[...] few people living on the road, which is
chiefly used by the people of King's and Queen's Counties, who bring their produce
to the Saint John Market. The Road itself is very badly situated, for at every [?]it is overflowed, and when the water subside, it is left a perfect quagmire, and unless
a large amount of money is expended to put it n thorough repair by raising it and
building the necessary culverts, and so forth, it can never be kept in order. It is
certain the people who live on the Road can do very little indeed towards keeping
it in an efficient state. Saint John is most pecularly situated; the country is cut
up by creeks and lakes and streams, so that it is a very difficult matter to keep
up the Roads and Bridges. The money they receive is not sufficient for the Bridges
even. The work on the Marsh Road ought to ahve been done last year, and if it had
been then looked after, much of the damage which has been sustained by parties going
to town would have been prevented. I have received so many letters of complaint that
really it has become not only embarrassing but harrassing.
CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.
Mr. SMITH. Some time ago I under
stood there was some trouble in the
Crown Land Office with regard to some of the subordinates, upon which a lively correspondence
passed between the Surveyor General and Lieutenant Governor Gordon. I should like
to know from the Surveyor General if it is the intention of the Government to submit
that Correspondence to the House; and also if the Correspondence with regard to the
removal of Mr. Lawrence in Saint John from the Chief Commissionership of Railways,
is to be submitted. I had hoped that as no opposition had been raised to the Address,
and as it was the expressed wish of the hon. members that the business of the country
should be pushed on as rapidly as possible that the Government would have been ready
to bring in their measures and submit the necessary papers to this House. But they
seem very little inclined to do anything, and I should now like the Surveyor General
to give us some idea whether this Correspondence will be laid before us or not. It
is said that the Correspondence between the Surveyor General and Governor Gordon,
- who I believe is now in another country, I don't know exactly where, for I have
not heard from him lately, - was of a very sharp character and I should like to know
whether the Surveyor General conquered or Governor Gordon.
Hon. Mr. CONNELL. - If the hon.
member will give us a memorandum of what he wants to know I will enquire and give
an answer on Monday. So far as I am concerned I am quite willing to let all that goes
on inside the Government be known by the public.
Hon. Mr. McCLELAN. - There is a
constitutional method by which the hon. member for Westmorland can get the documents
he requires before the House. He can move an Address, if he desires to do so, that
the papers may be submitted. With regard to the remission of the Chief Commissioner
of Railways, I think the correspondence was pretty well made public at the time, but
if the hon. member is very desirous to have it submitted he can get it by moving an
Address. As to delay in laying these matters before the House, I think I can remember
a notable instance when the hon. member was in the Government, in which the business
was kept back forty days before the Address could be got through, at which time no
papers could be obtained at all. But now the Address has passed, business is going
on, Bills are being brought in and even passed, although we have only been in session
one week, and really do not see how the Government can push on the work any faster.
Mr. SMITH. - I am surprised at the
Chief Commissioner referring to that notable instance of delay, for it is well known
that that hon. member, who was then in Opposition, materially assisted to keep back
the passing of the Address.
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867. 31
Could not get papers down! No, Mr.
Speaker, for it was impossible to ge a paper submitted till the Address was passed.
We were anxious to go on with the public business, but the Opposition used every means
to retard and keep back the passing of the Address. How different has been the action
of the Opposition this Session. We raised no side issues to impede the action of the
Governmemt; we made no opposition to the passage of the Address. Not but that we could
have done so, but we thought it best to let it go and proceedd with the business of
the country, so that we could get away our various avocations. The Government may
think they are very strong, but I am sure there is a majority of members on the floors
of this HOuse who condemn their acts, especially in the appointments to the Senate.
In that instance they have done a gross injustice to the Catholics, but omitting to
place a member of that denomination on the list which has been sent home. Every section
of the Province and every
department should have been regarded, - but what do we find? The interests of the River Counties
entirely neglected and overlooked.
Mr. SMITH. - No, Mr. Speaker, I am
here to say that I think Westmorland County has been regarded to the neglect and injury
of other parts of the Province - one member was as much as we could expect or desire.
But when I consider that although there are two representatives of the River interests
in the Government, yet in the appointment of Senators, these Counties have been passed
by. I cannot but be surprised tha they are perfectly complacent, and remain in the
Government still. When I was in the Government, these same hon. members said that
I was willing to trample upon every right of the people of this Province other than
give up my office; when, if I could have done so with honor to myself and consistently
with the requirements of the people, I would have yielded glandly up the reins of
office to those who were using every endeavor to get them into their hands. This was
the charge against me then by the very men who were using back stairs influence and
every means of treachery to oust the Government. At that time they said I had not
ground of complaint against Governor Gordon. I [?] should like to hear their opinion
of him now. I should be quite willing to take the opinion of the Surveyor General
on that question, and abide by it. But then he was all wrong and Governor Gordon was
all right. I have no hesitation in saying that I suffered the worst injustice at that
time. But to return: The Government now has not gone on with the
business, although every opportunity has
been given them, and the fullest desire expressed to press matters on. They Surveyor
general says he is willing to let all that transpires in the Government be known.
I wish he would; I think the House would have no objection to hearing something of
their movements. I wish we could have a reporter there, so as to know exactly what
has been taking place during the past eight or ten days. He had better suggest the
idea to his colleagues, and see if they will be as willing as he to let all be known;
I rather think, however, he will find them more co[]tive than he happens to be at
the present time. I am much obliged to the Chief Commissioner for the information
he has given that I can get the papers I require by moving for them by Address, and
if they are not submitted I shall avail myself of the privilege of doing so.
Hon. Mr. FISHER. - The great difference between the late Government and the present is, that the
one which was led by my hon. friend from Westmoreland held their power against the
will of the people, and I hope he does not wish the House to deduce from his remars
that this, or any other Government will do exactly as they did. Their acts were the
most extraordinary and unconstitutional ever known in the history of Responsible Government.
Mr. SMITH. - Now, Mr. Speaker, I
ask, I challenge, I dare him to show any act of the late Government that was unconstitutional,
or wherein we held power contrary to the will of the pepole. What was unconstitutional?
what was extraordinary? We brought in our Address at the opening of the Session, but
the opposition raised by the present Attorney General and others, who were anxous
to get into power, was of the most factious and treacherous character. The Attorney
GEneral, if not himself practicing back stairs influence, was perfectly aware, I have
no doubt, of all that was ging on. Their acts were of the extraordinary and unconstitutional
character, not ours. What does the Attorney General mean? Does he think the House
wil lput up with a continuance of the present state of affairs in the Government?
I believe there is strength enough in this House to overturn them, and it seems as
though they knew it, and were afraid to proceed with the business of the country.
Hon. Mr. FISHER. - I mwan that
whatever was the course pursued by the
late Government during the first ten days
of their last Session, the Executive now
should not be governed by anything they
did. The hon. member speaks of treachery and back stairs influence being
used. I neither practised it, nor knew
anything about it; but immediately after
the Address was brought in. I moved a
vote of want of confidence, and it was
carried, so that the Government had to give up the power they held against the wishes
of the people, and the Government immediately afterward formed were and have been
sustained by a large majority on the floors of this House.
Mr. SMITH. - I challenge the Attorney General to show any differences in the Government during
the first ten days of that Session. Never were eight men more united than we were
as to the course to be pursued; but how different is it now. The Government are in
council day and night; they cannot spare time even to be in their seats or to go on
with the public business, on account, it is said, of the differences existing among
them. We were united, but the Opposition raised all sorts of cries to excite the people's
minds against us. Popery. Fenianism, and every other cry that could be devised was
tried to oust us. The people were deceived and imposed upon, and they know it now,
and I would be quite willing to go back to them upno the questions then raised. I
believe the verdict would be very different now, if the people could only get the
chance to deliver it. With regard to our Speech, the Governor declared that he spoke
for himself only, and not for the Council. He admitted that no responsibility rested
upon us in the matter, and yet they cried out, "There is Union in the Speech." The
Attorney General says he was not aware that back stairs influence was being used against
us. I am surprised to hear such a statement, for who was in a better position than
he to know of the treachery that was being practised? He knew, and others knew, what
the answer of the Governor to the Address of the Legislative Council was to be before
it was delivered, and before I knew it myself, and I would ask if treachery was not
practiced there? But now I will come back and again ask the Surveyor General when
correspondence between him and Governor Gordon will be handed in, for it is said the
contest was quite sharp and Governor Gordon was the victor.
Hon. Mr. FISHER. - I wish to make a
few remarks further. Now, my hon. friend from Westmorland speaks of Fenianism, and
the people being excited by the Opposition raising that cry. But if there was excitement
throughout the country, who started it? Did not my hon friend come into the House,
and ask for means to resist a threatened attack of Fenians on the border? Did he not
say that he was not in a position to lay before the House particulars at that time,
but that his information was thoroughly reliable? The Opposition then said that they
need not go into particulars, but if the Government wanted means to put down the threatened
trouble, they were willing to
32 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867.
help them by every means in their power.
But now the hon. member says the people were deceived. If they were, who, I ask, deceived
them? It was he and the people know it, - and they know more. They know that during
the Confederation contest, when the hon. member for Westmorland was going about from
Dan to Beersheba, trying to show that a Union of these provinces would bring devastation
and ruin upon the people of this country, and when the friends of Union were striving
to show the the benefits which would accrue from it, he was challenged by Mr. Tilley
to meet him and discuss the matter fairly and openly; but, instead of doing it, he
went off to the cack slums of Sussex, somewhere out of the way, and would not meet
him. The men in opposition to the Government of that day saw the position, they realized
the danger to the best interests of the popel by a continuance in power of the men
who were willing to sacrifice every constitutional right for the privilege of holding
on to power, and they knew that the people would rise n their indignation and cooperate
with the members of the House in hurling the Government from power and they did it.
The hon. member has gone into the old story of his differences with Governor Gordon,
and now tries with high sounding words to frighten the present Government by challenging
them to open up the controversy again. But I tell my hon. friend that if he want to
go into the matter, we are ready and willing to meet him on any point, with the full
confidence that we can vanquish him, either here or before the people of this country.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, taht we hve done what my hon. freind could not do, and it
is that which makes him so sore; he has been read out of Court, and it is that which
rankles so. We have been able to carry measure of Union most satisfactory to the people
of this Province, and one that is only the precursor of better times. He knows well
enough that when we go to the people they will give us a verdict. He knows that many
of their strongest supporters, who were opposed to the Quebec Scheme, have come round,
now that the most beneficial changes have been effected, and are favorable to the
measure. He need not get up here and blow off so much gas, for it can do no good.
He would be much better employed and commend himself to the good sense of the people,
if he were to go and help the Government to see through the business of the country.
Mr. SMITH. - the Attorney General
has a happy difficulty of taking all the glory to himself for what has been done.
But if changes have been obtained in the Quebec Scheme who, I ask, as entitled to
praise? Is it the Attorney General,
who for two years went about the country
from "Dan to Beersheba" preaching up the beauties of the Quebec Scheme? No; if he
had had his way the country would at this moment have been cursed with taht Scheme.
If praise is due to anyone, it is to those who so boldly withstood the infliction
of taht measure upon our people, and who, when it was found that the people were desirous
for Union, still insisted that changes should be made. The Attorney General was fortunate
enough to be one of the Delegates, and now he comes back, and with the most disinterested
patriotism wants to go to Ottawa and hold on to his office here as well. He says that
I retreated to the back slums of Sussex Vale, but I tell him he had better reture
to the back slums of his own political infamy. He says it was I who started the cry
of Fenianism, but what are the facts of the case? Every day we received telegrams
from the Governor, of the most exciting and threatening character, but which I now
believe were not more than two-thirds true. I do not know where they came from, or
who was their author, - perhaps the Attorney General can tell use; but it is evident
to my mind that they were got up for the purpose of overthrowing the Government. A
few men did come down to our borders, and they professed to come to assist the Antis
to prevent Confederation. That was it; as if any one could not see that this very
statement was sufficient to unite our people against both Government and Fenians.
They did not come with any such purpose; but perhaps the Attorney General can tell
us why they did come. Did he know anything about them? Was he in communication with
them? I can't tell, but everybody knows that they were the cause of the defeat of
the Government, and, strange to say, the moment the Attorney General came into power
it was all over. They did turn up again on the Canada border some time after and disas
terous consequences followed, but they did not damage here. But I want to know what
the Attorney General means by the back slums of Sussex? Has he been there? Doesn't
he know there are no back slums in Sussex Vale? What does he mean? There are back
slums here, I believe; for I have often heard it said that the Attorney General would
go through the back slums from his office to his home to avoid meeting his constitutes
face to face. But I think he doesn not know what he is talking about and had better
use more propriety in his language, for I won't bear it. He has been in LOndon for
some months past, and probably has had experience of such places, but that is no reason
why he should cast a stigma upon Sussex Vale. The story he tells has been denied over
and over again, but he still
brings it up: that I promise to meet Mr.
Tilley and discuss the question of Confederation, in the Hall connected with the Academy
at Sackville - a statement which is as untruthful as can be. I waited on the Secretary
of that meeting, and was told that I could go, but would not be allowed to speak -
consequently I did not go. But I did get a challenge. It was the close of a meeting
at which I had been speaking, when a man called out, "I will meet you here to-morrow
night and discuss the question with you." I had an engagement that night twenty miles
away, and the man knew it. I did not know what I was afraid to talk on the matter,
or to let people know my opinions. I went to Saint Johm, and Mr. Speaker, I think
you can vouch that I had a good reception.
Mr. SPEAKER - The people of Saint
John always receive strangers who address them with every consideration.
Mr. SMITH - I do not know that it is
worth while to prolong the discussion, but if the Attorney General is going to use
slang phrases and unparliamentary language, I am ready for him. I think I can talk
about back slums as well as he, if he is anxious for it. I now want to hear from the
Surveyor General in reply to my question, and from the Attorney General about his
speech which he made to the people in the Hall here after his return, where he is
reported to have said that he was strongly in favor of going to Ottawa and holding
on to his seat in this House.
Mr. SMITH. - Then you were reported
wrong. But now if the Attorney General
will put on that Court Dress, of which we have heard so much, and which it is said
has been brought to this country - a dress that report says, cost about £60 - and
come upon the floors of the House in it, I will willingly forgive many of his political
sins, and the curiosity of the members of this House and of the country, which has
been wrought up to an extraordinary pitch by the accounts given in the papers, will
be satisfied. (Laughter.)
Hon. Mr. FISHER. - I am aware that
the expression I made use of was uncalled for and unparliamentary, but it dropped
from my mouth in the heat of the moment, and now I am not ashamed to retract it. I
am not in the habit of making use of language which is condemned by the rules of this
House, but still I must tell my hon. friend that it is no use in his coming here to
glow off his gas, but if he wants to fight the matter out, let us have a fair field
and no favor, and I am sure that I do show that they position he takes with regard
to the whole question at issue is wrong.
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867. 85
Mr. SMITH. - Now, whilst aplogiz ing for the use of unparliamentary language, teh ATtorney
General makdes use of another expression equally offensive. He must know that some
words are just as offensive as some gas, and he has been blowing off a good deal of
it of teh most offensive character. But I am not afraid to meet him to discuss questions
at issue between us, nor to leave the verdict for the decision of the people.
REPRESENTATION OF CARLETON COUNTY.
Mr. LINDSAY moved the House into Committee on a Bill to increase the representation of the County
of Carleton.
Mr. SKINNER. - I should like to hear from the hon. members from the County of Carleton on the
Bill; first from the hon. member of the Government. It is generally conceded that
those two hon. members are about equal to three ordinary members in their ability
to get privileges for their County, and if one were put in the Senate adn the other
went to Ottawa to represent Carleton in the House of Commons, and the County have
three members in this House, I think that would hardly be dealing fairly with the
Counties down below.
Mr. LINDSAY. - I can give my humble opinion as to the requirements of teh County, and whetehr
I can convince my hon. friend from Saint John of the encssity of this Bill is another
matter. I think I would be in favor of recasting the representation of all the Counties,
and if the Government does not introduce such a measure, I may do so myself before
the Session closes. (Hear, hear.) At the present time, however, I think I can show
to hon. members that Carleton County is deserving of an additional representation
in this House, when compared with the representation from other Counties. I am much
obliged to the hon. member from Saint John for the compliment he has paid my colleague
and myself as to our abilities as representatives. The section of the County I represent
is not a seaport like Saint John, but a district inhabited by hard working agriculturists,
and this interest I think is worthy to be represented on the floor of this House.
If the hon. member from Saint John would pay us a visit I should be pleased to take
him out to Johnville, where he will find a thrifty and industrious people, settled
in part of the country, which a few years ago was all wilderness; people who instead
of loafing about the corners of streets in Saint John have gone up there, built houses
and cleared up farms for themselves, and are now hapy and comfortable. If we look
at the representation of
Carleton as compared with other Counties, we shall find that Carleton has one representative
to 8, 187 of its population, while in Restigouche they have one to every 2,437 adn
in Saint John one to 8,155 inhabitants. I believe, however, in making up the representation
we should not include the population of teh large cities.
Mr. LINDSAY. - Population is a good basis, but should not embrace the large cities, because there
they have a large floating population.
Mr. LINDSAY. - I don't know whether my hon. friend was elected by such, but however much he may
be included to make fun, I will let him know that
"Thrice is he armed, that hath his quarrel just,"
and therefore he had better keep quite till I have done speaking. The representation
in Westmorland is on to every 7,000, which is fairer than in Carleton. In Gloucester
they have one member for every 7,538, in Kent one for every [?],927, and in King's one ofor every 7,761. These Counties should all have a larger
representation. In Charlotte they have one for every 5,117 and in Northumberland one
for every 4,700 This is. not a fair representation surely. Carleton has not only large
agricultural interests, but it is, without doubt, destined to become a large mining
district. I am informed that gold has been found there by a gentleman returned from
California.
Mr. LINDSAY. - I don't care where it was, even if it was in the far North, for we have booth
Cooper and Iron besides. I believe it is the duty of every man to be faithful to the
interests of the popel he represents, and I am satisfied that when the next census
is taken the County of Carleton will have a larger population than some Countries
that now have four representatives. Carleton increased in population seventy nine
and half per cent in the ten years preceding the last census, at which time the population
was 16,373, and the increase is so great that they should have five representatives
at the present rate at the end of the next ten years.
Mr. SKINNER. - The soil is better up there than it is with us.
Mr. LINDSAY. - The hon. member had better stand on his feet when he speaks; he is not so large
that he need retain his seat. I think, Mr. Chairman, I have said sufficient to show
that in justice we should have three representatives instead of two, as now.
50 DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867.
[...] States. The Senate of the United States
is composed of only 72 Senators, for that great and mighty country, containing thirty-five
million people, with all the affairs of Empire to deal with, while this New Dominion,
which is simply a subordinate Province of the Empire, and having a population of only
3,000,000 is to have 76 Senators after Newfoundland is admitted into the Union. In
the HOuse of Commons we are to have 181 members, while in the House of Representatives
in the United States they have about 200 or possibly 230 members to deal with the
affairs of a nation, therefore, either the machinery of the Government of the United
States is too small, or that of the New Dominion is too large. I think the Parliament
of the New Dominion is too large, they having nothing to do with the affairs of Empire,
and nothing to do with the local affairs of the Provinces. I am satisfied that the
expenses connected with the Government will be very large indeed, but how large I
am not prepared to say. I am prepared to predict that the Tariff upon our people,
at the very first Session of that Confederate Parliament will be at least thirty per
cent higher than it is now. I have already said that I believed we would have a stamp
duty collected in this Province, which will be a very odious tax upon the people.
There will also be a tax upon newspapers, for every means will be resorted to, in
order to increase the revenue to meet the expenses required to keep up the General
Government and the expenses connected with the construction of their public works.
While these expenses are going on in the General Government, I do not think there
will be any diminution in the expenses of the Legislature here. The duties connected
with the office of Postmaster General will be transferred to the General Government
and the office abolished, but there will be a new department established, that of
Reeiver General. Throughout the whole canvass at the last election, it was said that
the expenses of this Legislature would be diminished, but is there any measure before
the House to reduce the expenses? The PRovincial Secretary will not deny that the
told the people that the expenses of the Legislature would be less than formerly.
Where do they intend to apply the pruning knife? It is not in reducing the number
of members on the floors of the House: it is not in reducing the number of departmental
officers, for one office is abolished, and another is established in its place. The
Secretary can make cal0 culations and predictions on one side of the question, but
I should like to hear him make a calculation on the other side. He has told us of
the smuggling going on across the boundary, but he did not tell
us it would be stopped, because it is evident that it will increase and add largely
to our revenue, but I do not desire to go into a calculation in reference to it now
because it would not be of much practical value. I was sorry to hear, from the Secretary,
when he was making his calculations, that were were go get 80 cents per head only
on the population of 1861 until 1871. I would like to ask the hon. member from St.
John (Mr. Wilmot), who took all the credit to himself for the changes made in the
Scheme, why the Delegates did not endeavor to get 80 cents a head on our persent population,
for they could, by calculating the increase of population in the past ages, approximate
what it would be now. Perhaps they did the best they could, for they were desirous
of making all the changes that they could in the Quebec Scheme, but they only change
that I see which will be of any benefit is the change allowing us 80 cents per head
until the population reaches 400,000. I objected to giving to Canada such a preponderance
in the number of representatives ehich she is allowed to have, and to the provision
of the Scheme allowing a decennial increase of representation. I would ahve fixed
the representation where it is, and not allowed any increase. There is a provision
in the Scheme authorising the Parliament to increase the number of representatives,
provided the proportionate representation of the Province prescribed by the Act is
not violated. If they go on and increase the number some thity, Upper Canada would
ahve an entire majority of the whole. That is one provision of the Act which I object
to, and there are many objectionable features in it, but I do not wish to take up
the time by speaking of them now. In regard to the Secretary's figures, I do not want
to impugn them, for they may be right and they may be wrong. When he deals in imagination
and speculation in regard to the amount which we will be entitled to in 1881 under
the Act of Union, he does not tell us what our wants will be for Roads, Bridges and
Schools at that time. He gives us only one side of the question. As the population
increases their wants increase. I do not suppose that we appropriated one-half or
one-third of the amount for Schools, Roads and Bridges, twenty years ago, that we
are to appropriate this year, and even now we have not as much as we ought to have,
for the late storms and freshets have done a great deal of damage. I wil not take
up any further time, for I suppose the Secretary will make another speech, and if
he does so I will reply to him again.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY. - I cannot allow
some parts of my hon. friend's remarks to pass without making some few observations,
although on the whole I was
rather pleased with his speech, for he has
not attacked the point and the position in which the country at the present time is
most deeply interested, that is, the amount of money we will have at the present time
for local purposes, and whether we will have it for the future without direct taxation.
He said we would have in the next five years, or in the next seven years, a great
deal more than we received this year, therefore, we would be in a great deal better
position out of the Union than in it, but he has not attempted to disprove the statement
that we will have during the next four years $65,508 per annum more than we haev at
present, or that after 1871 we will have an annual surplus of $120,871. He said he
would like to have me state what amount of Revenue we would have in 1871. I put it
down at 12 per cent increase on the revenue of this year, provided the population
paid the same as they do now. He says the increase on last year was owing to the fact
that people had begun to find out facilities for defrauding the revenues of the United
States. The tariff is being reduced in that country every year, so that there will
not be the same inducement to smuggle, and there will not be the same opportunity
for smuggling that there has been the past year, as their force of Revenue Officers
was now more efficient than it ever was before. (
Mr. Smith, - They have not been very successful at St. Stephen.) They have peculiar facilities
for smuggling at the Port of St. Stephen, and it would be almost impossible to stop
them. It has been the policy of the United States to reduce their debt, and as that
is reduced, they will reduce their tariff, for they will find that excessive duties
do not always produce the desired results. The speech made by my hon. friend to-day
is a strong contrast to the arguments made in 1863, when I endeavored to show that
the construction of the Intercolonial Railway would increase our population and expenditure,
and we would be better able to provide for our local wants than we had been His arguments
were then directly opposed to what they are now. He tells us now that if we build
this road it will increase our population, which will increase our revenue. In the
Fredericton Reporter we find a report of a speech delivered by him in 1863, in which he, speaking on the
question concerning the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, says: - "The Railway
Debt in Canada would be $10 a head, while ours would be $29 a head; in this connection
he would ask whether, in addition to all we howe already, we were prepared to pay
$160,000 more, making in all $492,000, we have to pay for interest, leaving ourselves
only £40,000 per annum for all
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867. 51
local purposes; this is a grave question,
and he would invoke the most serious consideration of the House." He made a long speech
on that occasion; and took the gloomy view that we would have but £40,000 a year left
for our local purposes. His line of reasoning now is just opposite. He says now there
will be a large increase of population and a large increase of revenue in consequence
of the construction of this Railway.
Mr. SMITH. - I took the same ground
then that I do now, - that our population would increase, but our wants would increase
with it.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY. - He took the
view that our revenue would not meet our expenditure. The hon. members who were in
the House on that occasion must remember the plausibility of his reasoning on this
point and be struck by the feeling he entertained on that occasion as contrasted with
the speeches now made, where he admits the population will increase up to 400,000
in 1881, and thinks the revenue will increase to $2,000,000. My hon. friend went off
on the subject of taxation, and took occasion to say, no doubt but we would have the
Stamp Act here, and a charge put upon our papers. Admitting that should be the case,
if it becuase necessary to assess a tax upon the whole Confederacy, and a certain
amount is to be raised for the benefit of the country, it makes no difference how
it comes out of my pocket. If I have to pay it, I might as well pay it in one thing
as another. Men in this Province will not have to pay one cent more per head than
they have paid. My hon. friend says the expense of the New Dominion will be great;
the building of the Intercolonial Railway will take £300,000 per annum as the interest
of the Railway debt. (
Mr. Smith, - How much will it cost?) I doubt it will cost £3,000,000. The Delegates gave the
subject some consideratin, adn there seemed to be a disposition to give a company
of capitalists a subsidy to construct the line, only stipulating that they should
run no less than a certain number of trains a day at a certain rate for passengers
and freight. Then I think the Road could be constructed for less than £3,000,000.
Suppose it will cost £3,000,000, they have to lay aside one per cent a year, that
is $150,000, as a sinking fund, by which they whole debt will be paid off in less
than forty years. This will not be a large sum to be paid out of the revenue of the
General Government, when we consider that last year the surplus revenue of Canada
alone was nearly a million dollars. He says the General Government will cost a large
sum of money. I will not pretend to say that it will not, but so far as New Brunswick
is concerned, as we have paid more per
head according to population out of the
Union, we wil not have to pay any more than in the past. I do not say the whole of
the Province will not pay it, for it is likely they will, but the point is, suppose
we go into Union with the tariff of Canada, we find the tariff of Canada to-day is
as low as the tariff of New Brunswick. All non-enumerated articles pay 15 per cent
under the tariff of Canada against 15 1/2 that ours pay, but a great many articles
here pay four per cent, and some pay fifteen per cent that do not pay any duty at
all in Canada. In Comptroller Smith's Report I marked all the articles that did not
pay duty, and I found that for every article we had which did not pay duty Canada
had two, therfore, we will not have to pay any more per head than we do now. The Tariff
of Canada will not yield any more than ours, because if some of their articles pay
more than ours, others pay less. My hon. friend says, "the Secretary told us that
thee expenses of this Legislature would be less." I said so. I estimate the time occupied
in SEssion will be one quarter less, the Legislative Council will be reduced four,
five or six members. He, in his speech on Saturday, pointed out the pitiable condition
the country would be in without money enough for Bye Roads, Schools, &c., and then
asked for £500,000 to aid in the construction of Western extension, knowing we had
the ability to pay it. Does the House want anything more tha that declaration to prove
that he knows that financially we are not destroyed.
Mr. SMITH. - I said I would support
the Government in bringing forward a measure to provide for Western Extension. I believe
it is the only opportunity we will ever have of getting tht work constructed. We can
now get the money at the rate of five per cent, and if we do nt take advantage of
it I think it will be a long time before we get that Road built. The Secretary says
that I said the country would be in a flourishing condition after Confederation. I
know as well as he does what we will have after we go into Union. In four years we
will not have one-half the money we would have if we remained as we are. I never said
anything to lead the Secretary to infer that I thought we had a bright future before
us; on the contrary, everything I said predicted a future dark and gloomy, although
I hope it may be otherwise. I offered to lend my assistance to support a measure of
vast importance to the people of the country. I wished to take advantage of a provision
in the Scheme of Union, wherein money could be obtained from the New Dominion at a
rate of five per cent, to build Western Extenssion, but the Secretary, with an air
of triumph, thinks I stand guilty and con
victed before the House of inconsistency.
The Provincial Secretary has ransacked the papers in all directions to try to prove
that I occupy a different position from what I did in 1863. I used the same language
then that I use now. The Secretary at that time tried to carry a measure for the construction
of 3 1/2 twelfths of the Intercolonial Railway, and here let me ask how many people
now don't believe the responsibility was too great for this little Province to bear?
I resisted that measure, and I gave evidence of my sincerity by resigning the office
of Attorney General. The Secretary knows that I was conscientious in my opinion that
the responsibility was too great for this small country in view of the debt already
existing on the European and North American Railway. This Railway, the Secretary said,
would pay 3 per cent in five years. I said it would not, you are entirely too sanguine.
It is now ten years since it was built, and it does not pay more than it did five
years ago. He charged me with being against Railways. I said that I had always inclined
to the principal fo caution, for I was afraid of encouraging these large liabilities
and heavy dues. I told him that I was afraid of these large funded debts, that we
had to pay now $250,000 interest on our debt in England. I said if the debt was due
among ourselves, the matter would be comparatively insignificant compared with having
a funded debt existing where we have to pay the interest or of the country, therefore
I say I opposed the assuming of 3 1-2 twelfths of the Intercolonial Railway as entirely
too heavy a burden for this country to take upon itself. We know the influence that
was brought to bear at that time. The Secretary, by his influence, was enabled to
carry that measure. I resisted it, and felt that I was right to resist it, and I do
not believe there are five members in this House who - if not in Confederation -
would go for the construction of 3 1-2 twelfths of the Intercolonial Railway. The
Secretary tells us now that this Road can be built for less than £3,00,000. If so,
I have not much opinion of the judgment of the Conference, nor of the scientific knowledge
of the man who said to the gentleman who moved the Bill in the HOuse of Lords that
it would take £4,000,000 to construct it, and they wanted that much from the British
Government. Instead of expecting to get it built for £3.000,000, the Delegates had
to give evidence that this New Dominion could obtain an additional £1,000,000 to build
the Road, and this guarantee comes in beyond the Imperial Guarantee. The Secretary
deals in imagination and speculation; he said ten years ago that the building of our
Railway would increase the population, and would cause a large
52 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867.
emigration to the Province. I said you
are too sanguine, and the result proves
that I was right. As to what I have said
to-day I am willing to appeal to any hon.
member of the House in justification of
myself and the language I employed. I
did not contradict myself. I said if we
had an increase of population the wants
of the people would increase proportionally. I opposed the building of 3 1-2
twelfths of the Intercolonial Railway, and
I made some calculation, that after paying the interest we would only have £40,000
for local purposes. I resisted the
passage of the Bill. I said inasmuch as
Canada repudiates the proposition to
build the Road, what was the necessity
for our legislating upon the subject. The
Secretary knows that I said I was satisfied Canada would not accept the proposition.
He told us that the very moment
a change took place in the Government
of Canada they would legislate in concurrence with us. I did not agree with
him. Who was right, and who was
wrong ? They never did legislate upon
the subject. The Secretary next tells us
that the tariff of the United States will
be reduced, and it will lessen the inducement for smuggling. I do not see how
they can reduce their tariff, their policy
being to pay off their national debt, and
this illicit trade will go on and increase.
While the country was convulsed with a
great war, trade did not settle down, but
when the war was over, and the people
of the country settled down to an abnormal condition, then smuggling went on,
and will still continue to go go, and the
Secretary cannot stand here with any
propriety and tell us the United States
Government intend to reduce their tariff.
I do not desire to take up the time of the
House, but I have given my opinion of
the question fairly and frankly. The
Secretary's object seems to have been to
place me in a false position. but he has
failed entirely. Suppose I was the most
inconsistent man in the world, what has
that to do with this great and mighty
question? It is not as I say, or as the
Secretary says: It is vain for us to indulge in these speculations at all. The
Secretary intends to go to Ottawa, and
he feels it his duty to present a picture of
our finances in 1881, but he looks at only
one side of the question. He is like an
advocate; he shows us how much better
off we would be in Confederation than we
would be out of it. Suppose my figures
are true, and we have a revenue of two
million, or two million and a quarter
dollars in 1881, would we not be better
off? The Secretary has told as about
the Intercolonial Railway, but has he
stated that the Road would not pay anything? I think he has induced the
House to believe that as a commercial
speculation the Intercolonial Railway
would yield some return. Let me ask
him if he has taken into account that the
Intercolonial Railway will not pay anything at all? Has he not charged the
entire interest on the money to construct
the Intercolonial Railway to the Province? Has he made any reduction at
all? I think not. I do not hesitate to
say that I do not believe it will yield
much, if any, return at all. That was
my opinion in 1863, and it is my opinion
now. His calculations are not right if he
has taken into account that the Road will
pay. Suppose the Intercolonial Railway
will pay three per cent, where would his
calculations go then ? Suppose his calculations were realized regarding the
Railway which runs to St. John, does he
give us any credit for the earnings on
that Road ? Suppose the Intercolonial
Railway and the Branches were built,
would they not be feeders to the
St. John Road and increase the traffic?
has he given us credit for that? If he
was right in telling us that the Interco
lonial Railway was a good commercial
speculation, and asking the Province to
build 3 1-2 twelfths of it, he must be
wrong now in not taking it into his calculations. If he has made any calculation,
then I am wrong, and shall apologize to the Secretary. I am not going
any farther unless the Secretary replies,
as he seems to went to have the last
word ; he had the last word the other
day, and I suppose he wants to have it
now, but if he speaks, I shall reply.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY.—I shall reply in
a very few words. My hon. friend says
he gave me the last word the other day, but I shall not have it now. It was the
first time in my experience that he did
give me the last word ; I don't think
such a thing ever occurred before. I was struck with the circumstance as so
remarkable that I said. Really he has
allowed me the last word. It impressed
itself upon my mind at the time, and I
thought it a most wonderful victory
over him that he allowed me to have it.
He says he does not know why I should come down to the House and submit an estimate
in reference to future years
when I am to go to Ottawa. Suppose I
do go to Ottawa: if I feel that his
speeches are calculated to convey to the
country what I believe to be erroneous
impressions, I feel it my duty to make a
statement of facts to go to the country,
and this statement has not been contradicted. We cannot allow him to
make statements which we believe to be
erroneous, in regard to our liabilities
and the means we have at our disposal.
I stated I would be prepared with
figures to show he was wrong, and that
there would be ample means for the
wants of the country. It is right that
we should view our future position in
regard to this matter. I have shown
by taking the expenditure of the last
seven years into account that we would
have in the next fifteen years much
more per year than we had in the last
seven. Did I say there would be more
money than was necessary ? I did not.
Did I say population would not increase?
I did not. Did I say the money would
not be required and could not be expended on the roads? I did not. I
desired to show the country and the
House that if the population was double
it would not double the expenses of the
Government. That was the argument
I used in 1863, when I was advocating
the Act to provide for the construction
of the Intercolonial Railway, and it is
the argument I use now. I said the
population would be increased, and we
would have forty per cent additional
for our Roads, Bridges and Education
Could I be blamed for stating these
facts? Was it wrong for us to state
them here and show we were right?
I felt it my duty, and availed myself of
the privilege of having those facts go
to the country.
Then, in reference to smuggling, he
says, How do I know that the United
States will decrease their tariff? I can
only judge from what is said as to what
is likely to be the policy of the Government of United States. We know
that during the war, and after the war
was over, the Government put such
duties on as were required to raise a
revenue, and we judge as men judge in
reference to such matters, that duties
which reduce their debt two hundred
million dollars a your will not long continue. The longer the violation of the
revenue laws continue, the more stringent will be the measures taken to carry those
laws into effect. Suppose a
system of smuggling was going on
across our borders would our energies
be more lax? Would we not take every
means in our power to suppress that
illicit trade? What we would do we
may suppose others would do ; therefore, we cannot expect the advantages
derived front this source will continue.
No one, I think, will undertake to say
that such will be the case ; therefore,
we will not get us much revenue from
this source if we remain out of Union
as in times past.
I was rejoiced to hear my hon. friend's
declaration, that he would give the
Government his support to bring a
measure giving aid and assistance to
carry on Western Extension. I rejoice
for two reasons: first, that he considers
the work worthy of his assistance ; secondly, that he recognizes our ability
to give it. If he had not felt in his
heart that we could give it, without
intrenching upon the money required,
DEBATES FOR THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867. 53
for Roads and Bridges, he would not
have been wiling to have it. He says it is our only chance. I admit that if we are
going to incur additional liabilities, there could be no better time. If it is done
before going into Confederation, we can get the money at the rate of five per cent;
and we know that if we give to assist Western Extension, whatever we give beyond our
debt of seven million, the interest would come out of what we receive for our local
purposes. I was rejoiced to find taht my hon. friend recognized that the province
had money sufficient to provide for local puposes and to give this great work, also.
I rejoiced to hear that he would assist the Government, and I could not help saying
"hear, hear" to the proposition. I said that this satisfied my mind that he took a
bright view of our future.
My hon. friend says that when I was
advocating the construction of the Intercolonial Railway that I estimated that we
would get something out of it moer than working expenses. I doubt if he can find a
speech of mine in which I said it would pay more than working expenses. I took the
ground that it would pay working expenses, and my hon. friend from Westmorland took
the ground that it would not. I thought that by connexion with Western Extension it
would give some revenue. He says that I thought the European and North American line
would pay three per cent in five years. I said if it paid three per cent. in ten years,
the indirect advantages would equal the the amount of money expended. My hon. friend
says I have been raking up papers to prove his inconsistency. I admit that the inconsistency
of any member of the House does not affect the question. He says I am no true prophet
- that my prophecies had not been realized; to prove this, he points to the Prohibitory
Law and the Railway; but he admits that the Prohibitory Law had not a fair chance.
With reference to the Railway, I admit that it cost more and the revenues from it
were not as much as I expected. In regard to the Act which the House passed for the
construction of the Intercolonial Railway, it was adopted by the Legislature - not
through any influence which I exerted in the House, but because public sentiment was
in favor of it, and the most important constituencies voted for it two to one. We
now come in under a new arrangment, and if my hon. friend entertained the idea that
it would not pay, and we would only have had £40,000 for our local purposes, he must
now see the advantages of our position. We will hve the Intercolonial Railway built;
$1,
500,000 expended on Western Extension and the branches; we will have more money, making
allowance for increased expenditure; we will have $65,000 for our Roads and Bridges
in 1871 than we had for the average of the last 7 years. My hon. friend must agree
with me that we will be in a better position, even allowing for an increased population,
than we would be if we remained out of the Union.
Mr. SMITH. - On this occasion I am determined to have the last word if I can get it. The Secretary
has not answered my proposition at all - he has evaded it. I asked him what our revenue
would be in 1881, - what we would pay into the revenues of Canada if our tariff was
no higher than now? Every man must neal in speculation in speaking of the future;
the Secretary has proclaimed his opinion, and told the advantages that would flow
from Confederation. I think his memory is defective when he says I called him a false
prophet in his predictions concerning the Railway and the Prohibitory Liquor Law.
I have not even referred to the Liquor Law, but he must admit that he was mistaken
i that; he must have thought the public mind was prepared for it, as all the law is
but the embodiment of the public mind of the country; but he was mistaken, and he
was also mistaken in the earnings of the Railroad. I now ask the Secretary whether,
when he made his calculations for 1881, he was not prepared to admit that twenty-five
or thirty years hence the Intercolonial Railway might pay. I was surprised to hear
the Secretary's statements regarding Western Extension, that, because I was willing
to aid that road, I considered this scheme of Union would be a great advantage to
the country. I said Western Extension was a work of great importance to the country,
and I think the people in this country would be willing to withdraw some of the money
from the Roads and Bridges in order to secure the construction of this work. I have
not changed in the slightest degree my judnement regarding this Confederation. The
Secretary says, "I am surprised that he was willing to assist the Government in carrying
out that measure." In order to place me in a false position before the House and country,
he says I have taken a gloomy view of the country, but now I have changed my mind
and will now support Western Extension. If there was anything in it, I doubt the propriety
of it; this HOuse will not be moved by any such inference drawn by the Secretary.
I believe that Western Extension should go on, and the money dealt out from the Dominion
of Canada should be applied to that work. I am
not going to weary the patience of this House any longer; therefore, I shall apologize
for the time I have taken, because I felt that in justice to myself I should make
these observations in reply to the Secretary.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY. - I expect you to have the last word, indeed I am quite sure you will. My hon. friend
says, "the Secretary has not told us what we will pay into the revenues of Canada
in 1881." I have stated that in my humble opinion we would not pay as much, or not
more into the revenues of Canada, according to population, than we have paid in the
average of the last seven years. I stated distinctly that in Confederation, speaking
for the present, future and all time to come, the inhabitants of New Brunswick would
not pay more per head than the average of the last seven years, and after they arrive
at a certain number the amount per head will be diminished. In illustration of this
we will take the great population of the neighboring Republic. before the war the
people of that country - whether they paid in the shape of revenue or imports upon
the population - paid only $1.90 a head, and they supported an army and navy, and
had ambassadors in every port in the world. So it will be in this case, and while
our population increases our expenditure will not increase in like ratio.
In regard to the Western Extension my hon. friend says he is willing to take this
money out of the money for Roads and Bridges. This is making a sacrifice we did not
expect him to make. It impressed itself upon my mind whe nhe was making his speech,
that he had come to the conclusion that in the Union we were not going to be so penniless
after all, and therefore he had volunteered to support that work. I think him for
it, as it is a work which will be of great benefit to the country.
Mr. SMITH. - Confusion worse confounded. I asked the Secretary for figures as to what our revenue
would be in 1881, and he has dealt in platitudes. In adopting the average of the tariff
for the past seven years he has not taken a fair basis, he has given the figures on
way, but he has not doen what I asked him to do, that is to tell us what our revenue
would be in 1881 according to our present tariff.
The Secretary ways he is obliged to me for my offering to support the Government in
aiding Western Extension. He need not thank me, for he knows that I advocated it last
year, as I considered it of infinitely more importance than any other Railway in the
country.
In reference to the United States paying so much per head; it depends upon the prosperity
of a country and how much they pay as a direct tax. If you apply the principle to
the history of this Province you will find as the population
54 DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867.
increase the wants of the country increase in proportion.
The House adjourned until to-morrow at 9 o'clock.
T.P.D.
This individual participated in:
