what it is, would have had
no opportunity of going to the polls, as
many of them had to travel twenty or
thirty miles, and giving their vote upon
this great question. At the
election the
people told the Government in a voice
that could not be misunderstood, that
they
had forfeited the confidence of
the people,
and they had to tender their resignation
to His Excellency, and a new Government was formed the 1st day of
April,
and then some of the members had
to
return to their constituents for re-election. Some of them were returned
only
one or two days
before the House met,
and they had scarcely met forty-eight
hours before complaint were made that
we had submitted no measures. I appealed to the justice of this House,
and the
reply was that we could not be expected
to have
measures prepared at so short a
notice. We all know that the
Provincial
Secretary, though he had been for some
time in political life, was experienced,
and had no time to prepare to
meet the
Legislature, as he was only here two days
before the House me,; which gave
him a
very short time to prepare the estimates.
We were compelled to call the
House
together at a time when it was inconvenient for the members to
leave their
homes, and were anxious to return.
Those are the circumstances under
which
the Government was formed, and
I think
they justify us in calling for
an
indulgent
consideration and sympathy in view
of
those circumstances. It was the
duty of
the Attorney General, now Judge Aller,
to see what laws were expiring, but
he
was pressed very much by the
duties
which devolved upon him, and this Act
escaped his notice. We
have no desire
to shrink from the responsibility, for we
are all liable for whatever act is committed by any one member. We all know
that it is human to err, but " it is divine
to forgive." I was surprised to
see the
malicious joy, the delight, which
seemed
to beam from the countenance of the
learned mover of the amendment, when
he stated this oversight. I do not imagine he embraces all the learning and
policy in the country. I do not intend to
use the language which he did,
which I
consider to be insulting. Was it right
for him to evince a satisfaction
yesterday
when he thought this country would be
thrown into confusion ? He pretended he could not make up his mind regarding
this law, retrospective in its operation,
when he has known the circumstance for
weeks. How different the conduct of the
hon. member for Kent, (Mr. Caie.) He
rose and said he had paid $1200 into the
revenue, and he made up his mind at
once
in favor of the Bill, although the first he
knew of it was last night. He was ready
to render assistance that would preclude
him from getting that money back. It is
the privilege of any member to
move a
want of confidence in the Government ;
but I think it is the duty of every hon.
member here to watch narrowly and look
closely into the motives of the men who
seek
to oust the Government, and see
whether they are animated by a spirit of
patriotism or not ; whether it is the good
of the country they are seeking, or their
own aggrandizement. When the hon.
member boasts of the way in which he
was returned to this House,
without ever
leaving his office, for the people rose omnipotent
in their power to place him here,
we know something of the agencies employed to bring him here. An attack
was made upon me ; it was represented to
the people of the County of York that I
was their enemy, that I was anxious to
remove the seat of Government. In
corroboration of that it was said, he
has taken the Post Office away, and
that is the first step towards removing the seat of Government. It
was
told them at the last general election,
that by going for Confederation they
would forever secure
the seat of Government at Fredericton. I will ask whether,
in debating a question of so much importance to the people, it was proper and
right to bring forward this argument :
"If
you do not go into Confederation, the
seat of Government is in peril." This
great question should be discussed
on
broad principles, and reasons
given why
a charge in our condition would
be for
our good. We find the advocates of the
Quebec scheme saying, it is a beautiful
scheme, there is no darkness upon it all,
and there are no reasons in the world why
you should not go into
Confederation.
We were told by the hon. mover
of the
Amendment that he made certain objections to this scheme of Confederation in
Quebec—that there were exceptions
to
it which he thought was not right. Did
they tell the people that there were
exceptions to the scheme and
they
wanted to submit those exceptions
to
them ? Did they say, do not go into
this Union until you have fully
considered it ? No. Everything was said
in favor of it. It seemed they entered
upon this contest as paid lawyers advocating the interests of their clients all
on one side without looking at the
other
at all. If the hon. mover of the Amendment was seeking the benefit of
the
country, he would give us fair play ;
that is all we ask. Give the Secretary
an opportunity of presenting his accounts to the House and I do not hesitate to say
they
will be presented in a
way that will give satisfaction to the
House, for he has made an improvement in the way in which the public
accounts are kept. He can now show
that the revenues are in a prosperous
condition, and in consideration of his
having been in the Legislature twelve
years, and never held a seat in the
Government, it would be no more than
right that he should come before the
House and show his account of what he
18 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
has done. A majority of the Press, for
some reasons, are against us, and abusing us. We have men of character
going about the country as
lecturers
prejudicing the minds of the people
against us. The Press is stating
that
this Government has been guilty
of
fraud, and is carrying abuse and
slander
to every hamlet. We challenge them
to prove it ; and we challenge this
House to put their finger upon
an act
of fraud, or an act of mal-administration, if they dare. Let us bring
in our
accounts before this House. We shrink
from no responsibility, and we are glad
to acknowledge our accountability
to
this House. We are told by my hon.
friend that the Surveyor General
has
been here but a few days. The reason
is, that affection for an indisposed
daughter has called him to his home.
It may be well for my learned
friend, who resides at Fredericton upon
the uncertain tenure of an office in the
Government. My hon. friend had better wait and see whether my colleague
has done his duty in that office, and not
condemn him before you know what he
has done. It is an attribute of a just
Judge, that he does not condemn a man
before he is heard. The hon. mover
stands in that position, and he professes
to be entirely unselfish, but I charge
him with wishing to prejudge the Government. The Commissioner of the
Board of Works has occupied that position for many years and is ready, at
any time, to resign the office up to the
people, and has done it ; and he is prepared to show that he has discharged
his duty too. I think we have been
treated unfairly. My hon. friend has
said many offensive things to us, which
I will not to him. When he talks about
mean, low, and decency, I do not wish
to set that gentleman up as a standard
of decency, propriety, and honesty.
His conduct and my conduct are before
the people of the country, and let them
judge, for it is not for us to sound our
own trumpets. A great part of his
speech is made up in setting forth that
our Government had made a tremendous attack upon Her Majesty,
the
Queen. I cannot tell whether a tear
dropped from his eye or not. Something had been said by the Government.
insulting to Her Majesty. He spoke of
Her Majesty's Ministers as if
they were
superior to the men of this
country. I
respect a man occupying a high position ; but we must not forget, in our
admiration for a great name and high
sounding titles, that the holders of those
titles are but men. I have, by
the
kindness of the people, been in
communication with these men, and, while I
paid them every respect, I never forgot
that I was a man myself. A man is
not
a man who forgets himself, and will
fall down and worship
any man. In
regard to this Minute of Council which,
he says, is insulting to the Queen.
When a man stands up in his place and
charges the Government with
deliberately insulting the Queen, we
throw it
back upon him. I can speak more
freely about this, because I was no
party to it. The Attorney General and
myself were in England, where we first
saw it, and we approved of every line
in it, and told, at the office of the Colonial Secretary, that it met our entire
appropation. I am prepared to take
the responsibility of it. Mr. Smith then
read the document, which was an answer to a despatch received from England, and which
he said he did not see
until it was answered.
In regard to the charge made against
us of not having published the despatch.
We were commanded to communicate it
to the Legislature at their next meeting.
We did not wait for the next meeting of
the Legislature before communicating it
to the public. I was surprised to hear
the hon. gentleman charge this Government will not having given information.
I should like to have him point out to me
how many despatches had been given to
the public when he was a member of the
Government before the Legislature assembled. Despatch after despatch was
was never communicated to the people at
all. This despatch was written on the
24th of June, and published in July. This
despatch was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government upon the Union of the
Colonies, and it was our duty to respectfully consider any opinion or suggestion
emanating from so high a source, but at
the same time we must not forget that we
have a country here whose interests are
not identical with those of England. I
told Mr. Cardwell that the people of this
country felt they were better able to judge
this question than the people of England ;
we felt, with all the deference we had for
their opinion, that we ourselves were
more competent to judge in regard to this
matter, for our people had grown up with
the country, and we knew best what would
promote our welfare. There is not a
member of the Cabinet of England that
has ever been to this country, and it is
no disrespect for the people here to say
they understand their own interests beat.
Mr. Cardwell said the people of England
favored the Scheme ; we replied we had
only found two persons outside the Government that had ever read the Scheme;
and we attribute a great deal of the feeling of the people of England to
the fact
that they assume that after Confederation is carried they will be
relieved from
some of their taxes ; but Mr. Cardwell
was not prepared to admit that was the
only reason for their opinion. Intelligent men out of the Government supposed that
a Legislative
Union, pure and
simple, was contemplated, and
they expressed astonishment that men
could agree
to such a Scheme as the one proposed. Mr. Cardwell himself acknowledged
that there were many objections to the
scheme ; but said it was the best scheme
which could be got now. We said we
did not think it right to accept a thing
we did not want, because it is the best
thing that could be got ; we wanted to
be let alone. No man denied that it
originated in the necessities of Canada.
The people of this country have no
right to be made subservient to
the political necessities of Canada.
If we could get a scheme of union upon
such terms as are fair, end
equitable,
such terms as would be promotive of the
welfare land prosperity of this country.,
I would be in favor of it, but I
will not
consent to ignore the prosperity
of my
country for the sake of relieving the political necessities of Canada.
Mr. Card-
well said the scheme emanated from us.
We said no. A delegation went to
Canada, but we gave them no authority ; and the people hurled them from
power and repudiated the act. They
rejected the scheme, therefore, it could
not be
said that it emanated from them.
My hon friend has a great opinion of the
Canadian politicians ; but I can recollect
the time when I tried to defend and vindicate the honor of Canadian statesmen
when the were assailed by him, and
were charged with being guilty
of a violation of public faith. The Government
had no more right to go to Canada and
agree upon a scheme to change the Constitution than the Government of Great
Britain has to go to France and barter
away their Government. The people
decided that they had proved recreant
to their trust, and hurled them from
power. The hon. gentleman talks about
silent grumbling. I thought grumbling
was a noise and not silent. He says
silent grumbling was going on, and increasing in power, and would hurl this
Government to the ground. When he
says this House could not be
dissolved
if the Government were ousted. I do
not say it will be, but I think the Governor has a right to appeal to the
people
under the Constitution. We are prepared to go before the people of this
country and let them decide whether our
administration has not been in
accordance with their interests : and if they
decide against us we will resume our
occupations. We will not circle this
country and hold meetings in every
school-house. We are not professional
politicians,
and if I may be allowed to
give my opinion my judgment is that the
less professional politicians we have in
this country the better for its welfare.
It is put forth in the Times that not only
the Cabinet are in favor of the scheme,
but the whole united body of England ;
and thus this eroneous information is
disseminated to the people of England.
They suppose that the two Canadas are
now about to be united for the first time,
forgetting that they had formerly
been
under one Legislature. We are charged
with being a Government of traitors,
with no spirit of loyalty, that we are willing to submit ourselves to a man
who
is a notorious traitor ; these
are the sentiments put forward in the Times, and I
ask whether these sentiments receive
your approbation.
We wish to draw closer the ties which
bind us to the Mother Country, although
we are charged with being disloyal by
those who take a different view of things
to what we do. That is one of the agencies employed against us
throughout
the country ; but I trust the intelligence
of the people will resist any such delusion as that
we are disloyal and want to
weaken the ties that bind us to the
Mother Country. We are not sympathizers with the Fenians, we are ready
ready to defend our country firesides
and homes. We are assailed for
not adopting sufficient precautionary
measures for
our defence. We are prepared to lay down every available dollar for the defence of
this country, for
we expect to live and die here.
Why
should this loyalty and love of
country
be peculiar to the gentlemen who
occupy the other bunches. We are as ready
and willing to defend our country as
they are ; and I ask, why is it
that this hon. mover of the amendment—in view
of the circumstances existing
now when
we are in hourly expectation of dangerseeks to throw the country into utter
confusion by
leaving it without a Parliament at all. One of the charges made
against us was,
that the Legislature was
called together too late, and there was a
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 19
great sympathy expressed for the members of the rural
districts. I have not
heard a single gentleman complain that
the House was not called
together soon
enough. In Canada it is not
called until the 10th of April. In Prince
Edward's
Island the 9th of April ; in Nova
Scotia
ten days or a fortnigh ago. He said
he
thought one man had stopped the whole
Legislative power of the country.
I was
sent to Washington by my
colleagues.
Mr. Cudlip was invited to meet the delagates, who expected to meet at New
York, but he could not go. I went to
St. John. Mr. Wilmot was not there, and
the Government agreed that I should go to
Washington to meet the other delegates.
We did not expect to how to go
into an
eleborate discussion of the
Reciprocity
Treaty at all. We went with a view of
obtaining from the United States
an extension of the Treaty for one year.
When we got there we found a Treaty
could not be made at all, for all Treaties
made between the United States
and
other Governments requires the affirmation of the Senate, and does not require
to be sent to the House of Representatives, for if they have power to make a
commercial treaty they ignore the functions of that body. In the interchange
of commodities it was desirable
to have
some arrangement made of a permanent character. They said
whatever arrangements were made should be carried out by future legislation in all
good
faith. We. entered into
negociations
with them ; the proposition made
by us
and their answer, hove been published .
We felt we could not agree to
their
terms, in justice to our own people, and
we therefore closed our negotiations . I
shall not say anything further
upon this
point, as I may have an oportunity of
explaining exactly what took
place while
I was there. It has been said that the
interests of the people of this
Province
are not safe in calling the Legislature
together at so late a period. It is very
desirable to call the House
together
rather, later, for we know when the
House breaks up before the River
opens
it makes it difficult for some of
us to get
home. Was it ever said
by a member
of a deliberative assembly before, that
a Government should be ousted
from
power because they called the Legislature three weeks later than
usual. There
is a good substantial reason why
this
Legislature should not be called
earlier.
It was known that Canada was anxious
that our Session should be called. Why
did they not call their own ; they have
not had a Session for the last
fifteen
months, except a short Session, which
was called last Spring to authorise a
loan and impose an additional tax.
When treaty with the United States
had to be made by Legislation, was it
not sufficient to justify the
House in not
meeting at the usual period,
because,
if we had made an arrangement with the
United States Government it would require to be legislated upon by this
Legislature. It has been brought against
us that we brought forward no measure s
last Session except the Military
Bill.
Where is the Treasury Note Bill, or the
Post Office Bill ? which has been put
forward as a first step towards the removal of the seat of Government, but
which was not thought of at all, it
being merely to abolish the head of a
department. It was not expected under
the circumstances, that measures would
be brought forward last Session, when
it was the desire at the Government
and every member of the House, to
shorten the Session and get home as
soon as possible.
My hon. friend
says, we are entitled
to condemnation because we
brought in
a Bill to abolish the office of Postmaster
General, but the hon. members, fresh
from their constituents, supported it
thirty
to nine. There is a feeling
throughout the country that the office
might be abolished without detriment to
the
public service, and in connection
with this, he would state that Mr. Odell
had discharged the duties of the office
as efficiently as any gentleman
had,
since its creation. When the hon. gentleman had told the people
of York that
they were to be destroyed, did he tell
them that when Mr. Wilmot and
myself
formed the Government they had not
forgotten the interests of York? In the
formation of the Government, they had
selected one-third of the members from
that County, viz : the hon. Commissioner
Board of Works, the Attorney General,
and the Postmaster General, who, being
a member of the Upper House, filled
one of the most important
offices in the
country, and being interested in
the
prosperity of the County of York. How
dare they say to the people of this
country that this Government were not
going to give York fair play ? How
could they expect the seat of Government could be removed with one-third
of the entire Government from the
Country of York ? I believe it was the
fear of this, together with the agitation
about
Fenianism, that had an influence
in the election ; for I believe the people
of this country are as much against
the
Quebec Scheme as ever. If you get a
scheme that will provide for the interests
of the people, I will go for it
;
but it is
not in the four corners of that scheme
to do it. My hon. friend says,
the
Quebec Scheme is in the Speech. It is
there because the Governor is commanded
by the despatch to submit it to
Parliament ; but we are not bound
by
this. What does the Governor say in
his Speech last Session ? He says :—
"At the request of the Governor General of Canada, and with the approbation of the
Queen, I also
appointed
Delegates to a Conference of Representatives of the British North American
Colonies, held in Quebec in the month
of October last, with a view
of arranging
the terms of a Federal Union of British
North America. The
resolutions agreed
to by this Conference appeared to me
to be so important in their character,
and their adoption fraught with consequences so materially affecting the
future condition and well-being of British America, that, in order to
enable
the people of New Brunswick to give
expression to their wishes on
the subject, I determined to dissolve
the then
existing House of Assembly. I now
submit these Resolutions to your judgment."
Did he then tell us that because he
was going to submit those Resolutions
and recommend them—an expression
not used
in this Speech—that we are
committed to a scheme? I will relieve
that hon. gentleman's mind. I will inform this House that the Government
are not prepared to submit any scheme
to the House. These papers will be
submitted to the House, as we said in
the Speech, and we will consider them
with that respect which is due to anything emanating from so high a source,
at the same time not forgetting that it
is our duty to consent to no scheme that
does not contain within itself the
elements of security for our people. If a
scheme could be devised that would
promote the interests of our people, I,
for one, would go for it, and I think
my colleagues in the Government, every
member of the House, and every man
in the country, would go for it too.
Whether such a scheme is attainable, is a question for deliberation.
"
MR.
NEEDHAM moved that the debate be adjourned
until 2 P. M.
Home adjourned until 10 A. M.
T. P. D.
This individual participated in:
