FR
🔍

Legislative Assembly, 23 May 1867, New Brunswick Confederation Debates

66 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867.

THURSDAY, May 23.

The following Bills were read a second time :
A Bill to authorise the Trustees of Saint Andrews Church, Chatham, to sell or otherwise dispose of the old Church of Saint Andrews, in Chatham.
A Bill to amend the Act to Incorporate the People's Bank of New Brunswick,
A Bill to Incorporate the Governors of the Wiggins' Male Orphan Institution.
The following Bills were read a third time :
A Bill relating to Public Burial Grounds In the Town of Saint Andrews.
A Bill to amend the law relating to Municipalities.
A Bill to authorize the City Council of the City of Fredericton to raise monies, bu way of loan, for the erection of a Market House in the said City.

PROCLAMATION OF UNION.

Hon. Mr. TILLEY.—Mr. Speaker, I have just received a note and telegram containing the information that the proclamation of Union has been issued, which, by permission of the House, I will read.
THURSDAY MORNING
My Dear Sir :
The enclosed arrived last night, but I have only this moment received it.
You will see that the General received it in St. John.
I am, yours faithfully,
G.N. CAMPBELL.
The Honorable S.L. TILLEY.
BY CABLE.
MAJOR GENERAL DOYLE, Fredericton, New Brunswick,
A proclamation uniting, on the first of July next, the three Provinces, has this day been approved by the Queen In Council.
DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS.
Colonial Office, London, May 22nd.
Mr. SMITH.—We received that intelli, gence last night in the papers by the way of Canada. I will now follow up this information by enquiring of the Secretary the names of the persons composing the Senate.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY.—When we get the Proclamation the names will be made known.
Mr. SMITH.—This is a clear evasion of the question. To any mind it is a most extraordinary thing that the Proclamation of Union should be issued, twelve men appointed to represent this Province in the Senate, and yet the Government refuse to let the House and the country know who they are. If the information is not given I shall move a resolution with regard to it.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY.— The question of the hon. member is entirely premature. No reliable information has yet been received by the Government, but as soon as it arrives not an hour will be delayed in laying it before the House,
Mr. SMITH.—I know the Secretary cannot say whether the list they have sent home has actually been inserted in the proclamation, but he can say who the Government have recommended. Various rumours are afloat as to the names of Senators, and yet although the proclamation is now made known containing the list of Senators, the Secretary refuses to let the House and country know who have been recommended to Her Majesty as fit men to represent this Province in the Upper House of the General Parliament. There is another question which the crown officers should answer, and that is whether those who are appointed from the Legislative Council and this House can retain their seats now the proclamation is issued. This is a point of great importance. and should be well defined, so that we may know whether they are still in a position to legislate for this country. I am aware that I have no physical power to make the Government answer the questions I put, but the country will now know why it is the information is not given, and with whom the responsibility rests.
Hon. MR. TILLEY.— I am no lawyer, and do not therefore pretend to give a legal opinion, but I can express my conviction that nothing in the Imperial Act precludes those who are appointed to the Senate, from holding their seats till the first of July. It is a subject for the Crown lawyers, and when the proclamation is received it can be looked into and decided.

PETITIONS, BILLS, ETC.

Hon. Mr. TILLEY presented a Petition from the Executors of the late Stephen Wiggins, and the Governors appointed under his Will, praying to be Incorporated for the purpose of establishing a Male Orphan Institution.
Petition received the laid on the table.
Mr. CHANDLER said that he had been requested to ask that leave of absence, till Monday next, be granted to Messrs. Hibbard and Lindsay the former being called away on urgent business, and the latter having to return home on account of sickness.
Leave was accordingly granted.
Mr. STEVENS moved for leave to bring in a Bill to re-establish the Court of Chancery in this Province.
Leave granted and the Bill being brought in was read a first time.
Mr. STEVENS moved for leave to bring in a Bill to increase the capital stock of the Saint Stephen Bank.
Leave granted and the Bill belong brought in was read a first time.

TRADES' ASSOCIATION.

Hon. Mr. TILLEY moved the House into Committee on a Bill to Incorporate the Saint John Trades' Co-operative Association
Mr. BOTSFORD in the Chair.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY.—Hon. members will observe that this Act proposes to Incorporate certain persons who desire to be associated together for their mutual benefit. These co-operative societies have been established in various parts of England, ad though in some cases they have not worked well, yet in many others they have succeeded in a marvellous manner, hundreds of thousands of punds being accumulated by mechanics and DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867. 67 others. who have begun with their small earnings. Those who seek to be incorporated wish to establish co-operative stores and manufactories from the accumulation of funds. The object is worthy of every consideration, and is calculated to result in great good. By putting in their little earnings from time to time it becomes as it were a kind of Saving's Bank, and they obtain interest on what they put in, and get such goods as they require at a cheaper rate than elsewhere. The amount of their accumulations in this instance is limited to $80,000, and I see no reason why the Bill should not pass,
Mr. SPEAKER.— There was an admirable article in Blackwood's Magazine for January or February, in which the whole matter of these trades' societies was taken up and discussed in the most able manner, show that the result had been most beneficial to all who had availed themselves of the privileges of the societies. The beauty of these organizations is that they are based upon a cash principle, and enables the poor man who puts in his small earnings to feed, clothe and educate his family, and place them in a position of comparative comfort. The plan thus adopted prevents litigation, for there is no credit given in the stores; the men are paid their wages at the end of the week, and they at once lay in a supply of goods for the use of their families for the ensuing week, and the surplus is invested in the funds of the society. This conduces, in a material degree, to the moral as well as social well-being of this class of our people who are thus enabled to save their earnings, which might otherwise be squandered or expended uselessly, and raise themselves to positions of usefulness. It is the spending of the small surplus earnings that tend to drag a man down to ruin, and this society steps in and from the commencement infuses a spirit of thrift and economy which raises the working man eventual to a position of standing and integrity. The stores are supplied with goods of all kinds, which, being bought in large quantities, can be sold at prices below what has ordinarily to be paid, for no commission for profit is added to the cost, as must be the case in other establishments. Under such circumstances the Bill, I think, must commend itself to the support of this House.
Mr. SMITH.—I am not quite too sanguine of the great benefits to the working classes from the operations of these Societies, s the previous speakers, but still the tendency of the Bill is no doubt good, and I shall thererore support it. The position of the mechanic and working man is very different in England from what it is here, and the successful working of such Societies there is no proof that they would be equally successful here. Still I see no reason why they should not succeed, provided they are properly and carefully managed. There can he no doubt but the establishment of such Societies tends to thrift and economy among a class of people who are excessively liable to fall into habits of improvidence and intemperance, and any movement which has this for its object is worthy of every encouragement.
The Bill was agreed to.

ALBERT BANK.

Hon. Mr. McCLELAN moved the House into Committee on a Bill to amend the Act to incorporate the Albert Bank.
Mr. McINERNEY in the Chair.
Hon. Mr. McCLELAN.—This Bill is a counterpart of that which passed the other day having reference to the Woodstock Bank. lt merely asks for an extension of tha time for the payment of the capital stock. The Act expires in July, and therefore it is necessary that action should be taken at once. Th extension of time is the only thing asked for, and I presume there will be no objection raised.  
The Bill was agreed to.

SUPPLY.

Hon. Mr. TILLEY moved that in accordance with a Resolution of the House, making this the day for going into Suply, the House do now go into Committee for the purpose of granting Supply to Her Majesty. 
Dr. DOW in the Chair.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY.—I do not intend to go into the whole question of Supply to-day, as I find that the printed Financial Statement is not yet ready to lay before hon. members. I shall therefore only now ask that the amount for bye road appropriations may be granted, as it is necessary the various amounts should be distributed as speedily as possible. I therefore move that a sum not exceeding $55,000 be granted for the Bye Roads and Bridges of the Province.
Mr. SMITH.—I do not think it is usual to put the Resolution for Supply in that form. By inserting the words "not exceeding" we cannot tell how much of that amount will be appropriated. I think it should not be left in this way, but that the exact sum should be stated.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY.—The Resolution is in the usual form. The words "not exceeding" are always used. I copied the form of the Resolution from the Journals, as my hon. friend may see by reference.
Mr. SMITH.— It is usual to pass the Resolution in blank, but at any rate it is not right that the Government should have the power to withold any porton of the amount granted. I am sorry the Government have not seen fit to make a larger appropriation, for the Roads and Bridges in all parts of the country are in a very bad condition, and the people at some places really in a state of suffering. I am aware that the amount is ten thousand dollars more than was granted last year, but when we take into consideration the great damage done by the rains and freshet, I think it will be found to be not more, in proportion. to what was then given. I really wish they could give a few thousand more, for this will be found to be one of the most useful grants we make, espscially at the present time. when flour and provisions are so high, and report says still rising.
Bon. Mr. FISHER—Both. my hon. friend from Westmorland and myself represent great rural constituencies, and it is a matter of congratulation that we can go to than: and say that although flour and provisions are so clear and business generally so dull. yet the Government are enabled to give $10,000 mors for the Bye Roads than was given last year. There are also amounts expended on the Bye Roads and Bridges I refer to the work performed under the Labor Act for grants of Crown Lands, which in itself would form a considerable item if considered as money expended. There are two things for which this country should receive all praise, and that is that there is no Province of the British Empire that does as much, in proportion to tho population, for Bye Roads and Schools as New Brunswick.
Mr. SMITH.—I suppose the Attorney General wants to make it appear that the present satisfactory state of the Finances is due to Confederation. but I will remind him that the late Government had something to do with the matter; for the present Government did not come into office until nearly half the fiscal year was passed. Instead of our present condition showing that we shall prosper under Confederation. as the Secretary tried to show the other day, it only proves how well we could get along if we were only left alone. With regard to our large appropriations for Bye Roads and Schools, I think there are many countries that do as much, if not more, than we do for these objects. But as far as the increased amounts of our revenues are concerned the Attorney General must remember that if any praise is due, it is not to his Government, or to the effects of Confederations, but to the late Government.
Hon. Mr. FISHER.—I did not. say that our present financial condition was due to Confederation, but that in this time of commercial depression it augufa well that my hon. friend and I can go back to our constituents and say, that the Gov ernment has granted $10,000 more this 68 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867. year than last for the Bye Roads of the country.
Hon. Mr. WILLISTON.— I quite agree with my hon. friend from Westmorland that the people in some parts of the country are in great distress, and it will be necessary to take part of the Bye Road appropriations to assist them, they making a return by performing labor on the roads. It is therefore necessary the monies should be distributed as soon as possible, so that the people may get the money for their use. The Secretary has done all he could to meet the views expressed by the hon. member for Westmorland ; he has done all he could to meet the distress, arising from the high prices of flour and provisions, in certain parts of the Province. Not only has the grant for Bye Roads been increased $10,000 above last year, but $20,000 more than last year are to be put upon the Great Roads. Already the Chief Commissioner has sent funds to various parts of the country to repair the damage which has been occasioned by the heavy freshet, and very soon the Roads will be in as good or better condition than they have been for some years past.
Mr. WETMORE.—My hon. friend from Westmorland intimates that the present satisfactory state of the finances is not due to the present Government ; well, I suppose Providence had something to do with it, but I should like to know to what human agency it is due ? and who we should thank for it ? Not the late Government, I think, for I did not know that we had to thank them particularly for anything but for getting the country into a state of confusion and turmoil. But I should like for my hon. friend to say to whom the thanks of the people are due.
Mr. SMITH.—The hon. member has only just got back from Saint John, where hs has been during the greater part of the Session, so far, and I suppose he thinks he must do something to let the people know he is here. He used to put a great number of questions to the late Government, and it seems he is disposed to do the same thing yet.
Mr. WETMORE.—I did ask questions, but could get no answer.
Mr. SMITH.—The hon. member did ask questions, day after day, and received answers, but they were not such as he wanted. He surely knows that now he has no right to interrogate me. If he wants to know anything he should direct his questions to the Government. There is no doubt but he is very much interested in the state of the revenues, for we have some papers before us that clearly show that ; but that I suppose is all right. He has perforated labors on behalf of the Crown, and I hope the Government will do something for him. With regard to the Bye Road appropriation I wish the Government could give a few thousand dollars more. It is said that they have given some two thousand five hundred or three thousand dollars to wards a boat race that is to come off in Paris. That I think is a misapplication of the public money, which should have been kept in the Province. (Hear. hear.)
Mr. CAIE.—As has been already stated, the Roads are in a very bad state, and a large amount of money will have to be expended upon them. The poor people in some of the back settlements are almost in a state of starvation, arising from losses they have sustained, and the high price of provisions, and I should he very glad if a larger sum could be granted for the purpose of assisting them, but, of course, if it cannot be done we must do the very best we can with what is allowed.
Mr. WETMORE.—The hon. member for Westmorland refers to labors performed by me, and hopes I shall be compensated by the Government. I am happy to say for all services rendered by me I have been pretty well satisfied already. I have done nothing for the present Government ; what l did was on behalf of the last, who were so weak that they could not get through their work. They had no Solicitor General, for they were afraid to fill up the office, and the Attorney General could not devote his time to the legal business, they therefore had to appoint Tom, Dick and Harry all over the country to do it for them, and so I happened to get some of the Crown business to do for them among the rest, the present Government paying the Bills. My hon. friend says I used to ask him questions, which is quite true, but the trouble was I could not get a straightforward answer, although I kept it up for about forty days, and that is just the case now. I required information, and therefore asked my hon. friend to whom we are indebted for the increase of the revenues. He has not answered that question, although it is a very simple one, and one he should answer in a straightforward manner.
Mr. SMITH.—If the hon. member for Saint John will put himself under my direction I will show him, but unless he does this he certainly has no tight to question me. The late Government are not now on their trial, and yet the hon. member from Saint John sees fit to make a vile attack upon it. The reason is clear enough ; he only desires to give vent to his revengeful feelings. He is not satisfied that the late Government is down. They know that their opinions were not endorsed by the people, and now they are willing to comply with their wishes and give the measures which are being introduced a fair trial, and yet without the slightest provocation the hon. member pours forth a torrent of abuse against them, and makes an outrageous personal attack on me. He says that the late Government were so weak that we could not appoint a Solicitor General, and that I was so indifferent to the duties of my office, that we had to give the Crown business into the hands of private legal gentlemen, and so we had to employ him. But if he was employed he has been amply paid for his services, and therefore it little becomes him to speak as he has done. The hon. member and I have always been on the most friendly terms ; when he was employed on Crown business he was a supporter of the late Government, and it therefore seems most strange that he should now impute weakness and indifference to us. He knows very well why it was we did not appoint a Solicitor General, and he knows too that I was in England and could not attend to the duties of Attorney General here. He would have been quite willing to have got the Solicitor or Attorney Generalship, and would be willing, I dare say, to accept it now, but at present all the offices are filled up. I do not think it at all generous in him to attack in such a caustic and severe way a Government that has passed away. Why, they are in a state of dead ducks, and surely the hon. member does not want to shoot a dead duck ! Our Government was killed by the action of the Governor, who was urged on by the party now in power, some of whom were not on the floors of this House. The people expressed their feelings against us ; they went for the men who were willing to carry them into a Union which we considered fatal to the best interests of the country, and we were forced to comply. But as I said the other day I am willing even now to go back to the people and leave the verdict with them, feeling assurred that they would now endorse the policy and opinions of the late Government. As to the hon. member from Saint John, when I consider that for many years we have been on terms of personal friendship, and the position he occupied with regard to the late Government, I cannot but look upon his present attack upon me as ungenerous and uncalled for.
Mr. WETMORE.—I did not attack him ; I merely spoke of the reasons why my name appeared in the public accounts, to which my hon. friend had referred, and stated that there being no Solicitor General, and the Attorney General not attending to the duty, the legal business of the Crown had to be entrusted to the hands of gentlemen outside of the Gov DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867. 69 ernment, and so I, among others, was called in to do the work. This my hon. friend construtes into a vile attack upon the late Government and a personal outrage on him. Why, one would suppose that he was the heart, soul, body and bones of the late Government, a regular one man Government, in fact. But this is how he wanders off from the question which I put to him. He said that the Provincial Secretary had no right to arrogate to himself or the present Government the praise for the present satisfactory state of the revenues. Now, I did not rise to defend the Secretary, for I think he is quite able to take care of himself ; but I simply asked for information—Who, then, are entitled to the praise ? On this my hon. friend gets up and makes a fierce attack on me, but all that is no answer to my question, and I again ask him, Who are the men we should thank for a state of affairs by which we are able to grant so much larger sums for public purposes than we were able to do last year ? My hon. friend has insinuated that I changed my position ; but, Mr. Chairman, it is well known that it was not I who changed but the late Government. My views changed, it is true, but I was elected an Anti-Confederate and I stood to the principle throughout. My personal views had changed, but so long as I represented an Anti-Confederate constituency I was bound to go against anything like Union. Who, I would ask, were the first to change ? Why the late Government came down with a speech that was based upon Union—they, who had been elected in opposition to it were the first to put it in the speech. I then opposed them, as I was bound to do. I asked them over and over again what they meant by the reference to Union, but could get no satisfactory answer. Here was reason enough why I should oppose them, but when they allowed the Governor to dictate to them what course of action they should pursue, the reasons strengthened and multiplied, and I did my best to deprive them of the power they held. When I was first elected I did think that Union would be adverse to the best interests of this people ; I had little time to examine into the subject, and the ruin and danger to which we should be subject were continually dinned into my ears, till I came to believe it. I did not, however, desire to become a politician. It was pressed upon me most urgently to allow myself to be put in nomination. Thus I was forced into the position, and having entered I would not draw back. I never hesitated to express my opinions as adverse to Union ; but after a time as I had opportunity to examine the subject, I saw that I was in error, and that the consolidation of these Provinces would prove to be an immense benefit. When I was an Anti Confederate I supported the measures of the Government on that principle. My hon. friend says that I was willing to take office ; he knows that I could have been in the Government, and with an office, too, if I had chosen—but that is apart from the question. As long as the Government stood to the principles, I was bound to support them, and when my own views changed, if they had wished to have brought in a measure of Union, I should have gone back to the people of Saint John and told them my views on the subject had changed ; but I think my position was right, that I could not support a measure of Union while I was an Anti- Confederate representative. When I went before the people of Saint John at the first they thought with me that Union was bad, but when I went back to them and told them my views had changed I found that their's had too ; they believed in the sincerity of my convictions, and placed confidence enough in me to return me to this House. My hon. friend hints that I was afraid to accept the office of Solicitor General because I should have to run my election over again. But I will ask him if he is aware that the fear lay not with me, but with the Government ? The office was needed, but they were afraid to fill it up. The office is still wanted, for it is impossible for the Attorney General to attend to all the duties that would otherwise be required of him. Now, I suppose my hon. friend will think that I want the office of Solicitor General, because I have referred to it, or that I may have some desire to become Attorney General, but I will tell him that I think I am quite as capable as many others to fill either office. And I will tell him more, that if the Attorney General gives up his office, and a good Government think it right and proper to offer me the situation, I should be willing to accept it, and run my election over, against the best man the late Government can bring in Saint John, and beat him, too, by a majority of 500, and my hon. friend can just put that down on his memorandum. I very much regret that my hon. friend gets so annoyed at the simple question I put, and I really hope that his not answering will not have a tendency to mar that close friendship which he has felt for me for so long a time.
Mr. SMITH.—I have always been very suspicious of these sudden conversions. He says he came here an Anti and bound to support the Anti Government, but it was but a very short time before he was right round and opposed the Government with all the power he could command. The hon. member at the first Session said a good deal about Mr. Tilley, but now he is found fighting his battles. When occupying the position of forty-second member, he must have heard the language used against him by the hon. member from St. John (Mr. Wetmore), and I should now like to ask the Secretary what his opinion is of sudden conversions? When the second Session arrived, however, the hon. member came here disaffected, and I might say why.
Mr. WETMORE.—Well, do. Don't spare me at all ; let us know why it was I became disaffected.
Mr. SMITH.—I remember his conversion to the idea of Union was very sudden indeed, and followed immediately after he had strongly urged upon the Government his desire to become Solicitor General.
Mr. WETMORE.—I did not ask for the appointment, but said that I believed I was as capable of filling it as any one.
Mr. SMITH.— If the hon. member did not put himself boldly forward, still in his mild way he let us know that he wanted it. He came out afterward and assailed me with preventing his being appointed, and he knows that when what had transpired in the Government could be disclosed it was found that I was the only one who favored his being appointed. The other members of the Government, and his colleagues from Saint John among them, were afraid to open the constituency, and that was why he was not provided for. He now says that he would be willing to take the office of Attorney General if it was offered to him, and I have no doubt he would. He has only been in this House about two years, and yet has shown his desire twice to take office. I have shown no such greed for office as some have done. I have been here about sixteen years, and have held office but two years in all that time. Why the Attorney General has expressed his willingness to hold on to his seat in this House and go to Ottawa, too, in the interests of the people of his County. I don't think my friend from Saint John cares about going to Ottawa ; he would rather stay here and be Attorney General. He says he can run his election and beat any one we can put forward, and wants me to write down to my friends that he challenges them to bring out their man. I certainly don't know why I should take so much trouble for him, but I have seen so much of political life that I know how to estimate such confidence, for l have heard many declare that they could run, who, when they tried it, found they could not. Why, the Secretary thought he could run on the Quebec Scheme—
Hon. Mr. TILLEY.—I did run— (laughter).
Mr. SMITH—Yes, he did run, but the trouble for him was that he ran out instead of in—(laughter). Now here is the difference between the Secretary and I : that whereas I have been in the House longer than he has, I have only held office two years, he has held office every year 70 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867. but one since he was elected and has received a salary of Ł600 a year. The hon. member for Saint John (Mr. Wetore) thinks he could run his election again if he got the Attorney Generalship, but he might be disappointed—indeed, he may not get the chance as soon as he would like, but for the Attorney General, finding that the dual representation idea won't work, will probably continue to hold on and not go to Ottawa at all, at least not for some time to come. Then, again, even if he does decide to lay aside his office, I doubt very much whether the Solicitor General would yield his rights in favor of the member from Saint John. But I shall not protract this discussion, I have already given an explanation of the action taken by the late Government, which has gone to the country, and there is no need to go into it all again, especially as it is entirely outside of the question now before us.
Mr. W. P. FLEWELLING.—I think the time of the House has been taken up quite long enough with this matter ; the business before us is the granting of Supply, and I trust, Mr. Chairman, you will at once put the question on the Resolution without a further discussion on matters so entirely outside of the subject before us.
The Resolution granting $55,000 for By Road purposes was then put and carried.

BILLS, PETITIONS, ETC.

Mr. WETMORE moved for leave to bring in a Bill relating to the admission of Attorneys to the Supreme Court of this Province.
Leave being granted, the Bill was brought in and read a first time.
Mr. BOTSFORD moved for leave to bring in a Bill relating to Bills, Notes, Choses and Actions.
Leave was granted and the Bill read a first time.
Mr. WETMORE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to incorporate the Grand Orange Lodge of New Brunswick and subordinate Lodges in connexion therewith.
Leave was granted and the Bill read a first time.
Hon. Mr. McCLELAN presented a Petition from Rev. John Williams and seventy others, inhabitants of the County of Albert, praying for an amendment in the law relating to the sale of spirituous liquors.
The Petition was received, read, and ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. BEVERIDGE read a Petition from certain persons, inhabitants of Little Madiwaska, praying that a sum of $1800 might be appropriated to place a bridge across that river at the Prude Settlement, for the accommodation of the people in that district.
Mr. SPEAKER said the Petition could not be received. but should go to the Executive Council.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY said an appropriation had just been made of $55,000 for exactly such purposes.

TOWN HALL, SAINT DAVID'S.

Hon. Mr. McADAM moved the House into Committee on a Bill to provide for the erection of a Town Hall in the Parish of Saint David's, in the County of Charlotte.
Mr. SUTTON in the Chair.
Hon. Mr. McADAM said this Bill was introduced by the request of the inhabitants, who wished to be assessed in the sum of $300 to aid the funds for the erection oi a Town Hall at the head of Oak Buy—a position that was central and most satisfactory to the people.
The Bill was agreed to.

FREDERICTON RAILWAY LOAN.

Hon. Mr. FISHER moved the House into Committee on a Bill to empower the City Council of Fredericton to contract a loan in aid of the Fredericton Railway.
Mr. W. P. FLEWELLING in the Chair.
Hon. Mr. FISHER said this Bill was to enable the City Council of Fredericton to raise a sum of $50,000, to aid the Fredericton Railway Company. It was intended to run the line from the City to Hartt's Mills, there to connect with Western Extension, and as soon as that line was constructed they would at once be in direct communication with the City of Saint John. The County Council had agreed to give $30,000, making $80,000 in all, which with the subsidy granted by Government, would, it was hoped. induce the Company to go on with the work at once and enable them to complete it. The debt of the City of Fredericton was only £4,000, and the people were willing to tax themselves to a greater extent to carry on this road, which was so very much needed.
Mr. SMITH said he should not oppose the Bill, as it was entirely of a local character, but he wanted to know whether it conflicted with the provisions of the existing law, which gives the Government a primal mortgage on the road.
Hon. Mr. FISHER replied that it was distinctly stated in the Bill that this amount would be a secondary charge upon the road.
The Bill was agreed to.

PETITIONS—ORANGE LODGE.

Mr. BECKWITH presented a Petition from Joseph Pickard and 120 others, inhabitants of the City of Fredericton, praying that an Act may pass to incorporate the Grand Orange Lodge of New Brunswick and subordinate Lodges in connexion therewith.
The Petition was received and laid on the table.
Mr. BECKWITH presented a Petition from Samuel Fox and 68 others, inhabitants of the County of York, with a like prayer.
Mr. THOMPSON presented the following Petitions :
A Petition from William Tomlinson and 84 others, inhabitants of the County of York, with a like prayer.
A Petition from Jeremiah Staples and 40 others, inhabitants of the County of York, with a like prayer.
A Petition from Thomas Allan and 40 others, inhabitants of the County of York, with a like prayer.
Dr. DOW presented the following Petitions:
A Petition from William Jamieson, and 145 others, inhabitants of the County of York, with a like prayer.
A Petition from Ira Ingram, and 85 others, inhabitants of the County of York, with a like prayer.
A Petition from Charles McCormack, and 50 others, inhabitants of the County of York, with a like prayer.
A Petition from W. P. Fraser, and 46 others, inhabitants of the County of York, with a like prayer.
Mr. WETMORE presented the following Petitions :
A Petition from James McNichol, and 110 others, with a like prayer.
A Petition from Jacob T. Pitt, and 112 others, with a like prayer.
Mr. SMITH.—I think, Mr. Speaker, the Petitions introduced by the hon. member from Saint John are informal, inasmuch as they do not show on the back the place of residence of the petitioners. This is a rule which has always been complied with and should not be dispensed with in this case.
Mr. WETMORE.—I do not see how the want of residence being endorsed on the Petition can affect its coming before this House. A person has a right to petition wherever he resides, but if there is a rule I am quite willing to withdraw them and insert the residence of the parties. If, however. there is no rule the Petitions are certainly in order.
Mr. SPEAKER—There is no direct rule that the residence should be endorsed, yet it has been practised, as a petition unendorsed as to residence cannot have that weight with the House which it would otherwise have.
Mr. KERR.—Ever since I have been here, it has become rule to endorse the residence upon the Petition, and it is so entered upon the Journals. It is evident that such a practice is necessary in order that we may know that the petitioners are inhabitants of the Province, other DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867. 71 wise we might receive a petition from certain persons in Honolulu praying for a repeal of our Election Law.
Mr. WETMORE.—Even though the parties may not be residents of this Province, I conceive they have a perfect right to petition this House. Hon. members say there is a rule which requires the residence to appear on the petition, Mr. Speaker says there is no rule, so the petitions are in perfect order.
Mr. BOTSFORD.—The hon. member must know that parliamentary law requires that the residence should follow the name. This is laid down in May, and has always been practiced.
Hon. Mr. FISHER.—I take exception to the idea that custom makes law, or that the parliamentary rules of the House of Commons are necessarily to be applied to the representatives of a small country like this. It may be considered that the insertion of the residence tends to give weight to the petiton, but if it is omitted the burden of that omission must rest, not with the House, but with the petitioners. There certainly is no rule to exclude a petition so presented.
Mr. SMITH.—The practice of the House has always been to have the residence endorsed on the petition, and you, Mr. Speaker, have frequently corrected hon. members who have introduced petitions without the residence, and handed them back to be amended. It is certainly important to know where petitioners live, so that they may be found if necessary.
Mr. SUTTON.—If the petition does not show where the people belong, we have no opportunity of finding out, and in justice to hon. members of this House I think the information should be given. If it is not done I shall certainly take objection to the admission of these petitions on that ground.
Mr. W. P. FLEWELLING.—Although I know from some of the names— names of very respectable persons— where one of the Petitions come from, yet other hon. members may not be so informed, and I think courtesy demands that the residence should be endorsed upon them.
Mr. WETMORE.—The objection raised then, is on the rule. Now, I say, show me that rule, and I will at once withdraw the Petitions and endorse the residence. I will be the last to infringe or break a rule of this House, but to my mind there is nothing to prevent a Petition coming before this House without such an endorsation. I have no objection, as I have said, to amend them if it is required by the rule, but I do not want to be driven to it just because my hon. friend from Westmorland chooses to pick upon the Petitions I introduce to raise an objection. It does seem somewhat strange that he should have selected these, and his hon. colleague (Mr. Botsford) should have been all ready with May on Parliaments with his finger open on the place, but I am not to be so driven from my position, which is that there is no rule making it imperative that the residence should be endorsed upon a Petition.
Mr. RYAN. —There are certain cases in which it would be impossible to put the residence upon the back of a Petition. Suppose some of the petitioners belong to every county of the Province, how can the residence be designated ; and if one county is named, then there would be a fallacy on the very face of the Petition. I don't think it is at all necessary to say where the parties reside, the fact of the Petition being introduced by a member of this House is certainly sufficient indication of the district from whence they come.
Hon. Mr. CONNELL.—What is all the trouble Mr. Speaker ? What is the question at issue ?
Mr. SPEAKER.—The hon. member from Saint John (Mr. Wetmore) has introduced two Petitions, but there is nothing on the back to show where the petitioners reside. This is objected to by the hon. members from Westmorland and Northumberland, on the ground that although there is no specific rule laid down in the matter, yet that the unvarying practice of the House has been that Petitions should be so endorsed, and this, in a manner, has established a rule by which all Petitions should be regulated. This, I think, is exactly how the question stands at present.
Hon. Mr. CONNELL.—Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can assist in settling the matter. I hold in my hand a number of Petitions which have been received during the past few days. Here is one praying for a change in the manner of measuring cord wood ; another praying for a change in the law relating to duties at the Port of Saint Stephen ; another praying for the incorporation of the Saint John Trades Co-operative Society. There is nothing on either of these to show where the petitioners reside, or indeed that they are inhabitants of this country. This is quite sufficient to show what is constantly being done and that there is no fixed rule or practice in the matter at all, for if there had been, neither the hon. members nor you, Mr. Speaker, would have allowed these petitions to lie on the table.
Mr. SMITH.—I am willing to leave it to the Clerk to say what has been the practice ; he has been in the House longer than any of us, and therefore can speak impartially in the matter.
Mr. WETMORE.—I don't see, Mr. Speaker, why my hon friend should want to apply to the Clerk. I have heard him vaunt himself that for sixteen years he had filled his place in this House, and had only been absent two days, and it is something strange that the Petitions which have just been referred to by the Surveyor General, should have slipped through without being challenged by my hon. friend, as he is so well posted in the rules of the House. It is something strane, too, that the objection should be raised on these Petitions instead of upon others. Does my hon. friend intend to oppose the Bill, and refuse the prayer of the petitioners ? If so, let him come out like a man and tell them so openly and fairly. It does seem more extraordinary that whenever I stand up to speak, my hon. friend should imagine that I have reference to him, and that what I say is intended as an attack upon him. He has such an exalted idea of his own importance, and of what is due to him for his vast legislative attainments, that he seems to imagine there is no one else to whom anything may apply but to him. Well, if the cap happens to fit let him wear it ; but I most strongly object to his constructing every word I speak as an attack upon him or intended for him alone. I think I have as much right to express my opinions in my own humble way as my hon. friend, and I refuse to bow to his decision in every case, for he has very frequently been found to have arrived at wrong conclusions. This morning he singled me out because I asked a simple question, upon which I wished information, and now again he takes exception to my actions, although it is quite clear that I have a perfect right to introduce such Petitions, and in form as I have done. I dare say now he will think that I am attacking him again by making the few remarks I have.
Mr. SMITH.—The fact is that the hon. member is so used to making attacks that he does not seem to know when he does it. He is constantly making attacks on me, and I submit it to the House, whether the sarcastic remarks which he has just made can be construed to mean anything else. He did the same thing this morning, and I leave it to hon. members whether he was not in that instance, as in this, the aggressor. And am I to sit still and make no reply ? Am I to allow his violent assaults upon me to go to the country and make no comment upon them ? I say that his remaks are most unwarrantable and ungenerous. This morning two or three hours of the valuable time of this House were occupied in a discussion which arose from the manner in which he assailed me and the late Government, and he seems determined that two or three more should be occupied in like manner this after 72 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1807. noon. The hon. member has only been a day or two in the House since it opened ; he has only now just returned after an absence of a week and from the anxiety he displays in getting up discussions, and the style in which he conducts them, I think the country would not have suffered if he had not come here at all. We were getting along with the business very well without him. Hon. members have expressed their desire to get through as fast as possible, but the hon. member appears to be desirous to delay the business by making unprovoked and uncalled for attacks upon me. He has travelled out of the record, and now l again say that although there is no written rule, yet the practice has been, and it is endorsed by the Clerk, that whenever a Petition is not properly endorsed with the residence of the petitioners, the attention of hon, members is called to the fact by the Speaker. The Petitions referred to by the Surveyor General are exceptions, which it appears not only passed the notice of hon. members but also of the Speaker.
Mr. WETMORE—It is just as I expected. My hon. friend has again attacked me, because he says, although I repudiated the idea, that I attacked him. He has referred to this morning's discussion, and although I do not wish to take up the time unnecessarily, yet it seems important I should defend myself in my humble way. The ideas held by my hon. friend and the remarks he makes shows him to be a bundle of inconsistencies. This morning he said the Secretary should not take the praise of the increase in the revenues ; I then asked him to whom the increase was due, and who we should thank for it ? That he said was making a vile attack upon him. He then proceeded to charge me with inconsistency and sudden conversion ; but that in his opinion, was not an attack upon me. Now he says I am a sarcastic man, which certainly is neither a very nice nor agreeable name to be called ; but then he does not regard that as an attack. I said this morning that the late Government, though pledged against Union, put it in their speech, and so I was forced to oppose them ; but that he looked upon as an outrageous attack upon him. You see that whatever he says must not be considered as assailling any one, no matter how personal his remarks may be ; but if I attempt to speak, then what I say is regarded as a torrent of abuse upon my hon. friend. Now that's just how he looks at the matter. He says we occupied two or three hours in discussion this morning, but as it was after 12 o'clock when we went into Committee and we separated at 1 o'clock, that statement appears to be a little exaggeration. The time that was occupied arose entirely from his refusal to answer my question as to who should be thanked, and I think I stated, and if I did not I will now state that I do not think we have to thank the late Government for anything but for getting the country into a state of turmoil and confusion, My hon. friend has said that I wanted to be Attorney General. Well, suppose I did ; is that anything to bring against me ? I think that my hon. friend who says that he is so regardless of office wanted and got that office more than once. If I remember rightly, when the present Attorney General was (to use an expression which has been used before) bowled out of the Govsrnment, my hon. friend jumped into his shoes before they were scarcely cool ; and when the present Judge Allen was appointed to the Bench, although my hon. friend had publicly stated that he would not accept office, unless a special emergency arose and the interests of the country demanded it, yet he jumped right into it. Now I never said I wouldn't accept an office, for I tell him that if I got the offer I should accept it, and consider myself just as competent to fill it as my hon. friend.
Mr. SMITH.—I shall shall not take up the time of the country any longer in such a useless discussion.
Mr. SUTTON then withdrew his objection, stating that as a fight would probably arise on the Bill, it was useless to carry it any further now.
Mr. RYAN presented a Petition from Thomas Davis and 28 others, inhabitants of King's County, praying that a Bill may pass to incorporate the Grand Orange Lodge of New Brunswick and subordinate Lodges in connexion therewith.
The Petition was received and laid on the table.
Hon. Mr. CONNELL presented a Petition from Rev. J. C. Bleakney and 65 others, inhabitants of Carleton County, with a like prayer.
The Petition was received and laid on the table.
Hon. Mr. McADAM read a Petition from James Dunn and 50 others, inhabitants of Charlotte County, praying for assistance in erecting certain landings at Oak Bay ; but as it asked for a grant of money it was not received.
Hon. Mr. FISHER moved for leave to bring in a Bill to establish County Courts in this Province.
Leave granted and the Bill read a first time.
On motion of Hon. Mr. FISHER this Bill was read a second time and ordered that 200 copies be printed for the use of the Legislature.
Mr. McINERNEY moved the House into Committee on a Bill to establish an additional Polling Place in the Parish of Carleton, in the County of Kent.
Dr. DOW in the Chair.
Mr. BABBIT took exception to the Bill on the ground that it did not specify where the dividing line of the Parish ran.
Mr. SMITH also said the Bill was insufficient in this respect. and further the other member for the County (Mr. Caie) was not in his seat.
Further progress was therefore reported, with leave to sit again.
Mr. YOUNG moved that the House do on Wednesday next, the 29th instant, go into the consideration of His Excellency's message communicating the Report of the Auditor General.
Hon. Mr. FISHER moved for leave to bring in a Bill relating to the Fredericton Railway Company.
Leave granted and Bill read a first time.
The House then adjourned until Saturday morning, at 10 o'clock.
J.M.

Source:

New Brunswick. Reports of the Debates of the House of Assembly. St. John: G.W. Day, 1865-1867. Microfilm copies provided by the Provincial Archives of New Brunswick.

Credits:

.

Selection of input documents and completion of metadata: Gordon Lyall.

Participating Individuals: