The House then proceeded to the order
of the day:
AFTERNOON SESSION
Hon MR. BOTSFORD.—Before the
recess my hon. friend from the County
of Albert (Mr. McC.) was making some
explanation with reference to what I
considered a charge made by him
against. the Government. I charged
him with imparting to the people eroneous information in regard to the twenty-
seven acres of land which Mr. Gibson
purchased from Mr. Chipman at the rate
of $3 per acre. In his explanation he
still conveys the same eroneous impression, that this land was purchased from
the Government without competition.
It has been stated here that I maintained the doctrine that all information regarding
Crown Lands should be sought
for at the head office of the department,
l never made any such assertion. I
never said information should not be
imparted at the deputies' office. I said
that when they wanted information on
which to ground a charge against the
head of the department, it, was a fair,
open, manly way to come to the head
office for information. Â
In reference to the charge that notice
was not given in the Royal Gazette of
the rescinding of this Order of Council,
it will be borne in mind tha from 1862t
until June, 1865, all notices in the Royal
Gazette for the sale of land, under auction, was subject to a condition of ac
tual settlement, but from the time that order was rescinded in 1865, that notice requiring
actual settlement was left out.
The very moment that condition was
not annexed to the advertisements, the
land would be sold at auction to the
highest bidder. therefore this gave it.
every possible publicity. (Mr. Lindsay— The Royal Gazette says the conditions will be explained at the time of
sale, and the deputy said he had no instructions only those which he had received
some years ago, and he was led
to suppose the same regulations still
continued.) If any person will take the
Gazette and look at the advertisements
for the sale of land by auction, from last
June, he will find that there are no conditions of actual settlement attached to
those sales after the rescinding of the
Order of Council, thereby conclusively showing to every deputy—through
this Gazette, which is his rule and
guide—that no condition of actual settlement was required. Notwithstanding that notice
did take place, itdid not
increase the sales of land, neither did
the publication of the rescinding of the
Order of Council, and the comments
thereon in the St. John paers, in September. In the month of July there
were two thousand one hundred acres
sold, in August three thousand one hundred, September three thousand, October three
thousand two hundred. November two thousand seven hundred,
December three thousand. This shows
very conclusively that the sales of land
did not increase after the rescinding of
the Order of Council was published
throughout the length and breadth of
the land. The next charge was made
in reference to the non-appointment of
an Auditor General. (Mr. Botsford
then read the law regarding the office.)
We have gone according to law and the
accounts in that office have been made
up, so that they could see at a glance
the state of the finances of the country.
The hon. member for Westmorland
(Mr. Gilbert) has alluded to a vote of
want of confidence, which he says has
taken place in the other branch of the
Legislature. I do not know as it is
parliamentary to speak of the proceedings of that body, but I think that I have
a right to do so, as the subject has been
introduced. It has been represented
that that vote of want of confidence is
no more or less than that they are favorable to a union in any way whatever.
This means nothing more or less than
that they are favorable to the Quebec
Scheme. It has been stated by the hon.
mover of the amendment, that it is perfectly futile for any member of the
House of Assembly to object to this
question of representation by population, as it was a sine qua non with Upper
Canada. Therefore, the Legislative
Council, knowing they could get no
other scheme, have by their vote of
want of confidence declared themselves
in favor of the Quebec Scheme. (Mr.
Wilmot—The leader of the Government, so far as I understood him, admitted that he
would consent to representation by population, provided there
were checks in the Legislative Council.
I put the question to him and he admitted it clearly and distinctly.)
Hon. MR. SMITH—I made no such
statement. I said I never would
go for representation, pure and simple.
I would not go for it without checks and
guards could be placed upon it to neutralize
68 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
its effects. The principle, to my mind, is entirely wrong, but if that principle is
adopted the number of representatives
must be restricted.Â
HON MR. BOTSFORD. - The hon.
mover of the amendment has said that
Upper Canada would not accede to any
proposition for union unless it contained
the principle of representation by population; and , therefore without this any
union was impracticable. That is we
have to submit, because Upper Canada
chooses to put forward a proposition, a
sine qua non. New Brunswick, containing 250,000 inhabitants, must swallow the
scheme because Upper Canada says so.
It is a proposition no free man who knows
his rights will ever submit to. The members of the Legislative Council know
these facts: therefore, when they passed
the amendment to the Address, they
promulgated the idea that the Quebec
Scheme would be a benefit to the country.
In the public prints we find the division
in that body, on this question, was nine
for the amendment and four against it.
I will suppose a case. Suppose the number of members in this House was reduced
to thirteen. which was the number present when that amendment passed, and
we should rush this amendment through
when the mover and seconder were absent, what would the country say to such
deliberations? I think my hon. friend
(Mr.Fisher) would be the first man to condemn it, for I think he is far above taking
that course. Of those nine who voted
in the majority, three were delegates who
helped to concoct the scheme, and the
other six were not opposed to it. This
being the case, how can it be said that
there was a change of public opinion upon
this subject. My hon. friend (Mr. F.)
has said that when the principle of one
of those resolutions came up which provided that a certain number of gentlemen
should be selected from the Legislative
Council, that he and his colleagues did
not agree about it. The people or this
Province. were led to believe that this
resolution was the unanimous decision of
those thirty delegates. (Mr. Fisher. - I
told him more than three-fourths of the
delegates were in favor of the mode
adopted in the scheme for the constitution
of the Legislative Council. I only gave
my own opinion as being opposed to them.) My hon. friend was opposed to the principle
of forming the Federal Council by selecting members from the Legislative Councils
of the different Pro
vinces. Do you suppose that Mr. George
Brown, who was the concocter of the
scheme, would not have put the screws on
and confined us to numbers, when he
found there was a disagreement among
our delegates in one of the most important points. This I consider one of the
most objectionable features in the scheme.
Another objection made was in reference to the reinstatement of Mr. Inches
into the Crown Land Office. In 1863, a
petition to His Excellency recommending
the reinstatement of Mr. Inches into that
office was signed by Messrs. Stevens,
Glazier, Vail, Allen, Gillmor, Monroe,
Lindsay, Ferris, Beveridge, McClelan,
Stiles, Scovil, Boyd, Williston, McPhelim, Young, Landry, Dow, Costigan, DesBrisay,
Ryan, Crocker, Gray, Skinner,
Grimmer.
MR. GILBERT.—I do not object to the
reinstatement of Mr. Inches, because I
never thought he was culpable. I never
thought that either he, or the hon. mover
of the amendment were blameable for the course they took at the time.
HON. MR. BOTSFORD.—I merely
brought this forward to show that a large
majority of the members of the House of
Assembly, in 1863, were in favor of reinstating Mr. Inches. In 1865 a similar
petition was got up and signed by twenty- five of the members of the present Assembly.
(Mr. Wetmore—We signed it
because we thought the Surveyor General
did not understand the business of the
office, and it was very important that
some one should be there that did.) My
hon. friend likes a passage at arms; he
does not give the true reason, but says it
was for my especial benefit. We have
then a majority of the House of Assembly, just from the people, signing a petition
for the reinstatement of Mr. Inches,
therefore that could be no charge against
the Government. Another charge made
against the Government by the hon.
mover of the amendment, was in regard
to my temporary absence on a visit to
my family. (
Mr. Fisher—I did not refer
to him in particular. I referred to the
fact that the members of the Government
were floating over the country, the Attorney General being absent for four or
gve months, to which I attributed the difficulties in which the Government were
involved.) I think the inference is drawn
that my duties are not attended to. Why does he not make a charge in a fair way,
so it can be understood, and not deal in
inuendoes? Why does he allude in
general terms to the duties of my office
being neglected because I occasionally
visit my family? The first question put
to me when I was offered the office was,
would I remove my permanent residence
to Fredericton? I replied that I would
accept of no political office upon those
terms. I said I would accept of no office
if I could not attend to its duties and
have time to visit my family. this question of residing in Fredericton involves
an importannt principle to every gentle
man on the floors of this House. If accepting a political office outside the
County of York involves a permanent
residence in Fredericton, it is a virtual
denial of any political office to any person
living beyond the County of Sunbury, and
is an injustice to other parts of the Province. I ask the hon. mover of the
amendment to point out what has been
neglected in my office during my temporary absence. While other gentlemen
enter their offices at ten o'clock in the
morning, and retire at three, having an
hour's intermission at noon. I am not
confined to hours. I am there from half-
past eight in the morning until six at
night.
The hon. mover of the amendment
charges the members of this Government
with being vascillaiing in their conduct - with being low and mean, more pigmies.
This comes with a bad grace from one who
boasts of being of such political gigantic
stature. We know what he thinks of
himself by his card, which he issued to
the electors of York . He says, "I have
left the impress of my mind upon the instituions of this country. " This was not
spoken during the heat of debate. but
was written when he had time for calm
reflection. Hee calls us low and mean because we signed a Minute of Council,
which he said was insulting to the Queen's
minister. When a question was propounded to us, we gave our views in a
calm, loyal and dignified manner, as British subjects in New Brunswick. We had
considered whether this scheme of union
was beneficial or not, and these were our
views, and they were the views of a large majority of the people of this country,
who endorse every word of that dispatch.
We did not wish to adopt a scheme of
union which would subvert the Constitution, and bring upon us "lamentation
and woe." He (Mr. F.) will leave the
impress of his mind upon the institutions
of this country; and he might have added his actions in this country will stare him
in the face. He was tried before a committee of this House and condemned.
(
Mr. Fisher.—I was not.) He was thrust
out as unworthy to serve the Government
by the force of public opinion, and now he
calls us low and mean, (
Mr. Fisher,—I
did not.) and said we had no capacity.
After being thrust out of the Government,
he was like the spaniel who, after being
castigated by his master, would turn
round and lick his hand. He was obsequious to the concocters of the Quebec
Scheme; he agreed to all but one principle.
There is another charge made against
the Government, which I shall touch very
briefly upon. We are charged with making our promotions on the Bench on
political grounds. I deny it. We say
that Chief Justice Ritchie is a man competent and able to fill that situation. As
a jurist, Judge and Barrister, he is
pre-eminently qualified for that situation.
Hon. gentlemen may assert that the
promotion was an insult to Judge Wilmot, but that does not detract from his
talents or position; it. is a charge based
upon a baseless foundation. If Judge
Ritchie was incompetent to fill the office,
then the Government would allow the
charge was valid . Who made it a polital matter? My hon. friend, the
mover of the Amendment, has made it
so, because he justifies Judge Wilmot
for exerting his influence in addressing
Juries from the Bench on the question
of Confederation. Then again, after
Confederation had been dead and buried,
after all had become calm, and party
spirit had died away, there occurred a
vacancy in the County of York, and
everybody knew that my hon. friend entered the contest to fill that vacancy, with
the avowed denial that Confederation had
anything to do with it. It was a purely
party question between Mr. Fisher and
the Government. He put it upon the
grounds of hostility to the present Government, and hostility to Tim Anglin,
he would not even say Mr. Anglin. It
was merely a party question whether
Mr. Pickard should be returned or not.
When Judge Wilmot descended and entered the political contest without any
excitement concerning Confederation,
for Mr. Fisher himself ignored the
ground that Confederation had anything
to do with the election; he prostituted
the Bench and made it a political arena.
He openly went to the polls and gave
his vote, saying at the same time:
"there is a vote for Charles Fisher."
If that is not dragging the ermine into
politics I do not know what it is. We
were discussing in the House, not long
since a question whether a Judge had a
right to sit in judgment on a case where
he is interested to the extent of one-
seventh part of a cent: but here you have
a Judge descending from the Bench and
identifying himself with party politics,
by voting for Mr. Fisher, against the
Government. (
Mr. Wetmore.—Where
did you get your information?) He
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 69
said, "here is a vote for Charles
Fisher." (
Mr. Wetmore - How do you know?) I hard so. I am prepared to show that Judge Ritchie never voted
nor took any part in a political contest, and when Confederation came up he had nothing
to do with it. there is no instance on record where a judge ever mixed himself up
with party political questions. Suppose a row took place between the party he was
voting for and the other side and a murder was committed, and he was called upon to
try those parties, could he divest himself of political feeling, and bring his mind
into that calm state, that he could give a dispassionate judgement.
The ex-Surveyor General chooses to
style us traitors. I shall not reply to him in the same way, for I know he gets excited,
and we must make allowances for
him. He called the Attorney General
a mongrel, and he thought he would
soon get to the pure breed. (
Mr.
McMillan - I called him a cross between
a Confederate and an anti-Confederate,
and I was perfectly justified in saying so,
for he has declared in that Minute of
Council that he was against all union, and then by the Speech from the Throne he had
foreshadowed a scheme of union.) My hon. friend accuses us of being a cross between
a Confederate and an anti, because we have respectfully, by the command of His Excellency,
put into the Speech that he has received certain commands with reference to a Union
of the colonies, and we answer to that and say, that when that correspondence is laid
before us it will recieve due consideration from this House. He condemns us because
we only respectfully allude to it, and my hon. colleague (Mr. Gilbert) takes the
other extreme, and condemns us because we put it in at all. these are two antagonistic
principles, and it is an unerring law of nature, that different species of vegetables
or animals produce hybrids, therefore, when he calls us a cross breed, I will call
my hon. friend from Westmorland, and the ex-Surveyor General, hybrid politicians,
and I think their constituency would be benefited by destroying this hybrid breed.
I will now thank this House for the attention which they have paid me while addressing
them. I do not appeal to their sympathy, but I say that, in my opinion, the charges
made against the department over which I have supervision are perfectly groundless;
other charges brought against the Leader of the Government have been already explained.
I ask the House to give the charges a calm investiation, and not pre-judge us, for
I feel satisfied, whatever the decision my be, they cannot put their hand on one title
of evidence to justify any of the charges made against this Government, for I am satisfied
that they have discharged their duty, and I am satisfied the vote of this Assembly
will acquit them of any such charges made on so baseless a foundation.
MR. CONNELL. - I will make a few
observations in reference to the subject of debate, which has arisen out of the following
resolution:
"And your Excellency may rely with
confidence upon our cordial co-operation and support in the adoption of such measures
as may be deemed necessary for the protection of the country; but we respectfully
state to your Excellency that
your constitutional advisers, by their
general conduct, are not entitled to our confidence."
I am one of those who believe that the
course pursued by the Government has not given satisfaction to the country, and I
will give my reasons for this belief. During the last sitting of the Legislature,
a resolution was brough into the House and supported by the Government, that a delegation
should go to England. Where was the necessity for that delegation and what good has
resulted from it? That delegation was sent avowedly by the authority of this House,
for the purpose of conveying to the British Government an idea of the state of things
that existed in this Province, and I ask the Attorney General if he believed it necessary
to go to England to convey this information to them? Did he think they had the constitutional
right to interfere in our local matters? They had previously sent a despatch giving
the result of the elections in this Province, to show that the people had rejected
the Quebec Scheme, as they had only returned nine Confederates in the whole Province,
although there were four who had not declared themselves for or against the Scheme.
It is about time they should write another despatch, for we are all for union now.
His Excellency's speech is for union and some of the hon. members are for union one
way and some another. The Attorney General will go for union, provided there are some
checks made to counter-balance representation by population. Was it necessary or desirable
to put the Province to the great expense of that delegation? It is true the Government
may shelter themselves by saying this delegation was authorized to go to England by
a resolution of the House which says:
"Whereas, in the exercise of the right
of internal self-government enjoyed by this Province, its people are entitled to deliberate
and decide upon all questions affecting their own local interests in such manner
as to them may seem best calculated to promote their prosperity and welfare;
"Therefore Resolved, As the opinion of
this House, that a delegation should at once proceed to England for the purpose of
making known to the Imperial Government the views and feelings of this House, and
the people of this Province on this important subject."
I was opposed to this resolution, and I
was in the minority; but small as that minority was at that time, it is now the feeling
of a vast majority of the people of this Province. The course pursued by the Government
in initiating that delegation cost a large sum of money; while it was unnecessary,
uncalled for, and, in its results, was of no benefit to the Province. This delegation
preformed things which the resolution did not authorize them t do. What authority
did they have to enter into any arrangements, or contracts, for building this line
of railway between Moncton and Amherst? They had no authority whatever except what
was given them under the Facility Act, which gives the Government no authority to
make any contracts. They may have had some secret arrangements which were never made
public, but they were not authorized by this House or by law to make any contracts
whatever. The delegates who went from Nova Scotia were authorized
by their colleagues - as appears from
minutes of Council to make arrangements concerning the fisheries, reciprocity and
railways, but our delegates had no
authority to enter into a contract with
parties in England to build the railway from Moncton to Amherst. The only thing I
can see in the law in reference to the matter is this The facility act in reference
to this Railway is restrained, unless Nova Scotia makes a contract for their portion
of the line. Then it is allowed to operate, but it gives no authority to the Government
to enter into contracts for building it. I should like to know why if is that this
line of railway connecting with the Nova Scotia line should have more of the immediate
attention of the Government than any of the other lines contemplated under the Subsidy
Act. It seems arragenments are made, contracts entered into, and the surveys paid
for this railroad. By what authority has the Government entered into a contract to
pay them all the cost of a right of way, where it exceeds $200 a mile which will be
a considerable sum as the road runs through valuable mash land? why do they give them
this preference, while is is very difficult for parties engaged in other railways,
to even get their road acknowledged? (
Mr. Anglin, - In what case?) In Woodstock the road has not been acknowledge, nor the survey
paid, although the work is going on.
MR. GILBERT. - The survey has been
paid. My hon. friend undertook to make another survey, which has not been paid.
Hon. MR. SMITH. - The impression
you wish to convey is that we are not doing what ought to be done, in regard to the
Woodstock Railway. Mr. Hartley and Mr. Hay came down here to talk the matter over.
I told them the Government would give them every asistance, for we felt disposed to
encourage them in every way.
MR. CONNELL. - It is very important
that these matters should be entered into at once. They have not yet been acknowledged
even up to the present time.
it is true, the Attorney General promised to have the matter closed in ten days after
Mr. Hartley and Mr Hay were here. but the reason now given is that the contract had
some slight informality about it. If that is the case, why not inform the company
of the fact, that they may remedy the evil and the road be acknowledged by the Government?
All I want is fair play. They have not extended the same justice to the Woodstock
Railway as they have to the other for they have paid for the survey of that, and,
in addition to this, they have paid for a second survey which has been made on the
Dorcaester line, to suit the convenience of somebody. That being sthe case, why do
they not pay for the survey of the road at Woodstock? But I suppose while the present
Government remain in power, we need not expect any justice of that kind. The Woodstock
company have furnished their bonds and have done all the law requires, while no such
requirements have been made of the St. Stephen branch, Western Extension, or the
Dorcaester line, and no paper exist in the office showing that fact. If there is any
fair play in this, I do not understand it.
There has been a great deal said in reference to the Government offices not being
filled up, and in consequence many evils have arisen throughout the Prov
70 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
vince. Take, for instance, the office of Solicitor General. The expense incurred in
sending law officers to the Circuits, although convenient for the Government to aid
their friends, has been charged upon the public revenue, although the hon. mover of
the amendment discharges the duties of the Carleton Circuit, yet there are other cases
where the presence of a law officer was required. One of which was connected with
a matter of sufficient importance to lead to a correspondence between the British
Minister at Washington and the Government of this Province. The origin of the matter
was trivial, but the results were important, for it has led to a great deal of bad
feeling along the border of the Province, besides inflicting a great injustice upon
one individual, who, by means of it, has lost part of his form. One of the principal
law officers on this occasion, who seemed to lead the whole matter, was the aid-de-camp
of the Lieutenant Governor. The Governor rules, and his advisers obey, and this is
a sample of it. The result of this matter was in consequence of neglect on the part
of the Provincial Secretary. In consequence of informality in the first proceedings
taken by the Provincial Secretary, and subsequently, the prosecution was abandoned.
This was an important matter. Connected, as it is, with a foreign country, it ougt
not to have been left in the way and manner it was. This shows the want of proper
law officers of the Crown, and a sufficient reason why a Solicitor General should
have been appointed. It would save the Government from disgrace, and revent the loss
of the public revenue. I am glad that the whole matter is closed, and I hope that
in future the like will not occur again.
The elections for York and Westmorland have been brought before the House, but they
have nothing to do with the subject of debate, for the question is, whether the members
of the Government have discharged their duty. I will read a note which I received
from a farmer in the Country of Carleton :
CARLETON COUNTY, March 9th, 1866.
Mr. C. CONNEL :
Dear Sir, - I hope you will send me the sayings and doings of the House of Assembly,
this Session. I hope you will have a good time while there, and that if possible,
you will turn out the present Government, and put one in that will save New Brunswick.
You have been a good worker in breaking up the old nest, and I hope you will now put
your shoulder to the wheel and help turn them out, for we are in jeopardy.
I believe that is the opinion of a very large majority of the inhabitants of this
Province, and I know it is of the people of Carleton whom I represent. The hon. member
for Kent (Mr. Caie) told us, the other day, that the people in Kent were all dissatisfied
with the Government. I can tell the Attorney General that there is one universal feeling
of dissatisfaction against the Government throughout the Province. Since the commencement
of this debate the eyes of the people of this Province have been opened to see the
vacillating eon- duct of the Government They were elected to oppose Confederation,
and
they have come down here to propound to this House and country that they are in favor
of Union. This shows their inconsistency, and their friends and supporters in this
House, as well as the people, can have no confidence in them. It is the custom for
all Governments in other colonies to propound some policy at the opening of the Session,
in order that the House and people may understand their position, but there was nothing
of that kind done here last Session. They said there was no time, in consequence of
the House being called together late in the season, and a delegation had to be appointed
to go to England : but I exxpexted at the meeting of this House the policy of the
Government would have been enunciated, and the result of their mission to England
made known in this debate, neither of which have we been favored with. It is my opinion,
that if we cannot get a better scheme we should take the Quebec Scheme. I am not pledged
for or against my scheme. If a better can be got I shall be pleased to have it for
we want a union and must have it. We have heard something about being reduced to our
original elements by a dissolution of the House, but these ythings I think will have
no influence. The Attorney General said he would go for a scheme of union containing
the principle of representation by population, provided there were checks to counter
balance it. If the Government have abandoned the principes upon which they were elected
they are deceiving their friends and supporters in this House, and throughout the
country, by not bringing before the House their policy on this great question, in
comparison with which all other questions should sink into insignificance.
The Surveyor General gives his attention to his office, and when any matter is brought
under his notice, so-far as I am aware, he gives proper attention to it ; but as to
the evils existing in the office, it appears he has not the conception of mind to
eradicate and reform them. The office requires an over-hauling and re-organizing,
for its entire arrangements are a disgrace to the country, but the capacity of the
present Surveyor General seems unequal to his position. It is not my intention to
go into the question in reference to the sale of lands to Mr. Gibson, for he has got
those lands, and is entitled to them by law, if their was a fair competition in their
purchase, but if I had been in the Government I would not have done as they did. I
would not have come down and found fault with the Tilley Government. I would have
come down in a manly, straight-forward way, and said, we found the survey was made
and we sold the land (Mr. Smith - It was a charge made against us.) We said the House
and country understood that the late Government ordered the survey. There has been
a great deal of talk in regard to giving up those lands. I think the Government are
chargeable in not standing by their friends (Mr. Smith - it is pretty hard to tell
who they are.) Mr. Gibson is one of them at all events, and the Government should
have required Mr. Gibson to give up his three years license or withheld the sale,
and they had the power to do so ; as it was, it was not a fair competition. The Crown
Land Office requires over-haul
ing. I have received a great many
communications, particularly during the last year, requesting me to communicate with
the office, for the interest of the back settlers through the country, in order to
bring under the notice of the Surveyor General the grievances that exist. If the Surveyor
General had investigated the matter, all these communications might have been saved,
and the people have been satisfied. I will mention a case that has occurred in the
settlements of Knowlsville, Johnswille and Glasgow, in the County of Carleton. A vast
number of people place in my hand the certificate from the commissioner, that the
work and settlement had been done, and all the requirements of the law complied with.
I brought the the case of some twenty of these under the notice of the Government,
and the reply to my application was, that in most of the cases $3 still remained due,
and required to be paid. I communicated with the commissioner to know the authority
under which he acted, and received the following reply :
"In answer to yours of the 4th of
January, 1866, I beg to state that all the parties in the list have done work to the
amount of $57, and paid $3 commission. I have the authority of the Deputy for so doing."
In answer to an enquiry made of
Mr. Gowan, dated July, 1864, he made the following statement : "The commission is
included in the $60, viz. $57 in work and $3 in cash ;" and I have forwarded the said
letter to him, the only satisfaction I could get from the department was, a reference
to the rules and regulations of the office. With reference to the rules of 1861,
establishing the mode of settlement and terms of payment applicable to settlers under
the Labor Act, here in the face of these regulations we have the authority of the
department to violate them. It is true since this debate has commenced, the Surveyor
General has informed me, that all cases up to November, 1865, occurring where $57
have been paid and $3 commission, the grants will issue. There is a direct violation
of their own rules and regulations, which shows to the country the outrageous manner
in which the proceedings of that office is conducted, and the incompetency of its
head. In a blustering way he endeavored to fix some charge upon me with reference
to my knowledge of the annulment of the order, that no lands should be sold unless
for actual settlement. I can state that, for this hour, no communication of the annulment
of that order has been made to the deputies throughout this Province, and the only
information they have is through the public Press, which showed its disapprobation
of the conduct of the head of the department. But the Surveyor General, in excuse,
exhibits to this House a petition signed by myself and some others, in October last,
in order to show that I knew of the annulment of the order, and that I should have
made it known, particularly to Mr. Harley, who was the deputy. To my certain knowledge
Mr. Hartley stated to me, after the exposure in the public Press in December, that
it was the first intimation that he had of the repeal of the order. I happened to
go into the Crown Land Office previous to my making the application and it was intimated
to me, by Mr.
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 71
Inches, that the order had been repealed, the grants would issue
to all previous sales under the order.
This was the way the business of the office was managed. They sold land under
certain conditions. and then violated
them. Why did they not extend some
of these privileges to the Hartley sales?
They forgot who were required to perform the conditions of the law to the letter,
and received no grants. The inattention of the Commissioner, or the want
of knowledge in reference to the matter,
has caused persons a great inconvenience.
I know it from the many calls I have to
attend to in these matters and my communications to the Crown Land Office
will show a further evidence in regard to
it. I will mention a case where a grant
was issued to a man who actually does
not own the land and, four or five others
have been kept out of their grants where
the labor had been performed, within my
personal knowledge, for the last three or
four years. This matter was brought
under the notice of the Surveyor General
during the last Session. I had to take
the matter in hand myself, and get a survey, and have now the returns in my
hand for the purpose of being handed in
to the Crown Land Office, which being
done I am informed the grants will be
issued. If this is the way one of the
most important departments, affecting
every settler throughout the Province, is
to be managed—it the head of the department is incompetent - it is a charge
against the Government, and I hope by a
vote of this House a change will take
place, and a thorough reformation be established that office.
The Surveyor General attacked me in a
rather defiant manner, in reference to a
case —, that I did not inform somebody that I knew this Order of Council
was rescinded. (
Mr. Botsford—I did not,
I made no charge against him. It was in
reply to a charge made against me in reference to a petition, he said it was not
known, and I said he knew it.) I made
no charge. I said there appeared to be
some mis-apprehension in reference to
something in connection with Mr. Hartley. (
Mr. Botsford - I made no charge
against Mr. Hartley. I asked his hon.
colleague (Mr. Lindsay) who the deputy
was that stated the land could not be
sold, and he replied, Mr. Hartley. I was
replying when he (
Mr. Connell rose up
and stated it was not known. I replied
that he knew of it, and others knew of it.) I stood up for the purpose of removing
an erroneous impression so far as Mr.
Hartley was concerned. Mr. Hartley knew
nothing in reference to this order being
rescinded until it was remarked upon by
the papers in St. John He said he had
seen in the
Telegraph, that there was a
great difficulty about the Government
selling land, and that the order of Council had been rescinded. I replied I had
known that some time ago. He said
that this was the first he had heard of it.
The Surveyor General knows that was
Mr. Hartley's position, and that was the
reason I made these observationsÂ
The debate was then adjourned until
to-morrow.
T. P. D.
This individual participated in:
