This Bill produced a lengthy disucssion when progress was reported, and the Bill referred
to a special committee. Progress was reported on "A Bill to amend the law relating
to the Shipment of Seamen at St. John."
ADJOURNED DEBATE ON THE MR. FISHER'S AMENDMENT.
Mr. WETMORE resumed: Â I regret that I had not occupied a little more time last evening, so that
there would have been no necessity for my making any further remarks. The debate has
been protracted to an alarming extent, and has taken more time than we expected. I
do not wish to occupy more time than is necessary to explain my views on this question.
When the House adjourned, I was commenting on an important feature in this case. It
is one on which I think the hon. gentleman who form the Government have sacrificed
the views which they entertained on a previous occasion. It may be that the Lieutenant
Governor has a right to receive that amount of salary. I express no opinion upon that
point. What was the motive that induced the present. Attorney General to make a
motion in 1864
to fix the amount of the Governor's
salary? Was it to create a turmoil in the House, to turn the Government out, and get
some of his friends in? I do not charge him with any improper motives, for I presume
he acted in a fair and legitimate manner, and did his duty as a member of the House
of Assembly. He says nothing but the political exigencies of the country could induce
him to take office; therefore it must have been to set this matter right. If His Excellency
has a right to single penny, by the same principle he may draw every fraction from
the treasury, for there is no limit. Though the excess of salary drawn is regularly
paid back; yet it does not alter the principle that it is wrong to draw it without
legal authority. The present Attorney General on that occasion said that the Lieutenant
Governor should receive so much and no more, and if he drew one single penny, from
the treasury outside and beyond the amount he was entitled to receive, the Government
of the day ought to take the responsibility of it. I agree with that sentiment, and
I think that upon the formation of the present Government, it should have been made
a
sine qua non that His Excellency should not have drawn this excess salary.
My hon. friend (Mr.S.) Â In 1864 sought to fix the responsibility of it upon the then
existing Government. He then portrayed the evil of allowing money to be drawn, without
legal authority, from the Treasury, in all its horrors. And now, when they have the
power to stop it, they still allow the evil to exist. Is that the way a man should
act who assumes the leadership of the country? I am prepared to say I have no confidence
in men who act in that way. It shows a lack of determination, if not a lack of principle.
My hon. friend (Mr. Smith) says there was a solemn agreement made between His Excellency
and the former Government that this excess of salary should be drawn and paid back.
The Government had no power to make agreements regarding the funds of the country
to bind us for all time to come. Such agreements can only be made by legislative enactment.
If His Excellency has a a right to draw this money, he has a right to keep it. If
arrangements of this kind have been made by the Tillay Government, it is no reason
that the Smith Government should follow it up. for two wrongs do not make one right.
I think the people of the country want to treat His Excellency with dignity and respect,
and pay him such salary as his is entitled to without any paying back. His Excellency
may be under the impression that he is giving us a bonus, and another Governor coming
here may not have the same liberal spirit, and retain the full amount, which has been
drawn and sanctioned by two Governments, and we would have no remedy. My hon. friend
(Mr. Smith) talks about his patriotism, as though he was the only man that had given
up any thing to serve his country. I gave up an office, because I was induced to come
here to endeavor to prevent the passage of the Quebec Scheme. My hon. friend who did
not want an office, jumped into the late Attorney General's shoes before they were
hardly vacant; he resembles one of the "No. I thank you men." who when asked to have
a piece of cake or a glass of wine, always said. "No, I thank you." but they generally
managed notwithstanding to eat and drink more than anyone else in the company. (
Mr. Smith - You wanted an office soon after you got into the Assembly.) If I did I sought an
office fairly, and there was the most
solemn pledges and promises given me. I hold the man that pledges his word to another
pledges his sacred honor. and if he violates that word he is entitled to no respect.
Why were those pledges not carried out? I am just as much entitled to an office as
my hon. friend. My grandfather held on of the first offices in this country, and discharged
its duties in an efficient manner. I never made a pledge to deceive any person and
I trust my name will never be sullied by breaking a pledge to any man. In reference
to expiring laws, the speech of last session says: "Your attention will be called,
with a view to their renewal, to several enactments which owing to my inability to
call you together at an earlier periord, have either expired or are on the point of
expiring." And the answer says. "We will give our attention to such enactments as
have recently expired or are about to expire." If the Government thought proper to
overlook the re-enactment of such laws, they acted improperly and are to blame. They
tried to throw the blame upon Judge Allan and upon the leader of the former Governemnt.
The export duty law was known to have expired in September, and it was the duty of
the Government then to have called the Legislature together to re-enact that law.
Another law has expired providing for the prompt payment of all demands upon the treasury,
and all money received without that is received without the authority of law. Unless
there was a law for it, the learned aAttorney General had no right to negotiate a
loan of ÂŁ15,000. I think they admit the error, for they have brought in a Bill. (
Mr. Smith - The Bill brought in now is included in the Treasury Note Bill of last year.) If
the Governenment can make such arrangement as they please, pledging the revenues of
the country without showing law for it, the country has got into a bad position. The
Government, trying to justify the matter, only makes it worse; upon whose credit
did they obtain money in England, and upon whose authority? - (Mr. Smith There was
no money obtained at all, it was simply a cash credit. In the event of our wanting
money we made an agreement to authorize us to draw it.) I suppose my hon. friend will
tell me whether there has been any drawn of not. (
Mr. Smith - There has been ÂŁ5000 drawn recently in consequence of the Fenian excitement causing
a run upon the Savings Bank.) I am rejoiced that at last we have got some information
He has admitted the fact that L5000 have been drawn. By virtue of what authority was
that money drawn? What right had he to pledge the credit of the Provice of L20,000.
There is no law to justify his doing it. (
Mr. Anglin- There is a law authorizing the investing in England the surplus amount in the Savings
Bank, which is held there to meet any run upon the Bank ) Where is the surplus money?
It is all gone. (
Mr. Smith - It is all right.) It may be all right, but it has been invested in England. My
impression is, that there has been a wrong committed in obtaining this money without
the sanction of law. If that be the case I have no disposition to give the Government
an opportunity of interfering with the finances of the country. The Attorney General
talks about personal attacks. I have attacked the Government becuase I thought they
deserved it. It is well for my hon. friend to consider, who set the example. He as
assailed the hon.
94 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
mover of the Amendment, and he has
assailed a gentleman who is noi here to
protect himself. I was present at a public meeting and heard this gentleman
challenge my hon. friend to meet him
on the public platform and discuss the
question of Confederation ; he made a
positive offer, distinct and emphatic,
each, by turn, taking half an hour, on
the following Thursday My hon.
friend (Mr. S.) said he was engaged on
Thursday. If he wanted to discuss the
question he might have named some
other day, instead of making that an
excuse not to discuss the question at all.
(
Mr. Wetmore then read the law regarding the appointment of the Auditor General and said.) Why
was not
and Auditor General appointed? It was
one of the most important offices in the
country. It may be that the accounts
are kept in a better manner than they
were, if so why do not they appoint the
gentleman who has charge of the accounts to the office, or are they holding
it out as a bribe to somebody else? Why
was it not given to Mr. Wilmot when he
had the promise of it? When promises
are made in this way and not carried out,
I think the gentlemen making those promises are not entitled to our confidence.
If a man promises to pay you a certain
sum of money and he deceives you, you
say he is not entitled to your confidence.
The same rule should apply to the Government. I will now read a document
which was presented to the Government
about the 8th of September, before the
appointment of Chief Justice was made
and signed long after Judge Wilmot had
spoken from the Bench on the subject of
confederation,
" We, the undersigned members of the
General Assembly for the Province of
New Brunswick, having been informed
that the honorable Sir James Carter,
Knight, contemplates resigning the office of Chief Justice at an early period,
and feeling it important the appointment
of his successor should be made in accordance with the course adopted in
England, beg leave to suggest, as our
opinion, that the Attorney General is,
by virtue of his office, entitled to claim
the appointment if he thinks proper to
exercise the right. But if the Attorney
General thinks fit to yield in this respect what we consider his privilege, our
opinion is the office should then be offered to the respective Judges, commencing
with the senior Judge by appointment,
and on his refusal to accept the office,
then to be tendered to the next senior
Judge by appointment, and so on until
the office is accepted We entirely
disapprove of the tendering the office
to any junior Judge until the senior
Judges, by appointment shall have had
an opportunity of accepting the office.
10th June, A. D. 1865.
(Signed)
| Joseph Corain, |
G. F. Hill, |
| A. R. Wetmore, |
John Lewis, |
| J. V. Troop, |
Robert Young, |
| Geo Otty, |
Ed. Williston, |
| W. B. Scovil, |
A. R. McClelan, |
| John J. Fraser, |
B. Beveridge, |
| W. H. Needham, |
G. D. Baily. |
| E. A. Vail. |
|
The Attorney General, in making his
speech, read a letter written by Judge
Parker, in which it was stated that his
Honor Judge Parker would not have accepted the office of Chief Justice, if he had
not been afraid that his Honor Judge Ritchie would not get it. I do not believe
one word of it. If they had the power
to appoint Judge Parker, did they not
have equal power to appoint Judge Ritchie at that time. They had made
pledges to give it to Judge Ritchie, and
I can prove it. It never was the intention to give it to Judge Parker, who was
a man of high legal attainments, and
one of the ablest lawyers in America,
and for whom the people entertain the
greatest respect. He was appointed in
consequence of that document which I
have read being presented to the Government. (
Hon. Mr. Smith.—I stated
that Judge Parker would not have taken
the office if he thought Judge Ritchie
could have got it. We pressed the office
upon Judge Parker irrespective of any
such conditions, and all the members of
the Government were desirous of seeing
him accept it.) If the offer had been
made to Judge Parker, and he declined
it, would not Judge Ritchie have got it ?
This paper, signed by all the strong supporters of the Government would have
had no effect.
Mr. HILL.— I was told by Mr. Wetmore in the City of St. John, that he
wanted me, and the other members for
Charlotte, to sign this paper. I told him
I was unwilling to sign it, for I was opposed to having the Attorney General ap
pointed Chief Justice. I said that it had
been stated that Judge Wiimot—for whose
benefit this had been signed—was not the
soundest lawyer, and that he had taken a
course on confedernticn which would prevent the present Government from giving
him the appointment. He (Mr. Wetmore) said this was true, but he added,
if Judge Wilmot is not appointed we will
lose the vote of every Methodist in St.
John, under these circumstances, and as
a favor to Mr. Wetmore, I signed this
paper.
Mr. WETMORE.—I said it would be
an indignity to every dissenter throughout the Province, and when they get an
opportunity they will express the same
opinion. I do not think he signed it to
oblige me. He signed it after he knew
that Judge Wilmot had spoken from the
Bench concerning confederation, making
the following reservation :
" We endorse the latter portion of the
foregoing with respect to claim of senior
Judge, but dissent from the principle that
the Attorney General has first claim to
any vacant Judgeship by virtue of his
office irrespective of other qualifications."
My hon. friend (Mr. Hill) is now prepared to support this Government which
treated the opinions of its supporters
with the most perfect contempt. (
Mr.
Anglin —This paper was signed before
the York election.) I think the Judge
had a right to vote. My impression is,
that Judge Parker has voted time after
time at elections in St John, and has addressed Grand Juries on different subjects,
requiring laws to be enacted for a
particular purpose. Dame rumor says
that Judge Ritchie used to express an
opinion averse to confederation, and if
the matter was fully investigated, it
would be found that Judge Ritchie had
taken as active a part on that question as
Judge Wilmot, except the remarks made
before the Grand Jury. I will ask my
hon. friend (Col. Boyd) if he was not
asked to come up here to assist in forming the Government after the last election.
(Col. Boyd.—I received a letter from Mr. Gilmor asking me to come
up to assist in forming a Government, and
I told him I would.) Why was this
aged gentleman asked to come up here to
assist in forming a Government when
they had not the slightest idea of accept— ing his assistance? Was not my hon. friend
(Col. Boyd) promised the office of Sheriff? (
Col. Boyd.—Yes.) Was that
promise carried out? (Col. Boyd,—No.)
The Government have never yet made a
promise which has been carried out in all
its integrity. Are these the men that
should have the confidence of the country ? I will ask my hon. friend from the
County of Kings (Mr. Otty) if he has not
been promised the office of Solicitor General ? (
Mr. Otty.—No.) How was it,
then, he was canvassing on the supposition that he was going to get that office ?
(
Mr. Otty,—I made no canvas.) Do I
understand my learned friend to say that
he did not speak to the electors of the
County of Kings, and tell them that he
was quite likely to run an election ? (
Mr.
Otty.—I deny it.) I was not present on
the occasion, and I must have been misinformed. I am very glad to hear he did
not expect it, for he would have been sure
to have been disappointed. l was elected to vote against Confederation, and I
feel it my duty to vote against it, because
elected on that ground. But in regard
to my views on this matter, I will state
that after giving the matter more serious
consideration, my views are very materially modified It is my impression that
the paragraph in the Speech concerning
Confederation was put to there against
the wishes of the Attorney General, but
whether it was so or not, they have to
take the responsibility of it. We cannot
tell whether they intend to bring forward
any scheme or not, for all information is
witheld on that point. Then the Address
in the other branch of the Legislature regarding Confederation had the sanction
of the Government, and they have to take
the responsibility of it. If they do not
take the responsibility of it, they are not
acting according to the principles of Responsible Government. This question of
Confederation has been put into the
Speech, and into the answer to the Address, and the Government submit to it
sooner than resign their seats, thus acting
in direct opposition to the principles of
Responsible Government. In conclusion
I will call the attention of the House to
an appointment to a St John Battallion
of volunteers, of a gentlemen residing at
Fredericton, who has been appointed Major, instant of selecting a person from that
Battallion for the appointment. When
the young men of this country go to the
expense of furnishing accoutrements, and
attend drill, if any appointments are to be
made, these gentlemen ought to receive
them, and the Government should take
the responsibility. I will now thank the
House for their attention, and close my
remarks.
Mr. ANGLIN.—This debate has now
been carried on for upwards of three
weeks, and we are all very anxious to
see it brought to a close. I would prefer
not to occupy the time of this House, but
I feel, under the extraordinary circumstances in which we are placed, that I
would not be doing my duty to the people of this country if I was not, on this
occasion, to speak my sentiments. We
find the Opposition very busy deliberating
and determining where to find fault with
the Address ; we find them, through their
leader, giving notice of a particular
amendment, and we find that when he
moved that amendment. he had made considerable alteration in it. so that it now
stands simply as a motion of want of
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
95
confidence. In all that Address, which, they say, was prepared by pigmy politicians,
the Opposition, with all their talents, could not find one paragraph to which they
could make objection. It stands there unobjectionable, according to their own positive
admission. I must express my deliberate conviction, which I believe to be the conviction
of ninety- nine out of every one hundred people in this Province, or in British North
America, that this debate, in whatever light we may choose to regard it, is a debate
on the Quebec Scheme, and nothing more or less. Many members of the Opposition who
have addressed you, are still opposed to confederation. I do not question the honesty
or sincerity of what they say, but I tell them they are much mistaken if they imagine
that there are, in this House any but themselves of the same opinion. I receive papers
from all parts of this Province, and the neighboring Provinces, and they all hold
that the Opposition are anxious for the Quebec Scheme. It has been contended by hon.
members most anxious to upset the Government, that this is a mere vote of want of
confidence, and they accuse them of crimes of omission and commission. They have acknowledged
the crime of omission, but the crimes of commission will not amount to one serious
charge, even if you take the statements of the hon. members themselves. We have listened
to the eloquence of my hon. colleague from St. John (Mr. Wetmore), who has delighted
the House for the last two days with his eloquence ; but setting all the rhetoric
aside, and come to the substance and what does it amount to ? He takes extraordinary
views. I will endeavor to ascertain from his speech what really are the charges which
he brings against the Government. He states that in the formation of the Government
they had a great deal of trouble, and that promises were made which were never carried
out. I have no hesitation in saying that great difficulty was found in forming the
Government. It is not every day you find parties who have been opposed to one another
for years, brought together to labor for the protection of the country. My hon. friend
(Mr. Kerr) seemed to imagine that there was no agreement among the members of the
Government, and that they were continually quarreling with one another. He is entirely
mistaken ; from the day I joined the Government until the day I left them, I never
heard in the Council, between the members of the Government one harsh word. We often
differed in opinion, but we argued the point in the most kindly manner possible. I
think my hon. friend (Mr. W.) asked why Mr. Wilmot was not appointed to the office
of Provincial Secretary. He declined the office not because he was afraid to go back
to the people for re-election, but for private reasons of his own. For my part I never
asked, nor expected to be, a member of the Government, and when it was proposed that
I should be a member of the Government, I said I could, as a public journalist, render
the Government more assistance out of the Government than I could if I was in, and
they had better leave me out. They determined I should become a member of the Government,
and my colleagues wanted me to take the office of Provincial Secretary: this shows
how little they were afraid of opening a constituency. It was said, why did they
not put Judge Allan on the Bench at once,
and let Mr. Smith take the Attorney Generalship. That was proposed by Mr. Wilmot,
and was one of his views in the construction of the Government. He (Mr. Wilmot) pressed
the office of Attorney General upon Mr. Smith, who showed not the slightest disposition
to accept it. He (Mr. Smith) said he wanted no office, although every member of the
Government united in trying to induce him to take it. My hon. colleague (Mr. Wet-
more) spoke of some promise made to him. There was some mention made of his being
made a member of the Government, and some proposed that he should be Solicitor General.
My hon. friend (Mr. Smith) at that time proposed that after Mr. Allan became Judge,
the office of Attorney General should be offered to my hon. colleague (Mr. Wetmore).
I appeal to every member of the Government if that was not the fact.
Mr. WILMOT.—I proposed that Mr. Wetmore should be appointed Solicitor General. The resignation
of the Chief Justice was then in hand. His Excellency thought there was no necessity
for appointing Judge Allan to the office of Attorney General.
Mr. ANGLIN.—At the time the appointment was made, the Chief Justice had intimated his intention
to resign, but had not actually sent his resignation in. I think it was after this
time that His Excellency came down to the Council, and read the resignation of the
Chief Justice. This resignation was not to take effect until the September following.
After that vacancy had occurred, the Attorney General again made the same proposal
that Mr. Wetmore should be Attorney General. I said no : the interest of the country
requires that it shall not be. To Mr. Wetmore personally, or as a lawyer, I had no
objections, but as a politician and leader of the Government, I had strong objections,
for he had been but one session in Parliament, and therefore had not had political
experience enough to be the leader of the Government. I was one of those who insisted
that the present Attorney General should take office. It has been said that he was
greedy for office, and created the office of President of the Council to suit himself.
I proposed that the office should be created, and it is not considered the first office
in the Council. In Canada the President of the Council is not the Premier ; he is
merely the man who sits in the chair while the Council is in session, and for that
small duty he receives $5000 a year. The Hon. Attorney General refused the office
of Chief Justice, which was offered him at the formation of the Government. The man
who has twice refused such a position is not the man to be held up before the country
as a man who seeks office, who holds on to office, or who truckles to the Governor,
or any other man. Neither the country nor the House will believe it. Though my hon.
colleague (Mr. W.) and myself will vote on different sides on this question, yet I
hope we will agree after it is over in carrying on the business of the country. Among
other charges he brings up the question of the Governor's salary. I hold strong grounds
on this subject myself ; but standing here and knowing what I do, I say the present
Government are not to blame, and though my hon. colleague appears to have a case,
in reality it is no case at all. The former House, by rejecting the resolution of
the Attorney General, clearly, decided that His Excellency had a right to draw this
mo
ney as he does. All the warrants
on the Casual and Territorial revenue for the Civil List are not drawn in the usual
form. In the Civil List arrangements, that was placed absolutely and entirely at the
disposal of the Lieut. Governor, who draws the money by his own warrant, but the Government
have to take the responsibility, for they are responsible for everything done in this
Province by the Governor or his subordinates. Another point which my hon. friend (Mr.
W.) spoke upon was the appointment of Judges. He went on to state his belief in a
great many things that took place. His belief and his information often led him astray,
and he assumed things for facts which were in reality not facts. I will inform the
House that I never saw that document concerning the appointment of Judges, which was
signed by seventeen supporters of the Government, but I heard on board of the steamboat
as I was coming to Fredericton to attend a meeting of Council, that there was such
a document got up by Mr. Wetmore himself. He (Mr. W.) talks of the Government truckling
to other parties, when he was the very man to get up that document and get signature
to it, and then send it in to intimidate the Government. They, of course, disregarded
it. I said, as one member of the Government, if it comes before us, pay no attention
to it whatever. I stand here responsible for my acts, and will do what I consider
to be the best for the interests of the country. I am prepared to hold myself responsible
for what I do when the House meets again. I will allow no set of men to dictate to
me. If they think I have done wrong, they can turn me out, and punish me so far as
they have the power, but they have no right to express an opinion to one in such a
form as that. That document never came before us when the appointment was made. My
hon. friend (Mr. W.) says that document was presented on the 8th of September. I believe
the Chief Justice was appointed prior to that. (
Mr. Wetmore,—The paper was received before the appointment was made.) When His Excellency informed
the Council of the resignation of Sir James Carter, he put the question, who should
be Chief Justice, and there was but one expression of opinion—that was, that Judge
Parker should be Chief Justice. His Excellency undertook to offer the appointment
to Judge Parker, and I was authorized to state it. Judge Parker at first refused to
accept the office, and there were several telegrams passed between the Governor and
Judge Parker before the appointment took place. Judge Parker stated distinctly that
he could not in honor accept the office of Chief Justice, unless it was understood
that, if he was not appointed, Judge Ritchie could not get it. The Government declined
to answer this, but said, " We offer you the office ; will you accept it ?" They declined
to speak of Judge Ritchie at all. They said to Judge Parker, we wish you to take it,
for the interests of the Province requires it. The answer came, that, under these
circumstances, he felt he could no longer refuse to take the office. This is the way
Judge Parker was appointed, and when any hon. member says Judge Ritchie cabaled, he
must be misinformed. I think the explanations I have given show that there is no foundation
for such a charge. I am satisfied that the House will come to the conclusion that
if the Government had
96 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866
so much desire to give the office to Judge
Ritchie, they would not have taken such
pains to press it upon Judge Parker.
After having offered it three times to
Jukge Parker. and he refused to accept
it, they might have said—You refuse to
accept the office ; we will appoint the
man we think, and you think, best to
fill it.
The House was then adjourned until
10 A. M., the debate to be resumed by
Mr. Anglin at 11 to-morrow.
T. P. D.
This individual participated in:
