Hon. Mr. SHANNON referred to the attempted alteration of the city license law last year.
Mr. ARCHIBALD remarked that the town of
Picton was also excluded from the operation
of the general law. Such legislation was not
adapted to the wants of the country, and he
did not see why these exceptions should be
made.
Mr. MILLER said that as the organ of the
Temperance body had been referred to, he
would say a word on the subject, though he
felt surprised that the hon. member for Inverness had thought it worth while to refer
to it.—
That paper would seem to insinuate that that
gentleman and himself were occupying a position inconsistent with their legislative
duties
in being retained by any body of persons. The
facts were, that after the passage of the law. a
number of gentlemen called upon them for
advice, and, in discharge of their professional
duties, that advice was given. A journal
which went out of its way to make an insinuation that the retainer had been accepted
in a
legislative capacity, was not likely to promote
the objects it had in view. He did not think
the proposed separation a wise policy, and had
heard no argument advanced in its support
that was entitled to a great deal of weight.—
That had been his opinion of the matter long
before the Grocers' and Liquor Dealers' Association had been in existence.
Mr ARCHIBALD said he had been desirous that
Mr. Blanchard should have an opportunity
of explaining his postion in reference to the
matter, and was glad to find that that gentleman's views coincided with those of the
promoters of the change, and with the views entertained by the great majority of the
people
The hon member for Richmond entertained different sentiments, and he was entitled
to hold
these, and to give an opinion upon the law
without the imputation of improper motives.
He trusted that the observations to which these
gentlemen refered would not prevent them
from carrying out their convictions as to the
course which should be adopted; but so far
from thinking that the latter gentleman was
right in treating the organ of the Temperance
body with contempt, he considered a paper
fighting in the cause of Temperance and morality, against such opposition as it must
have to
encounter, should be referred to with respect.
He had never seen anything in that paper to
lead him to think it other than the organ of a
very large influential, and respectable class of
people.
Mr. TOBIN said he had never considered this
a question with which the House should deal;
it was a matter for the the City Council and the
Sessions, because the Province derived no revenue from the licenses. The Mayor and
Corporation of the city where entrusted with matters far transcending this in importance,
and
they should be the judges of what was a good
license law. He thought the conduct of the citizens of Halifax was as orderly as that
of any
other people in British America or the United
States. The leader of the Opposition had once
contended that the country should be governed
by cold water principles, but that gentleman
seemed to have changed his opinions, and to
have come to the conclusion that hot piety and
cold water were not best after all. Even the
Chairman of Railways would admit that something besides cold water was necessary in
his
department. The law which had existed up to
last session imposing heavy fines upon persons
selling liquor without license, was an instance
of a law which was too stringent to be carried
into effect. —and as to the expediency of the
separation claus, very great doubts existed in
the community.
Mr. ARCHIBALD said he did not see why
authority should be given to the City Council
to deal differently with the community of Halifax from any other portion of the Province.
The bill was read a first time.
MISCELLANEOUS.
Mr. S. MACDONNELL presented a petition
from Inverness against the Union of the Colonies.
Also, a petition from the same county, asking the establishment of a daily mail to
Port
Hood and Margaree. This petition he urged
very strongly upon the notice of the Government
ment, alluding particularly to the fact that a
daily mail now crossed the Gut of Canso on its
way to Sydney.
Mr. LONGLEY, in accordance with leave previously obtained, introduced a bill in reference
to a public landing at Paradise.
RAILWAY DAMAGES.
Mr. D. FRASER presented a petition from
certain inhabitants of Pictou, praying tor an
alteration in the 70th chapter of the Revised
Statutes, respecting Railways.
Mr. ARCHIBALD called attention to the propriety of taking the petition into careful consideration,
and expressed his Opinion that the
power given by the law to cut down timber,
&c., for public purposes, should be carefully
restrained. No individual should be more
overridden than is absolutely necessary for
the promotion of the public interests.
Mr. D. FRASER introduced an Act to amend
chap. 70 R. S., in accordance with the prayer of
the petition.
Hon. PROV. SECY. said that he hoped that
the hon member would be able to suggest a
means by which the interests of the public, as
well as those of private individuals, would be
equally protected. He was not prepared to
say that sub-contractors might not occasionally take a course under the present law
which
would be exceedingly inconvenient to the owners of private property, but the proper
time for
parties to remonstrate was when the Railway
Act was being passed. The House should not
forget that an expenditure of $2,000,000 was
now going on for a great public work, which,
whilst of undoubted advantage to the whole
Province, would especially benefit Pictou, and
largely increase the value of property within
miles of the railway. Under such circumstances he thought it strange to see persons
objecting to incur a small amount of inconvenience
in connection with a work which was to be of
such signal advantage to them. He had no objection to the introduction of the bill,
though
he would like to see how the public as well as
private interests were to be at the same time
protected. He had heard of parties who had
combined to put a price of 60 cents upon railway sleepers, and yet had sold them subsequently
for 10 cents to the parties who actually
got the contracts. It was as well to understand
whether those engaged in the construction of
our Railways were to be called upon to pay
inordinate prices through such combinations.
This individual participated in:
