1
THE NEWFOUNDLANDER.
St. John's, Friday, February 5, 1869.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
MONDAY, Feb. 1.
The House met at 3 o'clock.
Mr. GODDEN, from the Select Committee to draft
an address of thanks in reply to his Excellency's
Speech at the opening ef the session, Presented the
address, which was received and read a first time.
Second reading to-morrow.
The hon.
ATTORNEY GENERAL, pursuant to notice, moved the appointment of a Sergeant-at-Arms.
There were only, so far as he knew, two applicants
for the office. and the majority of the House concurred in opinion that the office
should be given to
Mr. John B. Barnes. He had, therefore, much
pleasure in moving that Mr. Hornea be appointed.
That gentleman was well known to them all. He
(hon. A.G.) had the pleasure of long knowing him,
and of knowing that he was
[?] by the whole
community. He had long been successfully engaged
in mercantile pursuits, but latterly unfortunate. He
was also the brother of the late Mr. Richard Barnes,
who did very goed service to the Colony as a leading member of the Assembly. Mr. Barnes
was a
man of liberal tendencies, all his life long. There
was also the application of another person, Mr.
William Woodley, whom he (hon. A.G.) had also
long known, and who was well known to hon. members. His application was considered,
but the
majority coccurred in supporting, Mr. Barnes for
the office, and he (hon. A.G.) had much pleasure,
therefore, in moving that Mr. Barnes be appointed
to the vacant office of Sergeant-at-Arms.
Mr. PROWSE was happy to secoud the motion for
the appointment at Mr. Barnes. His only regret
was that Mr. Barnes should be reduced to such
circumstances as to be an applicant for the office.
They all remembered, the highly respectable mercantile firm of John B. Barnes, & Co.,
and he (Mr.
P.) was aware that many of our native shipmasters
had been brought forward by that house; among
others the master of the steamer
Ariel. Hon.
members had all a good opinion of Mr. John B.
Barnes, and he (Mr. P.) had mach pleasure in seconding the notion, for his appointment
to the office
of Sergeant-at-Arms.
Mr. HOGSETT —Before the motion was put, he
wished to make some remarks. He was not aware
that on this side of the House there was any disposition to oppose the appointment.
He believed Mr.
Barnes was a very worthy man, but before the
motion was agreed to, he (Mr. H) had something
to say about the salary, and would have liked that
the Attorney General had stated what salary would
be proposed, as on this side they were powerless
except to suggest. He considered that a salary of
£50 was ample, considering the duties involved and
the unfortunate state of the country; and seeing the
office was a necessary one, so that it could not be
abolished. The officer had merely to occupy a chair
inside the bar, and to call out order when directed
by the Speaker, and occasionally, to serve a writ
when some hon. member was obsereperous; and
£50 was ample cenpensation for such services for
three months of the year. It was as much as a
member of the House got, who had to discharge
sucn more onerous duties. He moved that the
salary be £50.
Hon ATTORNEY GENERAL—The salary was an
after consideration, and could not come up as an
amendment. The question now was as to the
appointment.
Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—It was not, but
one to be filled up by the House; but the question now was not what salary that officer
should
receive. It may afterwards become a question
for the House whether the salary ought to be
reduced, and his (hon. A. G.'s.) own opinion
was that there ought to be a considerable reduction, but net to £50, there was a number
of
ether salaries in which reductions ought to be
made. They gave the principal Door-keeper
$230, and certainly the Sergeant-at-Arms,
under whose orders he was placed, ought to
have more than $200.
Mr. HOGSETT.—The Door-keeper's was not
a new appointment.
Mr. HOGSETT.—The House had not hitlerto
interfered with those salaries; but this was a new
appointment, and now was the time to say what
the salary should be; otherwise the Sergeant- at-Arms, at the end of the session,
might set up
a claim to the same salary as his predecessor.
Hon ATTORNEY GENERAL.—He was not disposed to quarrel with economy in any department of the public service;
but he did not agree
that officers should be underpaid. Besides, the
hon. member could not but that as an amendment. There appeared to be no difference
of
opinion as to the appointinent, while there was
a difference as to the salary. They had to make
the appointment whether the salary should be
£50 or £75, or even £100. The salary of the
late officer was two high, and all agreed there
should be a reduction. Those who voted for
the appointinent would not be in any way bound
to the salary, which would be afterwards considered hitherto the question of salaries
had
been left to the Colummittee of Contingencies,
and considered by the House when their report
was presented. It could not be decided in the
manner proposed, and unless, there was some
other name to be submitted, no other amendement
should be proposed.
Mr. GLEN.—thought it was necesssry to fix
the salary before the appointment was made;
and if the Government had decided what the
salary was to be, it might as well be stated.
They all greed that the appointment was necessary, and as the officer must have a
salary,
this was the best time to decide what it should
be. There was auther matter to which he
wished to refer, but wished there was a full attendance of members on this side when
he did
so. They were aware that for the past two or
three there was no recognised leader of
the opposition; and hon. members of this side
had considered the matter, and had asked him
(Mr. G.) to accept the appointment of leader,
which he was unwillingly to do, as he did not
consider himself fit for it, but, at all events, if he
did so, it must be on the understanding, that
members on this side abstain from using violent
language, or such as they would not dare to use
to a private house. There was an important
question couing up, that of Confederation, one
of the most important which could engage the
attention of any Legislature, involving the consideration of whether they would give
up the
management of their own affairs, which the
House had held
[?] the introduction of Responsible Goverainent, and the subject should be
entered upon with the greatest deliberation, and
decided with a due regard to the best interests
of the country. He trusted, therefore, that on
that and all other questions comiug up, the discussions should be conducted so as
to command
public respect.
Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—The hon member would find every courtesy extended to him
so far as this side of the House was concerned;
and from his long experience and desire to repress improper proceediugs on the other
side,
he (hon. A.G.) was satisfied that nothing on
this side would interrupt that decorum which
should characterise the proceedings of the
House.
Mr. PINSENT thought that so far as the salary
of the Sergeant-at-Arms was concerned, there
would be no difficulty in fixing its amount, of
course there would be a considerable reduction; but
let the appointment be first made, and then let
them determine what that salary should be.
Mr. RENOUF regretted that it had become
necessary to appoint a Sargeant-at-Arms but as
the office had become vacant, he believed they
were all agreed as to who should be appointed.
But there was an important matter to be
decided as to what they should pay that office,
which must be regarded a view of the present
circumstances of the country. The late officer
had a salary of £144 cy., which was far more
than they should give his successor. The
Attorney General told the House that the salary
would not be no much. But this side of the
House wanted to have the salary definately fixed
now; and considering the circumstances of the
Colony, and the duties of the office, they thought
that £50 was sufficieut compensation for that
office. If he received a pound a day, for three
months during the winter, they thought he
would be sufficieutly paid. It was necessary to
practise the strictest econouy. The people were
ground down by the taxes inposed upon them.
Without any disrespect for Mr. Barnes, for
whom he (Mr. R.) had a high respect, he would
say that there were many equally respectable
men in the community who would be glad to
take the appointment at £50 a session. If the
principal Doorkeeper leceived £50, it was no
reason that they should give a higher salary to
a superior officer who was now to be appointed.
They must consider the circumstances of the
people. In Nova Scotia, with three times our
population, the Sergeant-at-Arms had only £75
a session.
Mr. RENOUF.—$80. Considering the revenue
of Nova Scotia, and the circumstances
of its people; and also the duties of
the office, he held that £50 was ample
compensation. He did not consider the professions on the other side as sufficient
guarantee that the salary would be sufficiently
reduced; an he was not disposed to leave it
unsettled until the report of the Contingency Commitee was presented at the close
of the session.
Let the House decide it now, with a due regard to
the circumstances of the sountry. How much
was the revenue of the past year short of the
Estimate? He said there should be a large and
general reduction of salaries, which were far in
excess of what was paid in Nova Scotia and Prince
Edward Islaud. The hon. memer, Mr. Glen, had
announced his appointineut as leader of the opposition. The hon. member enjoyed the
confidence
of this side of the House, and he Mr. Renouf,
would be glad to support him in repressing everything unbecoming the dignity of the
House; but
he regretted that the hon. member went so far as
to assuume that it was on this side ot the House
such proceedings took places. The other side was
as guilty in that respect as this side.
Mr GLEN.—It was mistake on his part, which
he had intended to correct.
Mr. RENOUF trusted the debates on both sides
would be so conducted as to secure the respect of
the whole community. With respect to the matter
under consideration, the salary of the Sergeant-at- Arms should now be definitely
settled. He did
not agree with the Attorney General that it should
be left till the end of the session.
Hon. RECIEVER GENERAL.—That salary should
bear some proportion to the salaries of the lower
officers. It would be perfectly absurd that the
salary of the first officer of that department should
be less than that of an officer under him. Supposing it was made $300, it would be
only a little
over halt what the late Sergeant-at-Arms recieved.
Mr. HOGSETT.—They wanted, on this side, to
know what the salary was to be. They had fully
considered it, and saw no relson, because the
principal Doorkeeper received £50 stg., that they
should give over £50 cy. for this office, in making
a new appointment. The salary of the Doorkeeper was not now before the House, because,
when appointed, it was considered that the appointment was for four years, and it
was not now
a question of what he should receive. But this
was a new anpointinent, and they ought now in
making it, to determine what the salary should
be. He would press his amendment, that the
salary should not exceed $200.
Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—Such an amendment was irregular and could not be put from the
chair.
Mr. HOGSETT contended he had a right to move
that resolution. If not now fixed the matter could
remain for the Contingency Committee, and after
a long session and many keen debates, there
generally was a feeling of giving way at the end
of the sessien, and if the Contingency Committee
came up with a report of £75 or £100 for this
office, it would be carried without much opposition.
Mr. TALBOT regretted not being present at
the commencement of that debate. He had
given notice that he would move that the salary
should not exceed $200. As to the objection
of the Attorney General, that such a motion
could not be put, nothing appeared to him more
germane to the motion of which the Attorney
General had given notice, than when the appointment was moved it should be added that
the
salary be $200.
Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—But he had
moved the appointment of a Sergeant-at- Arms, and the question being the appointment
of that officer, the motion as to salary came up
as an amendment, which was not admissible.
Mr.TALBOT.—Did he think £50 too low?
He (Mr. T.) thought it a sufficient salary for
the office. It required no labour, either
mental or physical, and that officer was
not put to one farthing of expense; and would
the Attorney General say that they could not
get a gentleman in every respect suitable, for
that salary? It was to by assumed that all
Government officers were gentlemen, and it
was not their salaries that made them such.
There was an absolute necesssity for curtailing
the public expenditure in every department, and
hon. members on this side of the House were
determined to use every possible exertion to
accomplish it. Now when it was proposed that
the people should give up their liberties, earned
by such protracted and earnest struggles, it was incumbant upon those who opposed
such a course
to do all within their power to resuscitate the
country by the means it possessed within itself.
The salaries of the public officers were enourmous. Was a country like this, with
ouly 120,000 of a population, not more than that of a
third or fourth rate city, with abundant resources, lying dormant, to have its revenues
absorbed by the payment of £100,000 to the
officers of the Government?
Mr. PROWSE.—How much of that sum was
absorbed by the paupar expenditure?
Mr. TALBOT doubted if the paupers even
got the money. They had been charged with
the money which had been squandered for other
purposes. But on this side they were determined to effect sweeping reductions. It
they could
get off from £20,000 to £30,000 from the civil
expenditure, without impairing the efficiency of
the public service, it would go far towards
resuscitating the country. They would not attempt to do anything which a reasonable
man
would say would not be fair. With such a
saving they would be able to lift up the country,
and make it one of the most prosperous on
either side of the Atlantic. It was a country of
boundless resources, which could be made to support three times its present population
in affluence. But it was sunk in misery and destitution though misgovernment. He did
not say
the present Government had produced all the
evil. Much had resulted from the narrow and
selfish policy of former Goverments. But the
present Government had intensified the evils
resulting from former misgovernmeut, until
they brought the country in its present deplorable
circumstances. And now that the vessel was going upon the rocks, it became necessary
to reverse
the helm, so as to get the vessel out of the
breakers. The Government could suggest no
remedy for our depressed condition, no means
of elavating the people but Confederation,
which might benefit those who were its earnest
advocates, but would be productive of anything
but adventage to the people. But, while opposed to parting with our liberties, he
said that the
country could be elevated by a reduction of its
enorumous expenditure. If they had £25,000 or
£30,000 saved off the enormous salaries, and that
sum applied to stimulate the industry and develope the resources of the country, it
would soon
effect a very great change for the better. Ten
years before the present Government came into
power the people had their food duty free;
there was nho duty upon flour or pork or butter,
or upon several other necessaries of life; but
no sooner did the present Government assume
the reins than they imposed duties upon all these
articles, while latterly they had also increased
the duty upon manufactured goods. But this
side were prepared to show that with a proger
reduction of the civil expenditure, these duties
might be dispensed with, and a surplus left to
stimulate the energies of the country. It would
be for the Government, if they desired to retain
to their places, to give effect to these sayings
which this side would show could be easily
carried out. Hon members on this side did not
covet their offices. Let the present holders
retain them. On this side they were willing
to act the part of Mr. Gladestone with the
Reform Bill, who carried the measure while in
opposition. So this sile were ready to carry
out a financial reform for the benefit of the
country, without caring for the
[?] of
office, which the present holders were welcome to
remain at such recuded salaries as were commensurate with the extent of their duties
and
the circumstances of the country.
Hon. A. SHEA.—The hon. member, in his
anxiety to give out the results of his deliberations for the past nine months, had
[?]
altogether from the question before the House,
which was simply the appointment of a Serjeant- at-Arms. The hon. member had gone
into at
manner of questions, several of which would
come up in due course, when they could be
better discussed than in the irregular way in
which the hon. member had referred to them.
But such was the earnestness of the hon. member for St. John's West to set his views
before the
country, that he must lay hold of that opportunity
to do so. The question now for their decision
was the appointinent of a Serjeant-at-Arms,
and it seemed to be the unanimous opinion of
the House that Mr. Barnes should be appointed,
although there was some difference of opinion as
to the salary. He hon. (Mr. S.) was glad
there was so much unanimity about Mr. Barnes,
who was an old friend of his and a worthy man.
He (hon. Mr. S.) would not have troubled the
House with any observations beyond the question before the chair, were it not for
the irregular observations in which the hon. member for
St. John's West had indulged, with the evident
intention of producing mistaken impressions,
which he (hon. Mr. S.) would not allow to
go forth, uncontradicted. The hon. member
must inform the House and the country that he
was opposed to Confederation. That question
was not now before the House, and it had been
stated by the hon. Attorney General that resolutions were to be submitted on the question,
when there would be an opportuuity for its
regular discussion. When it came up he (hon.
Mr. S.) would be prepared to deal with it.
But the hon, member proposed to obviate the
necessity of going into Confederation, by raising
the people to a state of prosperity by means of
a sweeping reluction of the public expenditure.
Now it appeared to him (hon. Mr. S.) that
there was an evidant want of sincerity in such
professions of a desire to reduce official salaries,
when hon. members opposite anticipated that
the approaching general election would transfer
to them the offices of the Government with
their emoluments. The hon. member, however, affirmed the practicability of reducing
the
civil expenditure by £30,000. Now the total
amount of the official salaries, from the highest
to the lowest, including those of the officers of
Customs, was only £32,053 8s. currency.; and
how was the hon. member to effect a saving of
£25,000 or £30,000 out of that, and still maintain the public departments efficiantly?—
The hon. member must have known perfectly well that it was impossible to make
such a saving, and said it merely for
the sake of effect. The Government had made
considerable reductions in the civil expenditure,
as offices
became vacant by the death of their
incumbents, by making no new appointments
where they could be dispensed with. The civil
expenditure now was cousiderably less than it
was a few years ago, and the reductions were
effected with a due regard to the claims of existing incumbents, and to the circumstances
of a large portion of our populations all knew
that distress existed, and for years past large
sums had to be disbursed from the public treasury for the relief of the poor; but
the decision
had been come to, with the concurrence of both
sides of the House, that relief should no longer
be afforded to the able-bodied poor. But the
hon. member would elevate the condition of the
people by the saving which he was to effect is
the civil oxpenditure. Granting that it was
practicable to effect such a saving, how, with
the population prostrate from one end of the
country to the the other, was he to elevate them
to a state of comparative confort with sum of
£30,000? What would that saving effect? Why,
it would amount to just 61 a quintal on all the
fish exported from the Island; so that if a fisherman caught 50 quintals of fish,
it would be
equivalent to his getting 18s 61. a quintal for it,
in place of 18s. And would, 25s a year to a
fisherman's family make up the difference between poverty and comfort? The people
were
not so ignorait as to be imposed upon by
any such absurdity. It was not by say limited
saving in the civil expenditure that the condition
of the people was to be elevated, but by opening
up to them new sources of employment, and this
Confederation would effect. The hon. member
indulged in the specious clap trap that in joining the Confederacy the people would
part with
their liberties, as it in the Dominion of Canada
they had not as well balanced freedom as we
enjoy in this Colony. In the great Confederacy of the United States, which has advanced
in the course of two or three generations to be
one of the foremost nations of the worlds would
it be said that the people of the several States
had parted with their liberty in forming a Confederacy which commands the respect
of all
civilised nations? The hon. member charged
the Government with increasing the burden of
taxation upon the people. They had imposed
no highers duties than were absolutely necessary.
This individual participated in:
