"A Bill to incorporate the CAulkers Association in the City of St. John."
"A Bill to authorize the extension of St. John STreet from Duke Street to Reed's Point
Wharf."
SURVEY OF RAILWAY.
On motion of
Mr. Lewis the House went into Committee on the following Resolution: -
Resolved- "That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor praying
His Excellency to make provision for the expenses of a Survey made for a Branch Railway
connecting Hillsborough i the County of Albert with the European and North American
Railway, provided such Survey and
locality be approved by the Governor in
Council."
Mr. LEWIS said that under the "Facilities Act' passed in 1864, provision was made for the construction
of a Railway in the County of Alber to connect with the Europe and North American
line. During the last winter they had employed Engineers in making a survey of the
line, and as it was usual in other cases they now ask to be remunerated for the expenses
of the survey of this Branch Railway. He thought the Resolution would commend itself
to the House.
HON. Mr. TILLEY - said the expense of the Survey would be deducted from the subsidy when the road
was built, as that was the provision made in all the lines of Railway built under
the "Facility Bill." This REsolution was only putting that line in the same position
as other Branches were in, with the exception of the Miramichi Branch. The others
having been surveyed with the understanding that the value of the Survey would be
deducted from the subsidy. He could see no reason why this Branch should not have
the same privilege as the others.
Mr. BOTSFORD asked if the survey
was to be confined to one locality. There was a better route and it was not right
to confine the survey to the present line when there was a more eligible one. In the
route proposed there were a great many more ingineering difficulties than there were
in the other route. He spoke from experience, and he had also been told that this
was the case by the engineer who had been on the route.
Mr. KERR wasid the Government had
power to make certain surveys with certain objects in view ini regard to the other
branch lines, but in the County of Albert they had made a survey without any authority
from the Government, and they now ask the Government to adopt that survey. In addition
to this we are told by my hon. friend (Mr. Botsford) from the County of Westmorland
that a route can be obtained which would be more advantageous than the one surveyed.
Is this House to pay for experimental surveys? Are we to pass this resolution without
knowing whether the money has been judiciously expended or not? Suppose that survey
turns out to be worthless nothing, and the line is not built upon it, this money would
be thrown away.
HON. Mr. McMILLAN was informed that there was a Company formed to build this line. Why then did they
come to the House and ask them to pay for this survey, for it would have to be deducted
from the subsidy? The Government were to give a subsidy of
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 69
$10,000 a mile, and this was as much
as the finances of the country would
justify them to do. He thought the
whole principle was wrong, and he
hoped the House would not sustain such a proposition.
Mr. MCCLELAN said that although a
Company had been organized, the survey had not been made at their instigation. The
survey had been made with a view of showing the facilities that could be afforded
for constructing the line. The resolution does not contemplate that the Government
shall bear the expense if they do not approve of the survey. If the survey was paid
for the other lines of Railway, he could see no force in the arguments that this should
not be paid for because already surveyed.
Mr. SUTTON asked if his hon. friend would be willing to carry out a resolution providing to
pay the expenses of the survey of the line from Chatham to Shediac, which would cost
thousands of pounds.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY said if this resolution be carried it would place every section of the Province in
the same position in regard to building those
lines of railway. His hon. friend (Mr.
Sutton) had a survey made in his section by Major Robinson, and a Company could start
to morrow and go on with the work with the information they have now before them.
The resolution authorizing the Government to make surveys was passed in order to enable
them to send engineers to make surveys, so that capitalists could make calculations
as to the cost before entering upon the work. In regard to this resolution, the inhabitants
of the district went to work upon their own responsibility, having no authority from
the Legislature, and made a preliminary survey, and they now ask to be put in the
same position as the others. They have shown more energy in the matter than was done
by the others in going to work upon their own responsibility and it was equitable
and fair that we should adopt this resolution, giving them the same privilege that
was accorded to the other branches
Mr. SMITH said the Subsidy Act required that the contract should be made with the Queen. The
Government were authorized to have a survey made of the different branches, and get
a plan drawn, which they could exhibit to any Company that proposed to build the road.
In this Branch instead of the Government taking the initiative, the people have caused
a survey to be made and paid for it, and they have plans to exhibit to any Company
that choose to build the road. If we refuse to pass this resolution, we refuse that
which the
people are entitled to, and which has
been given to other sections of the country. In one case it was preliminary, in another
it wasex post facto. If the survey was not approved, it would not be paid for by the
Government, as the resolutions requires that the survey must be approved by the Governor
in Council.
Mr. LINDSEY thought that a Company being formed to build the road, instead of being an objection,
would be an inducement for them to pay for the survey. He would rather see a provision
made in the Resolution, that the survey would be paid when the Company commenced operations.
The object of the Government should be to encourage localities to do something to
assist themselves, in order that they might get railroads and open up communication
with the different parts of the Province. Every section should have equal justice
meted out to it.
Hon. Mr. MCMILLAN said, suppose the Governor in Council approved of the survey, and no Company was
formed to carry it out, it would be so much money thrown away.
The resolution was adopted.
INSTRUCTION OF DELEGATES REGARDING THE PROVISIONS TO BE MADE IN A MEASURE OF UNION.
Whereas the House on the 30th day of June now instant, passed the following Resolution,
viz.
Resolved, That a humble Address be presented to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor, plraying
that His Excellency will be pleased to appoint delegates to unite with delegates from
the other Provinces in arranging with the Imperial Government for the Union of British
North America, upon such terms as will secure the just rights and interests of New
Brunswick, accompanied with provision for the immediate construction of the Inter-Colonial
Railway, each Province to have an equal voice in such delegation, Upper and Lower
Canada to be considered as separate Provinces :"
And whereas the authority given to
the delegates by said Resolution, authorizes them to accept the Quebec
Scheme, (so called,) or even one more
prejudical to the interests of the people of this Province ; And whereas in view of
the transcendent importance of the subject, it is desirable that the opinion of this
House, in reference to such Scheme, should be expressed for the information and guidance
of such delegates, in the preparation of any measure for the Union of British North
America ; therefore
Resolved, As the deliberate opinion of
this House, that no measure for such Union should be adopted which does not contain
the following provisions, viz :—
1st.—An equal number of Legislative Councillors for each Province.
2d.—Such Legislative Councillors to be required to reside in the Province which they
represent, and for which they are appointed.
3d.—The number of Representatives in the Federal Parliament to be limited.
4th.—The establishment of a Court for the determination of questions and disputes
that may arise between the Federal and Local Governments as to the meaning of the
Act of Union.
5th.—Exemption of this Province from taxation for the construction and enlargement
of Canals in Upper Canada, and for the payment of any money for the Mines and Minerals
and Lands of Newfoundland.
6th.—Eighty cents per head to be on the population as it increases, and not to be
confined to the Census of 1861.
7th.—Securing to each of the Maritime Provinces the right to have at least one Executive
Councillor in the Federal Government.
8th,—The commencing of the Inter- Colonial Railway before the right shall exist to
increase taxation upon the people of this Province.
Mr. SMITH.—I had intended to have made what might be considered a labored speech on this occasion,
but being anxious to shorten the session, I have concluded not to make any speech
at all. The various points in this resolution were discussed in the former debate
on the resolution moved by the Attorney General. I reserve my right to make a general
reply at the close of the discussion.
Hon. Mr. FISHER.—I move this amendment. Strike out the whole of the preamble, and everything after
the word resolved, and substitute :
" That the people of the Province having after due deliberation determined that a
Union of British North America was desirable, and the House having agreed to request
His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor to appoint delegates for the purpose of settling
the plan of Union upon such terms as will secure the just rights of New Brunswick,
and having confidence that the action of His Excellency, under the advice of his constitutional
advisers, will be directed to the attainment of that end, sound policy and a due regard
to the interests of this Province require that the responsibility of such action should
be left unfettered by any expression of opinion other than what has already been given
by the people and their representatives."
Mr. SKINNER—Previous to taking
a division of the House upon this resolution, or upon the amendment, I wish to make
a few remarks in explanation not only in regard to these resolutions, but in regard
to the remarks I made on Friday last. From the statements I have seen in the public
prints, I infer that I have been quite misunderstood in the position I took in the
speech I made on that occasion before the House. This resolution now moved asks that
certain instructions should be given to
70 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
the delegates : some of these instructions suit my mind and they ought to
be given them, but not given in the
way provided for by this resolution. I
stated on Friday last that I would give
the delegates certain instructions to be a
guide to them so far as they could be
guided, but I would not go for making
them positive, but would leave them a
margin to act upon. Having heard the
opinion of the House, and knowing that
if the delegates went to England fettered by instructions which they could not
deviate from either in the letter or in
the spirit, I did not wish to give them
specific instructions. unless I knew that
what they had been instructed to procure could be obtained. It has been
said I was for giving them positive instructions; in this I have been misunderstood.
I was for having those instructions presented in the form of suggestions in order
that they might be informed of what the House wished. and
they would have a discretionary power
to set. In regard to my position upon
this Quebec Scheme, and the position I
have taken before this Legislature, I
have heard it remarked here and have
seen it stated in the public prints, that
if I held the views that I enunciated
here I ought to have announced them
before the last election or not announced
them now. I dissent from that view for
this reason. I stated here on Friday
that I was so much in favor of Confederation that I would agree to give
this power to the delegates, and would
agree to be bound by what they should
decide upon, but I claimed the right to
discuss the matter and give the delegates certain instructions. We are not
sent here bound to accept the Quebec
Scheme, but we were sent here to deliberate upon the best Scheme that
could be devised in order to secure
Confederation, having been so returned
to deliberate and discuss the measure,
I claim the right, and I think it is the
duty of the representatives here to go
generally into the matter. and to be heard
pro and con in order that the best
views might be elicited upon the question. When the delegates met in 1864
they had the advantage of discussing
the question with closed doors, and they
could express their views some one way
and some another, and only the result
of their deliberations was made known
to the country, but here the telegraphs
carry the news over the country almost
from our lips, therefore we stand in a
worse position than the delegates did.
When I urged my proposition upon the
Legislature, and made my objections, I
was telegraphed over the country as if I
was opposed to all Confederation. I was
set down as being an Anti-Confederate,
notwithstanding that I stated that it did
not require Fenianism to carry Confederation, but was carried by its own
merits. Stronger language could not
have been used, but notwithstanding
that strong language had been used, I
have been misunderstood, as bringing
those remarks as a sidewing to kill
Confederation. It is a serious thing to
have my motives so impugned after
running an election so recently upon
this question, and it is calculated to do
me the greatest injury. My motives
have not been understood in my proposition for discussing this question.
The question of Confederation had been
affirmed at the polls. and the people had
declared they were in favor of the principle. They sent representatives here
in order to deliberate fully upon the
matter. I made those objections at that
time in order that the delegates might
consider them. I wish to be understood. I state here the second time that
no man in the country is more in favor
of Confederation than I am. In season
and out of season since the first election
l have contended for it, in every position, and shall it be said now that I wish
to procrastinate the question in order to
defeat it. I said I was so strongly in
favor of Confederation that I was willing to sink all other things. The question of
Confederation being entirely out,
of danger. I claim yet we have the right
to discuss it, and make suggestions,
and talk the matter over, in order that
the delegates may know wherein the
Scheme is considered deficient by the
members of the Legislature. In regard
to the resolutions before the House; the
first says that each Province shall have
an equal number of Legislative Councillors. I would be content with having
two added to Nova Scotia and two to
New Brunswick, thus making the two
Provinces together equal with either of
the Canadas. This is a suggestion for
an improvement in the Quebec Scheme,
and because I make this suggestion
should I be branded as having run an
election upon false pretences. I contend here for the right of discussion. I
know there are other hon. members who
think it would be better not to discuss
it. I do not say they are not correct,
but I take the other view, and say we
have a right to discuss it, and for so
doing I should not be said to oppose
it. I spoke of the representation in the
Senate of the United States, and said
that each State sent an equal number of
representatives, and then I threw in a
suggestion saying that inasmuch as those
States are represented equally in the Senate, would it not be worth considering
when the delegates come to deliberate
upon the Scheme, whether or not we
should have a more extended representation in the Upper House. The fourth
resolution I am entirely in favor of, that
is the establishment of a Court for the
determination of questions and disputes
that may arise between the Federal and
Local Governments as to the meaning of the
the Act of Union. If I were a delegate
I would ask that this fourth resolution be
adopted. and I would struggle for it, but
if I could not get it and the Scheme
would be endangered by struggling, I
would prefer a Scheme without it. Then
the sixth resolution providing that 80
cents per head be on the population as it
increases and not to be confined to the
census of 1861, meets with my entire concurrence, and I would press it upon all
concerned, but would not make it a
sine
quo non. Some of my hon. friend's resolutions I would like to see carried out
in the Conference, but I would not put
them as positive instructions not be deviated from. After my speech on Friday
last, some of the hon. members in the
House said, and it has been circulated
over the country, that just previous to
making my speech I had an interview
with the hon. member for Westmorland
(Mr. Smith) in the Speaker's room, and
on account of that interview I made
the speech I did. I do not know what
put that in their minds. We are on the
best of terms, but as long as I have been
in public life I have never agreed with
his public policy at all, but this had never affected our personal intercourse. He
had no more idea of what I was going
to say than a man on the other side of
the universe. I do not know to what
extent those insinuations have gone, but
I know how damaging they are against
any man holding a public situation. I
am glad to have had an opportunity of
setting these matters right, and maintaining my position before the country.
I saw it stated in one of the newspapers
that I sustained the resolution of the Government because I was elected to sustain
it, but I sustained it against my own
convictions. That is a misrepresentation. I sustained Confederation from
convictions of my own, and my mind
was made up afterr mature deliberation.
I came here to see that nothing should
be done to retard Confederation. I came
to consider upon what terms we should
enter into Union, and I will sustain the
principle that we should discuss this question in order that we might agree upon
the best Scheme to be adopted; having
discharged that duty independent and
tearless, if I am still to be misrepresented, I cannot help it, but such is the position
I occupy.
Mr. JOHNSON—I thought when the
question for appointing delegates was before the House that it had been so fully
discussed that it was unnecessary for me
to take up the time of the Session in
speaking upon it. In regard to this re
DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 71
solution moved by my hon. friend from
Westmorland, I di not think the House will be willing to adopt it. If they do adopt
it, we might as well move a resolution to rescind the resolution for appointing the
delegates. From the way it was drawn up we would have to vote upno all the resolutions
at once. The first resolution provides that there shall be an equal number of Legislative
Councillors for each Province. According to that Prince Edward Island would have the
same number of representatives as Upper Canada. Surely that is not intended. The next
resolution provides that the Legislative Councillors should reside in the Province
they represent. We might just as well say our Legislative Councillors should continue
to reside in the County they are appointed from, and the moment they left the County
they should cease to be members of the Legislative Council. I do not think it would
tend to the improvement of the Scheme that the number of representatives to the Federal
Parliament should be limited. Under a Legislative Union we require no written Constitution,
for we would have the institutions of the country to govern us, but under a Federal
Union, a written Constitution is necessary to define the powers of the Local Legislatures
in contradistinction to the powers of the General Government. It is our object not
to bind ourselves down to an iron rule, but to leave ourselves as free as possible.
The General Government would determine the number of representatives for the various
Provinces. We take Lower Canada as the basis, the intention of that is to prevent
the too rapid increase of representatives. If we went on increasing, our representatives
would increase according as our population increased, our House would grow too large
and be too cumbrous, therefore, we made the provision that Lower Canada should be
taken as the basis, and the number of her representatives should not increase. If
the population of Upper Canada and the population of Lower Canada both increase 100
per cent., the number of representatives will still continue the same as it is now.
In regard to the establishment of a Court of the determination of questions and disputes
that may arise between the Federal and Local Governments as to the meaning of the
Act of Union, I am opposed to having a judiciary or fourth branch to override the
other three. The power of the Judges in the United States is different from the power
of the Judges in our country. There they ahve the power to say to nine-tenths of the
Legislature, you have no right to pass that law, and therefore prevent the Legislature
of the country from legislating for the advantage of the country. It is not necessary
in our
case, because we stand in a very different position from that they do in the United
States. When the United States Legislature and the Local Legislatures pass laws which
conflict with each other, it may be necessary to have a Court of Appeal; but we have
the Imperial Par liament behind us, and this makes the distinction between us. Suppose
the General Government passed a law that in fringed upon the rights of the Local Legislatures:
that must receive the Royal sanction before it can become law, and we can bring the
matter before the Imperial Parliament and get redress. The next resolution provides
that this Province shall be exempt from taxation for the construction and enlargement
of canals in Upper Canada, and for the payment of any money for the mines and minerals
and lands of Newfoundland. If you say the General Government shall not expend money
for the whole Union, you strike at the root of the Confederacy at once, and if it
passed it would amount to a vote of the House declarling they will not go into Confederation
at all. I am not afraid that Upper Canada will tax the whole Confederacy for enlarging
the canals unless it is for the general interest, and if it be for the general interest
I am prepared to assent to it. The difficulty we always find is, the people do not
desire to be taxed even for the advantage of the country. Upper Canada having to pay
so large a proportion will make a strong opposition, they will not tax the people
more than the interest of the country requires. While Upper and Lower Canada remain
united they willl have sympathy for each other; but the moment we have Confederation
they become seperate and distinct Provinces, and they are no longer influenced by
sympathy of that kind. Lower Canada will be governed by commercial and pecuniary interest,
and when it suits their commercial and pecuniary interest to vote with us they will
do so, and if it suits their interest to vote against us they will not hesitate to
cast their votes that way. There would be as much exertion made by Lower Canada to
resist a tax for the exclusive benefit of Upper Canada, as there would be by the Maritime
Provinces. Scotland went into a Legislative Union with only 45 members against 585,
and she has improved in material wealth very rapidly. We do not find any difficulty
arising because she has not an equal number of representatives with England. The next
resolution provides that the 80 cents per head be on the population as it increases
and not to be confined to the census of 1861. This would be directly opposed to the
interests of the Lower Provinces. If Upper Canada has 1 500,000 population and doubles
itself in the course of ten years they get 80 cents
a-head on 3,000,000; and if New Brunswick doubles her population she will get 80 cents
per head on 500,000. Thus we will receive no more in proportion to our population
than Canada. It has been argued that we give up all our revenue to Canada and only
receive 80 cents a-head back. Suppose five personal go into partnership and they agree
each to put in an equal amount, and they are each allowed to draw out a certain amount
for personal expenses every year, and every increase should be added to the common
fund for the general good. If each man draws out £600 a-year, and one man spends the
whole of his, and another man one-half of his, it is nobodies concern; but if the
company make £500,000 that goes into the general fund for the good of the whole. So
in this case, we place the whole revenues of the country into the general fund for
the general purposes, and then each Province draws out the amount necessary for the
support of its Local Government. The faster the general fund increases the better
for the whole if it is increased without increasing taxation upon the people. So far
from the tariff being increased in Canada, I am informed that Mr. Galt has a proposition
before the Legislature to reduce the tariff down to 15 per cent. According to the
population Canada's tariff is much less than ours. This proposition to reduce the
tariff of Canada is not made for the purpose of carrying Confederation, because it
has been made after the Provinces have concluded to go into Confederation. He finds
that by the increased trade of the country that he is in a position to reduce the
tariff equal to that of New Brunswick. This is clear proof that we need not be alarmed
about the Canadian people taxing themselves for the sake of taxing us. The next resolution
is to secure to each of the Maritime Provinces the right to have at least one Executive
Councillor in the Federal Government. That would be placing the Provinces in the worst
possible position. We would not feel ourselves all the same people. We would be in
the country but not of it. We would be ruled by the General Government, but we would
still carry with us the feeling that we did not belong to it. Every effort should
be made to make us forget our Provincial identity, so we would be one people; from
Sarnia to Newfoundland. I believe there is a desire that when we go into Confederation
these Lower Provinces should go into a Legislative Union and become one Province.
If we do not like this Confederation we had better keep out of it, but if we go into
it we must not talk of Canada as a foreign country, but be one people under one General
Government. The next resolution provide that the Inter-Colonial
72
DEBATES OF THE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
Railway shall be commenced before the
right shall exist to increase taxation upon the people of this Province. Suppose we
passed this, and as my hon. friend says, the Canadians are so cunning it would be
quite possible for them to build then miles and then go no further, they can do that
if this provision is put in. We have provided that the Inter-Colonial Railroad shall
be commenced and prosecuted to thee completion, without asking whether the revenues
are sufficient or not, but in regard to the canals, it is only when the Provinces
shall determine when the funds are sufficient that the work will be proceeded with.
But in regard to this road we have the assurance of the Imperial Government, that
no time shall be lost in completing the work. It is a singular using that the United
States at the time of the revolution, before they acquired their independence, were
making provisions to admit Canada into that Union, the eleventh article of their Constitutiony
said ;
Article XI.—Canada according to this Confederation, and joining in the measures of
the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this
Union ; but no other Colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission
be agreed to by nine States."
They were just separating from the
mother country. and were very anxious
to get possession of Canada. If they
had possession of Quebec, which commanded the mouth of the St. Lawrence.
the United States could not be attacked
except from the seaboard. We have not
copied the institutions of the United
States, not because we found fault with
the Constitution, for the wonder is not
that the Cons itution has failed, but that
it has not failed more frequently and
more fully than it has. When you consider that their people have come from
all the nations of the earth, from republics and from absolute and limited monarchies,
you must say it is a remarkable
Constitution to so firmly bind the people together. It was originally formed
to protect themselves from outward danger, this was the main object of the compact
that bound the thirteen Colonies together. It was prepared with the object of defending
themselves against a foreign foe, and no provision was made for internal troubles
until afterwards. One great reason of their difficulties, and one of the great reasons
of their war was, that there was not sufficient power in the General Government. Each
state claimed an independent sovereignty. If you read the Constitution of the United
States as a lawyer, and I think a large proportion of the lawyers would come to the
conclusion that they had right—that it
was a simple co-partnership into
by these seperate States. and they had a
right. upon the face of the Constitution
to declare themselves out ol that Constitution. It was fortunate for the
United States that while that would be
the construction put upon it by a lawyer,
it was not the construction put upon it by the United States themselves, and they
had sufficient power to maintain what they considered their right. Had the Southern
States succeeded, they had still a country large enough for a nation, but they knew
that if they had succeeded the States that were left would have falledn to pieces.
They would have been like a glass toy, the moment they broke a corner off it falls
to pieces. The Western States would have gone off, and they would have split up in
four or five pieces. They would have fought the battle out as long as they had a ma
to fight or a shilling to pay him with. I have a copy of the Constitution farmed subsequently
to this, and it is remarkable that this Constitution was framed by a Convention, and
never was submitted to a vote of the people. If there be one way more sure than another
to drive us or lead us into the neighboring republic, it will be by forgetting the
good old time honored institutions of our country, and becoming familiar with and
practicing the Constitution of the United States. The moment we found our Confederation
upon the American principle, we will gradually settle into the United States. If we
become American in practice we will very soon become American in fact. I do not wish
to have American institutions under the British Flag. We want nothing better than
British institutions, for under them we have as much liberty, and a little more, than
they have in the United States. Our institutions are more republican than the institutions
of the United States. Our people have more power over the Government than the people
of the Unite States have over theirs. If the veto power be exercised by the sovereign,
the ministry must go out and another party come in. The ministry cannot retain their
power and refuse a bill that has passed through the Legislature. In the United States
if the veto power is exercised it requires a two- thirds vote before a pill passed,
can become law. It there be no man less than two-thirds the minority must rule the
majority, and prevent them from having a measure for the public interest. I will now
read (from, "Shafner's Seccssion War In America") a letter of Washington, President
of the Convention appointed to draw up a constitution :
"IN CONVENTION, Sept. 17, 1787.
"SIR: We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States in
Congress assembled that the Con
stitution which has appeared to us the
most advisable.
The friends of our country have long seen and desired that the power of making war,
peace and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent,
executive and judicial authorities, should be fully and effectually vested in the
General Government of the Union ; but the impropriety of delegating such extensive
trust to one body of men is evident ; hence results the necessity of a different organization.
It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure
all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and
safety of all. Individuals tnering into society must give up a share of liberty to
preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation
and circumstances as on the object to be attained. It is at all times difficult to
draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered and those
which may be reserved ; and on the present o casion this difficulty was increased
by a difference among the several Sates as to their situation, extent, habitants and
particular interests."
Does not this meet our case, each
State must surrender some of its rights
for the general interest. In the formation of society we have to give up some
of our natural rights, and if they were
not given up society could not ue formed. The Provinces going into Confederation must
give up some of their local
interests. It is not we who are giving
more than the others, but we yield one
point and they yield another. If we pass
a resolution like the one under consideration, and Nova Scotia passes another
giving different instructions, and the -
delegates go into conferences, how can
they agree at all unless each party yields
some points and there is a compromise
made.
The letter goes on to say :
" In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view that which
appears to us the greatest interest of every true American—this consolidation of our
Union—in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national
existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds,
led each State in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude
than might have been otherwise expected ; and thus the Constitution which we now pr
sent is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession
which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensible. That it will
meet !he full and entire approbation of every State is not perhaps to be expected,
but each will doubtless consider that had her interest been alone consulted, the consequences
might have been particularly disagreeable to others ; that it is liable to as few
exceptions as could reasonably have been expected , we hope and believe ; that it
may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her
freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.
"With great respect we have the honor
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 73
to be, sir, your Excellency's most obedient humble servants.
"By unanimous order of the Convention,
GEORGE WASHINGTON,
"President.
"His Excellency the President of Congress."
If Washington had been writing concerning the position of the Provinces at the present
day, he could not have stated the views of the parties who have to form this Confederation
more forcibly. It states our position from the beginning to end. We find that only
eleven of the
States at that time adopted this Constitution. New York came in too late to vote for
the first President. I will now read the organization of the United States Government:
On the first Wednesday in January,
ten States appointed the electors to vote for President of the new Government. On
the first Wednesday in February thereafter, the electors in each State ment at their
respective Capitals and voted for the first President, and Washington was elected.
In the meantime the State of New York repealed its conditional ratification of the
Constitution and agreed to join the new Government, hoping to secure certain changes
in the Constitution in the future; but the proceedings of New York took place after
the time fixed for the appointment of presidential electors, and hence that State
did not vote for the President. Congress was ordered to convene on the 4th of March
1789, in the City of New York, but there was not a quorum present, and it was adjourned
to meet again on the first of April, on which day the first Congress under the Constitution
assembled. On the 30th April, 1789, George Washington was inaugurated as the first
President. Thus commenced the Constitutional Government composed of eleven States,
all of which seceded from the Confederation of 1781, leaving but two members in that
perpetual Union. These were Rhode Island and North Carolina. As the Union had been
dissolved by the secession of eleven States, the whole structure fell; and on the
first of April, 1789, on the organization of the Constitutional Government there were
three independent Republics, resulting from the political revolutino of that era;
one composed of the eleven States; another of Rhode Island, and the third of North
Carolina. Every possible effort was made to induce the two independent sovereign States
to join the new Government, and for a time they seemed to be determined never to ratify
the Constitution. North Carolina yielded, and joined the new Confederacy on the 21st
November, 1789; but Rhode Island continued inexorable. There was a powerful opposition
among the people to the ratification of the Constitution, and that State maintained
its independence until
the 29th of May, 1790, being nearly two
years after the Constitutional Govermment had been adopted by the ten seceding States.
The Union finally with the independent Republic of Rhode Island completed the organization
of the thirteen United States, and established the great American nation - the wonder
of the most wonder-teeming age. We have thus briefly traced the formation of the new
Government of the United States under the Constitution formed in 1787. It is only
left for us to remark, that this great organic code of the Union was never adopted
by a vote of the people. The Conventions of the States ratified it; but we are unable
to find that a single State entered the Union by a vote of the people. The Legislature
when they meet are the people, and they have not only the power to deal with subjects
that were before the people when they were elected, but they have power to deal with
all questions that may occur during their existence. They are the people for all legislative
purposes, and they have the power to change the Constitution when they think the country
requires it. The Imperial Parliament has dethroned and elected Sovereigns without
appealing to the people. My hon. friend (Mr. Smith) has aid that those who went for
Confederation were looking for personal advantage. I say to represent the people in
the General Parliament is an object worthy of our ambition, and my hon. friend would
be one of the first to aspire to that position. He believes he is pursuing the course
the interest of the country requires, and we believe we are pursuing the course best
calculated to promote the welfare of the country. We do not think it is a matter of
prophecy; it is simply a matter of looking back to history, and we know that like
occurrences produce like effects. It would be a dangerous thing if all politicians
agreed; it is much better to have the subject ventilated - to have an opposition,
and that opposition to come before the pople and explain this opposition. After this
question had been placed before the people in its most glowing colours, they have
seen it is for the interest of the country to enter this Union. These resolutions
bind the delegates hand and foot, and the moment you pass them you reject the resolutions
to appoint the delegates. It would be simply sending a delegation who would come back
with their fingers in their mouths, having done nothing. There must be mutal concessions;
you could not get five men to enter into partnership upon the terms one of them would
draw up. This Quebec Scheme when it was made was not binding upon the Government.
It is provided in our institutions that those who take office have both Executive
and Legislative duties to perform.
The Legislature of the country must be under their direction, and they must have such
a majority in both brances as to be able to carry forward those measures they think
will be for the interest of the country, and to resist those measures which they think
will be prejudicial to it. They take the responsibility and they must control the
Legislature of the country, and when it was adoped by the Government, it was not binding
upon the country, and if placed in a position in which they cannot control it they
must resign their seats. If the Government bring forward a Scheme of Union and the
House refuse to pass it they must resign. It is not necessary that they should resign
if defeated upon a question of minor importance, because it frequently hapens that
a Government is defeated and still has a majority. If they then resign the minority
has to rule. I felt that when this Scheme was first brought before the people that
the Government would be defeated upon it. The Government were not popular enough to
carry Confederation, and if the House had died a natural death they would have been
defeated, and Confederation too. My opinion was that by dissolving the House as we
did we would lose our position a year sooner, but Confederation would be carried a
year earlier. It being then defeated, people then began to think about it, and in
the sort space of sixteen months there was a revolution in the feeling of the country
upon the question. My hon. friend (Mr. Smith) came to the House opposed to Confederation,
but if he had come to the conclusion that the people had changed and were in favour
of it, he might have come in with a resolution in favor of Confederation, or he might
have prepared a Scheme differing from this where it was defective and had a large
marjority in this House. Suppose some of the members of his then Government had resigned,
he could then have formed a Coalition Government and carried his Scheme. I suppose
his was opposed to Confederation, and did not think it would be doing right to take
that course. I believe he considered that the course he took would best advance the
interests of the country, and we are also taking the course by which we think the
interests of the country will be advance and its prosperity increased.
The debate was adjourned until tomorrow at 10.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY - brought in "A
Bill relating to the imposition of duties for raising a Revenue."
The House adjourned until 9 A.M. tomorrow.
T.P.D.