On motion of MR. OTTY, the House went into committe on
The Bill was agreed to, and the additional section lost.
The House in Committee agreed to a
Bill, introduced by Mr. Willlston, entitled "A Bill relating to the Newcastle Gas
Company."
ADJOURNED DEBATE ON MR. FISHER'S AMENDMENT.
MR. SUTTON said that as every member of the House was expected to speak
on this question, he would have to say a
few words. He felt rather abashed in
rising to address them, after the eloquent
speech which they had listened to for
three days. In regard to the debate being delayed, he did not blame either the
Government or the Opposition. He would
not delay it by making a long speech.
When he come forward as a candidate
for a seat in this House, he (Mr. S.) and
two of his colleagues declared themselves
in favor of Confederation. The County
which he represented had never changed
their opinion on this question, and he represented their interest in that great
Scheme. To go into an argument to
show how we would be benefitted by it,
would take up too much time. This
great question had been made a party
question, and no person could get office
under the Government unless he was opposed to the policy of union. He would
offer no factious opposition to any measure which would be a benefit to the
country. He did not believe that the
North Shore had a sufficient number of
members in the Government, for at the
present there was not a single individual to represent them, as the Hon. Mr.
Hutchison was absent.
MR. PERKINS did not think it necessary to make a long speech. He was
fully prepared to support the Government
in the stand they had taken against Confederation, believing, as he did, that the
Quebec scheme would be ruinous to the
best interests and liberties of the people
of this Province. The present Government have conducted the general business of the
country in a satisfactory manner, under great disadvantage, for they
had a great pressure brought against
them; especially by a few disappointed
politicians. He would vote against the
amendment.
MR. LANDRY said it would appear
that he had been sent into the market
when he came into the Legislature, and
he would like to know whether he was
going to be sold by wholesale or retail.
He thought he was worth more than they
were disposed to give him; if he could
not get more, he would not sell himself.
He would not say whether this Government had done right or wrong, as he did
not consider that this was the question.
The real question before the House was
Confederation, and he was sent here to
sustain the Government on that question. If he went back to his constituents,
and they were in favor of Confederation,
he would go for it, but he did not think
they had changed their mind on the
question. He had often been asked why
he was not anxious to unite with the
French people of Canada. He would
like to unite with the French, but there
were people there worse than the French,
with whom he did not wish to have my
thing to do. Though he would vote with
the Government on this question, as it involved Confederation, they need not expect
him to vote with them on my other
question. As an example of the speeches
that would be delivered in Confederate
Parliament, he finished his speech in
French.
By the amendment to the reply to the
speech, which to now under discussion in
this Assembly, we are called upon to
pass sentence upon the acts of this
Government during the past year. They
are arrainged by this amendmant as being
unworthy of the confidence of this House
and of the people of this Province.
This Assembly is the jury before whom
this cause is to be tried in the first instance, and from our decision lies, sooner
or later, the appeal to the Supreme
Court of the people.
It is for us to examine the counts of
this indictment and decide upon them.
For the motives of our decision, we are
responsible to our own consciences. For
the wisdom. of that decision, we are responsible to our constituents. I have heard
something said to and fro in this debate
about men being held personally responsible for what they said.
Beyond that which I have before mentioned, I acknowledge responsibility to
no men or set of men. I propose to take
up the different charges against the Gov
ernment so far as I can remember them,
and examine whether, singly or collectively, they furnish sufficient grounds for
their condemnation.
In the first piece they did not call the
House together soon enough. I did not
understand the hon. mover of the amendment to say that this was a cause of loss
to the country at large, but rather a
source of inconvenience to the members
of the House, by keeping these from the
rural districts from their farming labors.
Now if the hon. mover and his supporters will unite in expediting the business
of the session, and abstain from all factious opposition, I think this inconvenience
may be in a great degree remedied.
Besides, I think that this charge comes
with ill-grace from the hon. member, acting in concert with the members of the
late Government, who dissolved the late
House, brought on an election in this
very month, and forced the Legislature
to be called together nt is much later season than the present session was called.
The intermission has been two months
shorter than is ordinarily the case.
In Nova Scotia, which is much more
exclusively a farming country, the session
has but commenced; and in Canada,
where they do rather more farming than
in New Brunswick, the session will be still
a month later.
But I presume that the hon. mover seen
this matter in a very different light, when
applied to his friends the Hon. Messrs.
Galt and Tupper, from its application to
the Hon. Mr. Smith.
But they have not filled up the offices
of Solicitor General and Auditor General. I am perfectly willing that they shall
leave the offices of Solicitor General unfilled for ever. I do not think the country
will suffer any less in money or otherwise by this course, and I have always
been of the opinion that in this small
Province, with a Legislature of but forty-
one members, we have entirely too many
departmental officers on the floor of this
House.
But the hon. members say the office of
Auditor General is a part of our Constitution. It does not seem to be a very
important part. According to the account of the hon. member, we are indebted for its
introduction into our Constitution to a despatch of Lord Glenelg in
1837. Nevertheless, the suggestions of
that despatch were not carried off until
the appointment of Mr. Partelow in
1854.
Where was the great constitutional
leader of the Opposition during all these
seventeen years. When the office was
filled, was it not notorious that it was
done almost solely for the purpose of
making provision for the gentleman who
received the appointment.
During the last four years, when through
blindness and other afflictions, that gentlemen was incapacitated from attending
to its duties, where was our great constitutionalist? Should sympathy stand in
the way of great constitutional principles
and the pecuniary safety of the Province,
which the hon. mover says are all involved in the appointment of a suitable
man to fill this office.
I believe that the great constitutional
part of this subject is great political
humbug and clap-trap. I think that the
auditing of the accounts can be as well
and as safely done by the gentleman
now occupying the Audit Office, or in
connection with the Secretary's Office,
as by the appointment of an Auditor
General. At all events, I am willing to
leave the decision of this matter to the
gentlemen composing the Government
of the country, satisfied that if the interests of the country require the office
to
be filled up, it will not be left vacant.
With regard to the land sales, that
point haa been made a political canvass of
outside of the walls of this House, but
has been dwelt upon much more lightly
here. The standing tirades of the newspapers would scarcely bear transplanting
to this Assembly.
For my own part, I am satisfied the
Province could well afford to make Mr.
Gibson a present of that land, rather
than not have his great business carried
on—a business which is supplying from
that single stream one-sixth of the lumber shipped from the River St. John—
a business which has caused a permanent
investment of $100,000, and which has
given employment to nearly a thousand
men and five hundred horses during the
past winter. I may here narrate an incident, showing how the investment of capital
is encouraged in the State of Maine.
A company wished to build a factory It a
small village called Lisbon, in the State
of Maine. They applied to the Legislature for exemption from taxes for a term
of ten or twenty years. The Legislature
passed the Bill, and where a year ago an
alder swamp stoof by the side of a brook,
now stands a factory and boarding houses
built at an expense of $100,000, giving
employment to 200 operatives, and turning out $600,000 worth of manufactured
goods. Was it not better for Maine by
granting this privilege, to secure so much
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 91
employment for her people and additional
wealth to the State ? My own opinion is
that it would be for the interest of New
Brunswick to sell her timber lands to all
who may wish to purchase them: and I
am ready, at any future time, to go into
this matter at length, but it has not a direct bearing upon the present subject of
debate sufficient to require me to dwell
upon it now. Â
The lapse of the export duty was undoubtedly an omission, and one for which
the Government must he held responsible.
It was the duty of the late Attorney General, Mr. Allen, to examine the laws to
see what renewals may be necessary, and
although we know that he was a most
careful and painstaking man, by some
oversight this escaped him. For this we
can scarcely blame the Hon. Mr. Smith
or the Hon. Mr. Gillmor very severely,
nor yet any member of the present Government and I do not feel that it affords
sufficient grounds to justify a vote of
Want of Confidence. I was a little surprised at one statement made by the hon.
member from York (Mr. Fisher), that if
the British troops were sent to guard the
frontier, they would all desert.
It appears to me that it ill becomes
that ultra loyal member to make so
sweeping a charge against the soldiers of
his country.
I am aware that this expression does
not amount to much, but if it had been
made by a supporter of the Government
how it would have been heralded through
the newspapers as an evidence of our disloyalty and sympathy with treason and
Fenianism.
Again, the charge is made that the
Government introduced politics into the
Bench. Not until the Bench had introduced politics into the Court Room, the
public resort and the polling booth.
Could Judge Wilmot expect preferment
from the hands of a Government whom be
continually denounced? From the leaders of a party whose principles he professed to
despise and abhor? I do not
pretend to set in judgment upon his
course of action—I do not pretend to decide upon his legal or moral right to set
as an advocate of this scheme—as an opponent of this Government. But, I presume, that
when he took his course he
was willing to take also its responsibility.
That he expected no preferment from this
Government, and when he received none,
I presume he made no complaint. And
it appears to me that it is most undignified in the political friends of that gentleman
to now come whining an complaining over the natural consequences of
his own course of action.
The hon. member from York (Mr.
Fisher) said that be was not ashamed of
the way in which he got here. I presume
that he thinks he obtained his seat for the
County of York by straightforward and
honorable means. If, on the platform and
through the press a most unscrupulous
misrepresentation of your opponents—if
taking advantage of the Fenian cry to
excite religious dissention and strife—if
appeals to every sentiment of religious
bigotry and prejudice—if the free use of
money to corrupt the electors of the
County—if all these are honorable means
then his claim is a just one.
 It is said that confederation has nothing to do with the subject of this debate;
that there is no confederation in this
amendment. Yes, Mr. Speaker, but there
is much confederation under it.Â
This motion—this attack upon the
Government is but a part and a continua-Â Â
ion of the plan of action for upsetting
this Government and carrying the Quebec
Scheme, which has been is operation
since the close of last session. And none
know this better than the hon. members,
who, elected as anti-Confederates, are now
playing into the hands of the Opposition.
False to their principles, recreant to their professions,  Â
professions, they now seek to stab the very party upon whose shoulders they
were borne into power as members of this
Legislature. Â Â
The hon. member from York said that
this Government were as low in public
estimation as it was possible for men to
become. If this is not true, as I hold it is
not; it is not owing to any want of effort
on the part of the party-to which that gentleman belongs. And what means have
they used ? Means the most unfair and
dishonorable. But here I wish to make
exception of many members of the Confederate party. Both on the floor of this
House and throughout the country, there
are many who are honorable men, and
who would seek ro carry their views by
fair and honorable means alone. Such
men we honor and respect though we
differ from them. If they can carry confederation on the Quebec Scheme, or any
other, in this Province by fair arguments,
we shall have no right to complain. The
minority must submit to the majority.
Reference has been made to the lectures
of the Hon. Mr. Tilley throughout the
country. I can only say that I heard him
in my own place, and that his address
there was in perfect good taste. He
confined himself entirely to the subject
of Confederation, and made no allusion
whatever to the Government or
any of its members. I conceive Mr. Tilley has a perfect right to present his
views to the country in this manner ; and
were these the means adopted by the advocates of the Confederation—fair argumentÂ
on the platform and through the press—
it would be for us to meet them in like
manner, and, if beaten before the people,
to submit like men to the inevitable. But
such have not been the only means. This
Government has not been the best but
the worst abused Government that this
Province has ever seen.Through the
columns of a most unscrupulous press, the people have been told that they were traitors
to their country, insulters of their Queen; that they were dishonorable, incapable
and ignorant. The whole vocabulary of Bil ingagate has been heaped upon their heads.
Articles most unfair, most disgraceful, most indecent, have been scattered broadcast
through the country. I have said this attack upon the Government is but one part of
the campaign. The course of the newspapers, the agencies employed to carry the York
election, the lectures of Mr. Tilley, this want of confidence motion, are but continuous
parts of the plan to upset this Government and carry the Quebec Scheme. If the present
motion should succeed, what would be the result ? Either the control of the Government
will pass into the hands of the Opposition, and this scheme of Confederation rejected
by the people, would be by some policy forced upon us, or a dissolution of this House
would be brought to pass, and the scheme, unchanged, would again be urged upon the
people. What the result of this would be we know not ; what means would be used, what
agencies employed, we can judge from the past. The attention of the people would be
di
verted from the main point by all kinds of side issues. Every set of this Government,
of omission or of the commission, would be magnified, distorted, misrepresented ;
every engine of falsification and abuse would be employed. Again the religious cry
would be raised; every sentiment of bigotry and intolerance would be appealed to.
Where these means would not suffice, bribery would seek to buy up the people like
sheep. More people have been cheated out of their liberties than ever lost them by
violence. And supposing Confederation carried by such means, what would be the result?
A large minority left with the most bitter feelings of indignation and wrong. A great
body of the people, who, when the excitement of passion had passed away, would feel
that they have been misled and deceived. Many of the now warmest advocates of Confederation,
who would think that they were cheated, either by the promised Railway not being built,
or by its being built elsewhere than where they expected. What would there be among
all these but the seeds of future agitation and political strife ?
I appeal to the honorable men in the
Confederate party both here and throughout the country, if they are willing to have
this scheme pressed upon the people by such means as have been hitherto adopted ?
Will they say that the end justifies the means ? I quote from one of the first, writers
of England :
"Let no man turn aside ever so slightly from the broad paths of honor on the plausible
pretence that he is justified by the goodness of his end. All good ends can be worked
out by good means. Those that cannot are bad, and may be counted so at once and left
alone."
It is said that we should accept confederation because it is the wish of the British
Government. Now, while we would pay every deference to the opinion of the British
Government, we may justly claim for ourselves, as a free people, living under free
institutions, the right to decide for ourselves upon a question affecting our own
interests and interests of our Province for all time to come. This country belongs
to its own people— it is they who have cleared its farms and built its villagers and
towns— and it is they and their children who are to be affected for weal or woe by
any great political change. We are told that we should not resist confederation, because
three-fourths of British America are in favor of it. As well may France say to Belgium
, we are lying side by side, and our interests requires your annexation, you may be
opposed to it, but all France is in favor of it, and we have more than three- fourths
of the united population. As well may the United States say to the British Colonies
, we have thirty millions of people unanimously desire you annexation, though you
are all against it, nine-tengths of all North America are in favor of it, and you
must come in. I have not considered the question of confederation, or the merits or
demerits of the Quebec Scheme as directly involved in the present question. And I
have only touched upon the means adopted to bring it about, inasmuch as the present
attack upon the Government is one of those means.
The weakness of the points of attack and charges against the Government is
92 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
shown by the speech of the hon. member
from Albert (Mr. McClellan). For that
gentleman, with his clear head and great
ability, has utterly failed to show any
substantial grounds of complaint against
them.
He has taken up the time of the House
by talking about mere rumors—by reading handbills of the York election of six
months ago—by talking about the removal of officials on account of their political
opinions, a charge which he knows in
his heart to be utterly unfounded—by
reading trash from a newspaper about a
Dorchester Scheme, which he knows to
have never had an existence except in
Ihe brain of some of his fellow Confederates : and finally coming to the land matter,
he makes the 15,000 acres dwindle
down to a paltry twenty-seven acres, and
then acknowledges that there is no point
in that.
It is charged that the members of the
Government have been actuated by a desire to obtain and retain their offices. I
well remember how unwilling the Secretary was to accept his present office. I
know that nothing but his strong desire
to strengthen the hands of that party, in
whose success he believed the best interests of the country involved, could have
induced him to leave a business of far
more value to him than any Government
office—to sacrifice his own private interest and become a target for misrepresentation,
ridicule and abuse.
And what politician of this country can
point to so proud a record as the Hon.
Attorney General. Twice he has refused
the highest offices in the land. The offices of Judge and of Chief Justice. Offices
which every man of his profession looks
forward to as the highest objects of their
ambition. And he has refused them because he would not sacrifice the best interests
of his country to his own private
advancement. And no man in this Province to-day stands so high in the esteem
and affections of the people as does the
Hon. Albert J. Smith.
This debate has been prolonged until
it has become wearisome, and the life is
out of it, and I will not take up the time
of the House longer.
But from what I have said it may easily
be inferred that I shall vote against the
amendment.
Mr. WETMORE.—I was elected an
anti-Confederate, and I am free to state
that I consider it my bounden duty to
vote against Confederation in all its
moods and tenses. I am also in duty
bound to vote against a class of men who,
without venturing to state what propositions they intend to bring down, tamper
with the best interests ot the country.
When I find them submitting to some
power and influence which they dare not
resist; when I hear rumors of resignations ; when I hear of arguments and inducements
held out to prevent the insertion of certain measures in the Speech,
and then quietly submit to it ; when they
will not give information in regard to
the views they entertain, I ask if it is
not the duty of those gentlemen to tell
the people of the country what is the
meaning of that paragraph concerning
Confederation in the Speech. I think if
we sustain the Government on the present occasion, the people and the House
will find they will have the Quebec
Scheme upon them in all its horrors.
My hon. friend (Mr. Smith) may laugh ;
how comes it then in that speech. It
may be that the Government will screen
themselves, and say they are not responsible. I hold that constitutionally what
ever is put in the Speech the Government have to take the responsibility of,
and not one word should be introduced
into it which they are not fully prepared
to explain. Was it anything unreasonable to put a question to the Attorney
General, and was it fair to the people of
the country that information should be
withheld? Far be it from me to take
any step which would bring Confederation upon the country at the present time.
I consider it my duty to vote against it.
I believe we are nearer Confederation
under the present Speech than you think
of. If that was not so, why do they
withhold information. The Government
are in an unpleasant position, for they
dare not fill their offices or open a constituency. When the people, in the exercise
of their discretion upon Confederation, gave a judgment, showing no disposition to
accept the Scheme. I think
they wanted no paltry saving of a few
pounds when they armed those anti-Confederates with power to form a Government that
would have been respected in
the country, the adjoining Colonies and
the United States. What did they do?
The Attorney General said he wanted no
office, but the first thing he did was to
create an office of dignity for himself.
Some men like money, and some like dignity. "Some like apples and some like
onions." At the time the Government
was formed, it was known that Mr. Allen
was to be appointed Judge, and that Sir
James Carter, who was then in office, was
going to resign. Where then was the
need of Mr. Allen's running an election
to fill that office, if there was not a design of keeping it for some other person.
The present Attorney General had re
fused to take office on the platform in
St. John, and just at that time it was a
very convenient thing for a man to have
an enormous amount of patriotism and
a disinclination to accept honor or money, but when the game is well played,
and there is a chance for office, the great
disinclation that existed before ceases to
exist. It may be that it was a very convenient thing for my hon. friend (Mr. S.)
that Mr. Allan should take the office for
a little while, and put the country to the
expense of holding an election, in order
to reserve that office for him. He had
already created an office for himself,
which was the next highest to the Governor, and when the office of Attorney
General became vacant, he was very
quietly installed into it. He said he
would never take an office unless the political exigencies of the country required
it. (Mr. Smith.—I said unless the
political exigencies of the party required it.)
In reference to forming the Govern
ment, I think this country did not want
any small business about it. The office
of Solicitor General should have been
filled up. According to the Constitution
of the country, there are nine members of
the Government. Of those members the
Attorney General is one, and the Solicitor General is another. Why was not this
office filled up? There was no lack of
strength or support at the last election.
They say it is a saving. How much will
they save when they get their bills paid
up? It may be very convenient to chuck
a bone to this one and that one, but is
that a dignified way to conduct a public
office? Will the people of this country
be disposed to sustain this system of
bribery and corruption ? I am satisfied
they will not, when they get an opportunity of expressing their opinion. They
dare not open a constituency in St. John,
where, at the last election, a most popular
man was defeated. I refer to the leader
of the former Government, a man of
great strength, undoubted talent, and
unquestionable integrity. The hon. member from St. John (Mr. Wilmot) would
not take an office because he was not going into a one-man Government, who was
politically inferior in every point of
view. He was not disposed to go there
unless armed with strength and position,
which would give him influence in the
councils of his country to which his
standing entitled him. It has been said
that they were afraid to open a constituency, when they had an enormous majority of
the people of the country to sustain
them. If that is the case, are they the
men to conduct the affairs of this country
in the present perilous time. I am satisfied the people of this country do not
want political cowards to look after their
interests. They want men of strength
who are not afraid to express their views
or appeal to the people. It was stated
last session that it was necessary to send
a delegation home, because an influence
was brought to bear from Downing Street
directly opposed to our views on Confederation. I voted for that delegation, but
I could not have been induced to vote
for it, had I known of the dispatch which
was in possession of the Government.
Was it fair to ask us to send that delegation home without giving us that dispatch
? It was told us that the House was
going to be dissolved, and we were going
to have Confederation crammed down our
throats, and it was necessary to send
a delegation home immediately. Not
many years ago, there was an outcry
raised because mutilated dispathes were
sent down to the House. The Government said they had sent back such parts
as contained state secrets No man at
that time raised his voice more patriotically than my hon. friend (Mr. S.) did on
that occasion. Now he witholds a dispatch that would have obviated the necessity of
sending a delegation home to
England, The matter of that dispatch
should have been before the House of
Assembly, and a respectful address should
have been sent, instead of one or two persons. Their views might have altered to
a certain extent, were they to express the opinions of my constituents.
What did that delegation do in England?
They have not informed us. My own
impression is, by the way they conducted themselves since their return
home, that it was an abortion. What authority had they to send two delegates home
? If they had sent but
one they would have saved a large
amount of money to the country quite
as much as they profess to have saved
through the non-appointment of a Soliciter General. It has been said that they
entered into a railway contract with the
"International Contract Company," but
it has been assented that no delegation
was required for this purpose as a paper
had been filed in the Provincial Secretary's office, showing that a proposition
had been made by the Interaational Contract Company to build the road under
the existing Subsidy Act, an answer was
given them, and they were prepared to
build the road, provided an arrangement
was made to build the Nova Scotia line.
The delegates were not sent home to
make any arrangements concerning this
matter at all. What authority had he to
pledge the credit of the country to pay
all land damages where they exceeded ÂŁ50 a mile, or are they going to bring another
ex post facto law to legalise it.
These land damages, for which the
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 93
credit of this country is pledged, may be
ÂŁ500 a mile. Is that the way the business of this country is to be conducted? By what
authority does he take charge of the revenues of this country? Suppose you sent home
an agent and he pledged your credit without your authority, would you have confidence
in him? How then can you have confidence in a Government which has acted in the same
way. There is another matter in reference to the Governor's salary. An outcry was
raised in 1864 and a resolution was moved by the present Attorney General, fixing
the Governor's salary at a certain amount. On this question he exerted all his energies
to defeat the Government. He must have cared for his office then, for he could have
had no object in reducing the Governor's salary. as he allows the same amount to be
drawn as heretofore. (
Mr. Smith - it is paid back.) he should have taken a manly position, and told the Governor
that this money should not be drawn. If it was he would resign his situation. Instead
of this it has been a continual giving in. First they swallow one thing and then another,
and the next thing they will swallow will be confederation.
HON. MR. SMITH made some explanation regarding the Governor's salary, after which the debate was
adjourned.
Mr. Wetmore to resume at 11 o'clock
tomorrow.
The House was adjourned until the usual hour.
T.P.D.
This individual participated in:
