OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
191
[...]
force Confederation on the country. The
Prov. Sec. accused us of claiming credit for all
the good measures which were introduced
when we were in office, but if ever there was
a set of men who adopted the measure of their
predecessors, with the exception of retrenchment, it is the present government. The
policy
of the late administration was railway extension, and that is the only policy in connection
with which these gentlemen can truly boast of
success. We bequeathed to them the tariff
under which they have collected the revenue,
and the railway policy which they have been
so successful in carrying out.
Hon. PROV. SECY.—I will not detain the
House by an address of any length, but I wish
to express my regret that by a memorandum
prepared from the Journals in the Financial
Secretary's office, I was led into an error as to
the amount taken by Mr. Howe for the delegation to Canada. The sum charged against
him, I understand, includes the expenses of
two of his colleagues. The effect of this is to
reduce the $4,000, which I stated as drawn by
him during his term of office, to $3,600 as
against $2,500 drawn by me, leaving him
still $1,100 over the sum which I received. I
am glad that the hon. member has referred to
the civil list, because he has thus enabled me
to state what I had before overlooked; the
very important fact that the moment the government accomplished the object of getting
power to deal with the civil list, they introduced a retrenchment bill which reduces
the
amounts to be paid to the Legislature and the
different public officers by $30,000 a year; and
the hon member true to his principle of resisting everything like retrenchment, resisted
that measure as far as he was able, and that
amount will be saved to the country, because
we were enabled to carry the bill in spite of
all the opposition which he and his friends
could give to it. I will not go into the question whether Mr. Howe could or could
not
have retained his office for a longer time; but
the statement of the hon member tallies
strangely with the despatch to Mr. Howe,
which is on record, recommending him to close
the business of his commission as soon as possible. A more imperative command to a
public officer to stop drawing the public money
never was put on record, and yet we are to accept the assurance that Mr. Howe would
have
been allowed to hold on. I did not bring any
such charge against Mr. Howe as that he had
sought his own interests only on the delegation, butI said that the only result of
that
delegation, for which the hon member for
East Halifax, as Financial Secretary, paid Mr.
Howe $1,500, was to obtain a good office for
himself, and that it therefore ill became his
friend to talk about delegations. The hon.
member tells us that Mr. Howe did everything in his power to accomplish the Intercolonial
Railway, but does it lie in his mouth to
say that he was engaged in promoting the
interests of this country when he was forwarding a measure by which the province was
to
pay ÂŁ50,000 per annum for a railway which
was so worthless that it would not pay for
grease for the wheels? I want to know what
excuse he had to make for drawing $1,500
from the pockets of the people and for endeavoring to fasten on the country a liability
of ÂŁ50,000 per annum in connection with a
work which was so worthless as that. We
were told that the government had adopted
the policy of their predecessors. Surely that
should not be made a charge against us; but
there is a great deal of truth in it; and the fact
is, that on every occasion on which we have
come forward and carried to maturity the
measures on which the hon. member and his
friends had staked their public reputation. we
were met by the most determined hostility
from him and his colleagues
On every question affecting the progress of
this Province. the hon-gentleman has assumed the position of an obstructive. All the
measures which my colleagues 'and myself have
been able to promote have been passed in the
face of the obstruction of the hon. member.
What did he do in reference to the Pictou Bailway? He got over the hon. member for
Yarmouth, and every one he could
from this side of the house, in order to defeat
and obstruct the Government in their progressive policy. So in respect to the great
question of Union, to which he and his friends were
so solemnly pledged, he stood forth the uncompromising opponent of the Government
and the gentlemen who united with them to accomplish that measure of progress. The
same
course has been pursued by him with respect
to the Inter-colonial Railway. No sooner did
the present Government take it up and deal
with it with the some success that has characterized their whole action in respect
to all
measures of progress, then he came forward
and did all that man could do to prevent the
people of this Province obtaining that great
work. It was only necessary for the Government, in fact, to propound their policy
on any
question, and the hon. member ever came out
to oppose them. I am quite willing that the
hon. member should charge us with having
adopted principles which he and his friends
had propounded. It is the first duty of a public man to adoptthat policy, and to promote
these measures'which they believe are essential to the prosperity and development
of the
country. But we have always stood true to
the principles we have ado ted, and carried
them successfully through while the hon. member has deserted them. We have not spent
the public moneys on fruitless delegations, but
can point to the accomplishment of great measures as the evidence of our energy and
zeal in
the public service. I feel, however, that it is
altogether unnecessary for me, to labour this
question, for I feel that the honseas well as
the country fully! appreciate the position of the
hon. member. e stands before the people the
opponent of measures of progress.
The hon. member has said that we were unable to give such a large grant to the road
and
bridge service this year in consequence of
Confederation. He knows that the press under his control told the people some months
ago that the country was in a bankrupt condition. Yet this Session he has told us
that we
were able to build a railway to Annapolis, the
Inter—colonial road, and one to Cause as well.
But the hon. member must know that it would
be impossible to continue the extraordinary
grants hitherto given to the road and bridge
service the moment we had to bear the annual
interest on the Pictou railway. He knows, too,
that if it had not, been for Confederation we
would not have been able to give the large ex
192
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
tra grant for the road and bridge service. Our
financial position, when the expenses of our
great public works are assumed by the General Government, would be far better than
it
would be if we remained without uniting ourserves with the other Provinces. Then we
have made a large saving in the public expenditure by the measures we have passed
this Session in reference to the local constitution. The hon. member says we have
increased the public debt by $200,000; suppose we
had, although I deny the accuracy of his statements, have we got nothing to show for
it?
How long will it take us to make up that
amount? If he looks at the Provincial Building being constructed opposite, at the
extension of the Hospital for the Insane,the St. Peter's Canal, and other works of
Provincial importance, he will soon find where $200,000 has
gone to. But before I conclude, let me allude
to another matter which was a disputed point
between us. He questioned the accuracy of
my memory as to the amount expended in connection with laying the corner stone of
the Asylum. I gave the amount at ÂŁ300,but he stated it
was only ÂŁ320. Now I must admit that I was
wrong, and I cheerfully make the correction
required. But how was I mistaken? Why, I
understated the amount. I find on referring
to a speech of Mr. Howe, that that gentleman
gives it at ÂŁ313 7s. 10. I hope, therefore, the
hon. member will acknowledge that my version is at least as reliable as his own.
Mr. ANNAND—I feel it due to acknowledge
an inaccuracy in stating the amount expended
by the late Government in the entertainment
to which the Provincial Secretary has referred.
I spoke, not from memory, but from information given by a friend who sat beside me.
But
I cannot allow the Provincial Secretary to sit
down without replying to the remark in which
he accused me of being an obstructionist. I
tell him that in all the valuable services which
the Government have rendered I was with
him. I never voted against the grant for education, nor for roads and bridges, nor
navigation securities; I never opposed the extension
of the railway to Pictou. It is true that I differed from the Government on some points
of
policy, and I have felt it my duty to bring
them to book and to ask them why they have
not redeemed the pledges which they gave to
the country. The Provincial Secretary has referred again and again to the action of
the
People's delegates on the subject of the Intercolonial Railway. My remark that the
road
would not pay grease for the wheels was the
remark of an eminent engineer who had given
the subject his attention,—and I must say that
my faith in that road, as a means of through
traffic, was very much shaken by the report of
Mr. Fleming. After a very thorough examination, that gentleman demonstrated that the
railway would not be a paying concern, and he
led us to believe that the terminus would be
at St. John. But, as Mr. McLelan proved the
other day, our revenues would have enabled
us to build the road ourselves, and would alnhave enabled us to go on extending our
raso
ways East and West to the extreme bouildaries of our Province. When I am told that
that work is to be a great boon. I ask what are
we to pay for it ? On four articles alone we
are to pay $300,000 & year; that, with the in
crease of the advalorem duties, would give
half a million of dollars, and the entire cost of
the road, ÂŁ3,000,000 at 4 per cent., would only
be $600,000. And, let me ask, what is to become of our railway extension hereafter
?
Who supposes that we will get it from Canada,
with their grand projected fortifications and
their expensive canal extension ? But even if
the railroad were a great boon, it would be no
compensation for the loss of our government
and our revenues. We were told the other day
by the Attorney General that the People's delegates continue to oppose the guarantee
for
the railway even after the Confederation bill
had passed. I tell him he is entirely wrong
and I hold in my hand a letter from Mr. Howe,
stating that the moment he and his friends
found Confederation was sure to pass, they
withdrew their opposition to the railway. I
make that explanation in justice to Mr. Howe;
and as for myself,I could not offer opposition.
when I was on this side of the water.
The Attorney General also taunted us with
not having presented the petitions from the
people. Let me tell him that that taunt does
not become him or his colleagues, for I have
good reason to believe that they did their best
to prevent our being recognized at the Colonial
Office, but in that step they did not succeed—
we were heard; and they then used every exertion to prevent the voice of the people
from
being heard. But the Attorney General should
have known better than to charge us with not
presenting those petitions, for the records of the
Imperial Parliament show that those petitions
were presented by Admiral Erskine, on the 5th
of March, while the bill was in committee. It
is stated to have been the largest petition presented to the Commons of England.
I have been told that the press under my
control represented the country as in a bankrupt condition before Confederation; at
that
time I was not here, and I do not know that I
ever read the articles referred to, but is it not a
fact that money could not be procured to meet
the checks drawn on the treasury of this Province.
Mr. ANNAND continued :—I am not able to
state the facts from my own knowledge, but
the general impression in the community to
this day is that the assertions were true, and
that being the case, it was the duty of the press
to represent the facts. The Provincial Secretary has said that we cannot expect to
get so
large a sum hereafter for our roads and bridges,
but let me ask why not? We have seen the
revenue increase in one year by $185,000, being
$35,000 more than the interest on the Pictou
railway, and if our customs revenue had not
been taken away, and handed over to another
country, we could have covered the country
from end to end with roads. I would like to
see the face of the Province covered with railways; and as to the Annapolis road,
I may say
that I think that line should have been carried
on by paying a company a subsidy for twenty
years, and then we would be done with the
liability, and could have gone on with our extensions. The subsidy would then have
been
returned to the treasury, to be re-employed in
the construction of other railways and public
works. Thus the country would have gone on
and prospered, and blossomed as the rose. But
193
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
under the arrangement which has been effected
we are cut short in our career of progress, and
the splendid prospect before us is marred. We
are to remain, in future, a dependency, not of
the mother country, because direct communication with the Crown is cut off, but of
Canada,
and we are to be subjected to her taxation, and
to be drawn into her broils and her isolation.
That word isolation has been used in reference
to Nova Scotia, but Nova Scotia can never be
isolated as long as she remains beside the sea,
forming a part of the magnificent Empire to
which I am proud to belong, and commanding
the ports to which every Englishman sailing
from the Mersey or the Thames resorts. We
are to become a dependency of Canada—to
submit to new trade regulations imposed by a
country cut off from the rest of the world, whose
policy is protection, and to share in her isolation ; and our people, peaceful, prosperous
and
happy, are to be identified with the factions,
and I might almost say, the bankruptcy of
Canada.
Mr. C.J. CAMPBELL—We have heard a good
deal about expenditures for wines, but I can
assure the hon. member for East Halifax that
it was not all used by the supporters of the
government. As regards the expenditure in
the Board of Works, it is no good defence to
say that the late government did wrong, be—
cause every one knows that they were turned
out of office for their misdeeds.
Hon. ATTY. GENERAL—Several matters connected with the closing of the business of the
legislature have called my attention away
from the debate up to this time, but I understand it was produced by an attack made
on
the Government by the hon. member for North
Colchester, which was followed up by a series
of attacks on the part of the hon member for
East Halifax. There are persons connected
with dramatic performances who, after being
lost sight of for a time, make their appearance
in so different a costume that they can hardly
be recognized. If the hon. member would only
look in the glass occasionly, and try himself by
the different phrases of character which he has
assumed for the last twenty—five years, he
would hardly know whether he was a representative of East Halifax in this legislature
or
a native of the South Sea Islands. From the
various positions he has assumed, there is no
man in the country who can undertake to say
whether he is in favor of government construction of railways or construction by companies,
or whether he is in favor of a capitalization or
an annual subsidy for the companies. There
is an old adage which tells us that certain persons of doubtful character should have
good
memories, but unfortunately the hon. member
has not a good memory, and he reminds me of
those birds who cover their heads, and think
that their whole body is concealed,—having a
bad memory himself he is led away by the
delusion that every one else has a bad memory
also.
He accuses us of telling the House that the
people's petitions were not presented, but he told
us so himself the other day, and gave us the
reasons, telling us that he and his colleagues
behaved so badly that they could not find a
man to present them. I felt that if the 40,000
signers of the petition were satisfied with that
excuse we had no great reason to complain,
but he went further and gave us another reason
—the assertion that there was not time for them
to be presented. I thought that the intelligent
public outside would hardly accept these statements as correct, and when in the face
of those
assertions he now tells us that his excuses
were all a sham, that we did not prevent the
petitions from being presented, and that they
were really presented, I ask whether the members who have heard him, or the people
who
read the debates, can place any reliance on
what he says. If the petitions were not presented, his statement of to-day is untrue,—if
they were presented, his charge against the
delegates of preventing their presentation is
groundless. He made another statement today with just as much confidence as if he
spoke
from his own knowledge—that the authorized
delegates did all in their power to prevent him
and his colleagues from being heard and recognized. I deny the truth of that assertion
and I
demand the proof ; —from my knowledge of the
feelings of every one of my colleagues, I deny
that, by act, word or deed, we did anything to
prevent those gentlemen from being heard. If
the hon. member does not produce the proof of
his assertion, he must stand condemned as a
man who will hazard an assertion which he
makes out of whole cloth without having the
slightest corroboration to support it.
But the honorable member went further
and not only told us what took place
while he was in England, but undertook
to contradict my statement of what took
place after he left. He says it is not true that
the people's delegates tried to prevent the passage of the guarantee bill when they
found
that the Confederation bill was likely to pass,
but I ask him did he sign a document bearing
his name which was presented to the House of
Commons, and which made use of every argument to induce the Parliament and the public
of England to come to the conclusion that if the
railroad were built it would not pay grease for
the wheels? But I take the statement which
he has just made, and which he gives not only
on his own behalf but on that of his colleagues,
that the opposition to the guarantee bill was
withdrawn, and I make to the House a statement not from hearsay, but from actual knowledge:
the gentleman who led the hon. member
from East Halifax and others into opposition
to union, in my presence and in the presence of
members of the Imperial Parliament after the
union bill had passed a second reading, and it
was known that it was merely awaiting the
guaranty, used language calculated to raise
distrust in the colonies, and as far as words
could go, induced those who heard him to believe that the guaranty would have to be
redeemed out of the pockets of the people of Engand.
That is my answer to the hon. gentleman's
assertion, and I give it thus specifically because he has challenged it. The reply
I made
at the time was to this effect: "Is that the language that is now used to the people
of England ? I can recollect when a gentleman came
from Nova Scotia whom the people expected to
return with seven millions of dollars, and they
were viewing with each other to reward him for
this very work." Then the hon. member tells
us that the petition was the largest ever presented in England but he must have a
very
imperfect knowledge of the number of names
usually appended to petitions in England, or
194
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
he would have known that hundreds of thousands of names are sometimes presented. He
asked us also why we should not hereafter
have as large a sum as hitherto for our roads
and bridges. Does he expect an answer to that
question when himself and others who are obstructing us, have so lately declared that
there
would be no means by which the annual liability for the construction of the Annapolis
Railway could be met ? I can answer him in
his own words, but one who heard his declaration to-day, that even with Confederation,
by
holding on to the subvention, the whole debt
connected with that extension would be paid
in twenty years, and the picture presented by
the future before us waul be a most beautiful
one to contemplate. If he makes the calculation he will find that, by putting away
$5000
a year, he will effect that object even yet. We
were to give $16,500 a year, under the former
arrangement to the Company, and now we are
to give $11,000, so that by investing the balance
we will have the debt paid in twenty years.
The hon member ridiculed the idea of Nova
Scotia being isolated while the flag of England
remained to protect us. Let me ask him if that
is the language he always holds, and if he and
his colleagues did not say to the people of
England that a sufficient number of troops
could be raised in the State of New York in
a month to take these Colonies from the the
grasp of England ? If that assertion was true,
and the Colonies united would be in so bad a
position, I ask him where would little Nova
Scotia be with her population of 300,000 inhabitants ? Her position on the sea renders
her
more open to attack, unless she has something
more reliable than her own resources for defence.
As I said at the outset I have not been able to
give much attention to the debate, but I will now
refer to the action of the member for North Colchester who, a case in which a complaint
was
urged against a certain expenditure by the Government He was a member of the Committee
on Public Accounts, and, in connection with his
duty, had laid before him certain accounts of the
Board of Works concerning which he makes a
variety of complaints. Now, I ask, has he done
his duty to the other members of the Committee,
or not? Did he do his duty to the country, if,
having complaints to make, he did not bring
them to the notice of the gentlemen operating
with him in the Committee ? Did be send for the
Chairman or any member ofthe Board of Works
to explain the alleged irregularities ? As far as
I can learn he took no such action, and I regret
that the hon member is not in his place to answer those questions. Why he has thus
run
away before his conduct was enquired into, is for
him to settle with the House, but I can only say
that if he desired that justice should be done and
a fair investigation had, why did he say nothing
in the committee or to the Government about the
matters in connection with which he experienced
difficulty ? It is evident that the correction of the
accounts and the saving of the public money were
not his objects, for he waited till the committee
reported, and then brought here charges against
individuals without taking the trouble to ascertain whether they were correct or not.
His de
sire, without doubt, was to get something on
which he could attack the Government, making
his constituency believe that there was something
wrong in the public departments without giving
us the slightest opportunity for defence. That is
not a position which will recommend itself to the
House or to the country, as one that an honorable and prudent man would occupy. The
hon
member avoids this by saying that on another
subject he applied to the Fin Secretary's office for
information and could not obtain it ; but let, us
see whether he was not going beyond his commission.
It is a safe rule I think that a man who sticks
to his business is most likely to be successful in
its accomplishment, and let us see what the hon.
member's duties were. He is appointed to take
up and examine the Public Accounts to 30th
Sep., and he went and applied for a statement of
balances due by the Collectors to 30th March.
This is the information which he complained of
not getting, but I hold it was not within the scope
of his duty to ask for it ; he was, arrogating to
himself duties which did not belong to him. I do
not wish to say anything offensive to the hon.
member, but I desire that the public should know
that when he was refused that information he had
departed from the duty assigned him.
Mr. LONGLEY: — I was not in the House to-day
when the hon. member for East Halifax made an
attack on the government, and I may not therefore be fully aware of the tenor of his
remarks,
but I am informed that he made an allusion to
the wood contract recently entered into on the
Railway Department. Being a party to the contract I am willing to hear my share of
responsibility and I think I can shew that the contract was
not a disadvantageous one. I will state the prices
which the department has paid for wood during
the three or four years preceding the commencement of Mr. Hyde's contract, and also
the prices
paid outside of that contract because the agreement does not include the Windsor branch.
In
1863 we paid for wood $2.31 per cord, in 1864,
$2.38, in 1866, $2 52, in 1866, $2 91.
Now it must be borne in mind that though the
contract is dated lst April, 1865, yet up to the
year terminating 30th Sepr , we had used only
2000 cords from Mr. Hyde, and yet the average
price of wood for that year including Mr. Hyde's
wood was, as I have said, $2 91. It is believed
that the wood furnished by Mr. Hyde will be
worth ten per cent more than that furnished heretofore, because he is not only obliged
to keep a
large supply on hand, but he is to furnish season
ed wood for shed-assuming, however, the quality
to be the same as heretofore, it will be $2.72 per
cord or 19 cents less than the regular price, and
if it is to be worth ten per cent more, then its cost
would only amount to $2 00.
But there are other facts to shew that the contract will be advantageous. We paid
at Shubenacadie and Stillwater, right in the woods, in 1866,
$2.89 per cord. In 1863 the consumption of
wood by the department was 4,150 cords; the consumption in the nine months of 1864
was 3,400
cords ; and that of 1866 was nearly 7,000 cords.
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
195
Not only has the price, therefore, been rapidly increasing, but the consumption has
been increasing in the same ratio, and I am not quite sure
but we would have had to pay by tender and contract, in 1867, fully $3 00 even for
the wood in an
imperfect state. There is the best evidence that
before the end of the five years we would have
had to pay $3.25 or $3.50 per cord ; and I therefore think that the hon. member is
likely to make
about as much advantage out of this transaction
as out of the others which he so bungled. He
evidently feels that be cannot do worse than he
has done, and he continues floundering about in
the hope that something will occur to better his
position. In connection with this subject, I am
in a positition to furnish the opinion of one whose
experience of twenty-five or thirty years should
entitle his views to some consideration. Before
entering into the contract, having some doubts
as to the propriety of making an agreement running so far ahead, I made enquiries
of the locomotive superintendent, and he stated that his experience led him to believe
that wood obtained at
$3 per cord is cheaper to burn than coal. It is
supposed by many that as the railway will run to
Pictou harbor, opposite the coal fields, where an
inexhaustible supply is to be obtained, it would
be cheaper to burn coal ; but experience shows
that the contract with Mr. Hyde was dictated by
economy, and is likely to prove advantageous to
the department.
Mr. ANNAND—As the hon. gentleman has chosen to make an attack upon me, I would only
tell him that if I were disposed to give him a certificate of character, I would quote
the language
of Mr. Archibald, who described a certain building across the harbor as the appropriate
place for
the Railway Commissioner. It is unfortunate
that the hon. gentleman did not hear my remarks,
for they did not relate to the prices, as I knew nothing of them ; but I contended
that it was a piece
of administrative mismanagement, with the railway running into the heart of a coal
region, to
enter into a contract for the supply of wood for
five years. I am content to leave it to the judgment of any engineer to say whether
that was a
provident bargain or not, and I know it is contrary to the reports made by the engineers
of previous
governments. The hon. member is one of those
gentlemen who came in on the cry of retrenchment, and his idea was that the late comissioner
should receive ÂŁ250 instead of ÂŁ600 per annum,
but he himself has found no difficulty in taking
ÂŁ600 a year while he has been in office. The
hon. member's consistency, however, shews itself
in everything. A few years ago he proclaimed
that " rum and railways were the ruin of the
country." I am not prepared to say whether he
has changed his views as to rum, but we know
that he has not hesitated to accept the post of
Chief Commissioner of Railways. As to his capacity for that position, we will ascertain
whether
the General Government, requiring the services
of first-rate men, will continue his engagement.
Hon. PROV. SEC.—As to the statement that
the hon. member for East Halifax and his colleagues on the delegation withdrew their
hostility to the Intercolonial Railway immediate
ly on the passage of the Union Bill, I would
ask whether he has any information of Mr.
Howe going to the gentlemen whom he had
urged to oppose the guaranty—whose opposition he had boasted of—to one of the most
talented members of the Commons, Mr. Lowe
and confessed to them that he had deceived
and misled them. If he did so, and if he asked
permission to withdraw the statement that our
credit was not worth a dollar, and that a man
trusting British America a pound would lose
it, because we would repudiate the debt, then
he is in a position to say that their opposition to the railway was withdrawn, but
he
must not tell me that the opposition was
withdrawn. After the Union Bill was endorsed by an ovewhelming majority, that hon.
member in the House and in the press did his
best to defeat the project and to prevent the
Provinces having the benefit of three millions
of pounds sterling expended among them. I
could take up the paper edited by the hon.
gentleman and could shew the House that day
by day he denounced the railway as a worthless expenditure of the public money. If
he
and the party with which he co-operates could
succeed in deluding the people of the County
of Halifax and of the country, into believing
his statements and supporting their candidates
they would prevent the construction of a mile
of railway in the Province. The portion of
the line which is ready to be taken up at once
is the portion between Truro and Monoton, but
if these gentlemen could succeed in procuring
the return of nineteen members to the House
of Commons, pledged to demand a repeal of
the Union they would cut off this Province
from the rest of British America, and what government could be found in Canada willing
to
expend a dollar on a line of railway until the
lapse of half a dozen years when the safety of
the experiment was tried ?
If the hon. member can convince the people
of Canada and New Brunswick, who will be
united, because New Brunswick will send a
united phalanx of union men to strengthen the
hands of the first government to be formed to
secure the construction of the road, that he has
withdrawn his opposition in the face of his declaration that the business of the remaining
portion of his life would be to cut off Nova Scotia from the rest of British America,
making
St. John the terminus as a matter of necessity,
then he will have to take back these declarations which he has made in the press and
on
the platform. But while the paper under his
control, and the party with whom he acts are
putting repeal on their banners and showing
a determination to obstruct the union, if I
were a Canadian or a New Brunswicker with
a seat in Parliament, I would say, " Hold your
hand ; if Nova Scotia is determined not to assist in carrying out the great objects
of union,
and to break up the Confederation, it would be
an act of insanity to spend a dollar in Nova
Scotia until the question is fully tried out, and
until ten years hence it is seen whether repeal
is to be the motto, or whether Nova Scotia is
prepared to show the benefits flowing from the
Act of Union." The position of the hon. member and of every anti-unionist at this
hour is
the position of total antagonism to the Intercolonial Railway, and if the people of
Halifax
and the rest of the Province expect such men
196
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
as their representaves, I do not hesitate to say
that we could not expect such an act of insanity as the expenditure of a pound on
the
portion of the railway which should run
through Nova Scotia. If there are men among
us so reckless of their own position in the eye
of the public as to take up the attitude of obstruction, and to place themselves in
a position
to be over-ridden by the public sentiment of
the country, I have no fear of the action of the
intelligent citizens of Halifax, knowing how
deeply they are interested in giving such cooperations as will secure to this city
all the
benefits to result from the construction of the
great highway of nations, and the action which
I think will take place in this constituency will
be endorsed by every intelligent constituency
in the Province. The hon. member for East
Halifax has gone too far in his declarations respecting the position of this Province
and the
Intercolonial Railway, to obtain the confidence
of an number of the electors. Whoever will
be elected, the selection will be made from
among those who have a regard for the position and prosperity of the Province. for
the
people know that to elect the men who have
been traducing every public man who has
given his aid to the union, and have been
trampling on and treating with contempt the
credit of Canada, would be only explicable on
the ground that they are utterly blinded to
their interests and to the prosperity of the
country. Now that the policy of union is settled, many of its strongest opponents
will be
found like the Custos of this country, who, in
taking his seat as chairman of the meeting the
other evening, and that he had taken a very
active part in politics, but he felt that, regardless of the past, now that union
has become the
law of the land, as loyal citizens we are bound
to come out, and giving the law our support,
place the resentation in the hands of the
friends of union. Suppose that to-morrow the
member for East Halifax were elected to serve
in the House of Commons, with what face could
he rise in that Parliament and ask the aid of a
single man on one side or the other in any
question in which the interests of Nova Scotia
were concerned? After the assertion that Canada was in a bankrupt condition, made
notwithstanding that her debentures and ours are
the highest of any of the Provinces, from the
fact that, although she had made enormous expenditures in connection with defence
and in
the extension of her canals. her surplus was
so large as to warrant her credit being placed
as high as ours, flourishing as is the financial
condition of Nova Scotia. I ask even if a constituency in Nova Scotia were found to
elect
him to-morrow, where would he hide his
head? To ask for any consideration for his
country would require an amount of audacity
even exceeeding that which he displayed in attacking the financial policy of the government
The ground on which I confidently expect that the interests of Nova Scotia will be
considered paramount to those of any section
of British America is that we have men of
standing and ability who will go to the united
Parliament and lay before it claims which no
Parliament could ignore. We will find men
in the ranks of both the Liberal and Conservative parties, who, without reference
to the
political differences heretofore existing among
us, will go there and claim that consideration
which is due to those who have carried forward the great measure of union on which
our
common prosperity depends.
The union bill was carried in the British
Parliament notwithstanding all that the hon.
member for East Halifax and his colleagues
could do to damage the credit of the Province,
to represent the railway as a useless undertaking, and to make it appear that the
object of
Nova Scotia was to break up and destroy the
Confederation. We have had it represented
to-day, and have heard through the anti-union
press, that Nova Scotia is in so helpless a condition that all the government of the
United
States has to do is to refuse to establish commercial relations with us in order to
embarrass
our trade, and that they can come down whenever they please and seize on the colonies.
I
ask if that is the way to advance the interests
of the country—to proclaim that we must fall
a helpless prey to the first aggressor? He says
that to attempt to open up a trade with any
other country than the States is useless, and
he follows it up by denouncing the men who
have striven to place us in a most prosperous
condition commercially, and to bring to our
aid the whole force of the Empire in the event
of an attack. I do not wonder that this gentleman, instead of being like the delegates
sent
by this legislature, ready to go back and place
their future fate and fortunes in the hands of
the electors ; conscious of what he deserves,
skrinks from the defeat to which he must expose himself in going before any constituency.
He sends to the county of Queens to see if
that constituency will afford him an escape
from the averted faces of the electors of East
Halifax, and back comes the modifying reply
that, though money to any amount had been
offered by the capitalists who are ready to
back him, an anti-unionist could be returned
for Queens. That is the position in which he
has placed himself by endeavoring to place the
country in such a condition as would make us
a bye-word and laughing-stock for all time to
come. Â Having committed himself to that
course it is too late for him to say that it was a
little piece of deception used for another object; he cannot thus wipe out the record
that
will stand against him to the end of time. I
do not wonder in the face of that record that
on his return from England, as he told us the
other day, on making a hasty visit to his constituents, he told his friends in Halifax
that he
had made up his mind to bid good—bye to public life. I can only say as regards myself
that
I should like to do the same, I have accomplished as much for my country as most public
men could have done, and would be glad
now to escape from the turmoil and responsibility of the public service, but I feel
that having undertaken a great responsibility in deal—
ing with the question of union, it would ill become me, having no such record against
me as
that which stands against the hon member for
East Halifax, to shrink from devoting my
services still further to my country, more especially as my exertions in connection
with this
great question will give me an advantage over
most of my countrymen in claiming consider—
ation for the claims of the Province.
Mr. ANNAND - It must be evident that the hon
gentleman is in a most desperate condition when
he is willing to place the whole fate of his party
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
197
on the single question of the Intercolonial Railway. I am surprised that he of all
others should
rise here and speak of the people—he who sold
their interests and denied them the right even to
speak by petition to the House of Commons.
How has he the audacity to mention the people or
to present himself before any constituency? Are
the people of Nova Scotia less worthy than those
of New Brunswick, who have been allowed to
speak twice, when we are denied the privilege altogether ? If the people of Nova Scotia
gave
him the treatment he might expect, they would
pitch him over the first hustings at which he pre
sented himself. The Prov. Secretary undertook
to censure my language in reference to the public
men of Canada, but we find the leader of the
opposition of that country styling them the " corruptionists of Canada." What is the
history of
their finances but a continuation of deficiencies
from year to year ?
I am told that I tried to destroy the public
credit. That is not true; but in speaking of
British America under Canadian rule, I had a
right to draw the inference that these "corruptionists" would be faithless to their
engagements
with the mother country. If the credit of Canada has risen lately, as was bosted so
loudly, it
was by means of manipulations which we fully
understand; but I hold in my hand a copy of the
Canadian News, the organ of the Grand Trunk
Railway Company, and l find it states that the
debentures of Nova Scotia are at present from 97
to 99 while those of Canada are from 95 to 97.
With that damming fact stated by their own authorities, how dare any one make the
assertion
that the credit of Canada is superior to that of
Nova Scotia? If the Intercoloulal Railway had
been fifty times as valuable as it is, my action
would have been the same, and I would not even
for that consideratron have given up the liberties
of my country. We knew that the railway scheme
was an essential part of the union arrangement,
and we hoped, by combining the opposition on
these two measures, to defeat the bill. We are
told that we may not have the terminus of the
railway if we send nineteen members of the Nova
Scotia party to Ottawa. If Halifax be the natural
terminus, and the interests of trade require that
the road should extend here, it would be immaterial whether Nova Scotia formed part
of the
Confederation or not. But we find Mr. Adderly,
the Assistant Secretary for the Colonies, stating
that the cost, of the road would be four millions
sterling, and we find that only three millions have
been provided. We see also that this three millions will just build the road to St.
John ; and 1
therefore charge it upon the delegates that they
were recreant to their duty in not making it a part
of the agreement that the construction of the railway should commence simultaneously
at Riviere
du Loup and Truro. In that case the interests
of Nova Scotia would have been safe, which they
are not now. It is true the Union Act declares
it to be the duty of Canada to carry the road to
completion; but we see the Canadians were not
bound by their minute of council in 1862, and if
it were not for their breach of faith on that occasion, we might now be connected
by rail with
Quebec. We are asked what we have to expect
in sending nineteen anti-unionists to Ottawa. We
expect to be represented by men who will not d-—
ny the people the right to speak—who will, as a
body of Nova Scotians, protect us, guarding our
rights from invasion, and who will not act like the
delegates who went to Canada, forgetting their
country as soon as they turned their backs upon it.
The gentlemen going from Nova Scotia will, I
trust, stand in one firm phalanx, true to the people who send them there. I am asked
if we requested Mr. Lowe to withdraw his opposition to
the Intercolonial Railway: that I cannot say, but
I have it from Mr. Howe that the moment Confederation was settled he ceased opposition,
and
I believe put himself in communication with
those from whom he expected support, and asked that their opposition cease. As to
Mr. Lowe,
I can only say that the first intimation we had
that that gentleman would oppose the guarantee
was received from an intimate acquaintance of the
Provincial Secretary on the other side of the water. The Provincial Secretary, as
I have said, is
the last man to rise here and make a passionate
appeal. If he had done by the people as Mr.
Tilley did by the people of New Brunswick, and
the electors had given their solemn assent to the
measure, I would not have said another word;
but as the people have been denied their ordinary
rights, I for one will not cease to agitate for
the return to Ottawa of men who possess the public confidence - men who would not
have denied
the peeple the right to speak. If the people of
this Province were to address the House of Commons in something like this language
: "Youhave been imposed on ; the chairman of the Grand
Trunk Railway told you that the question had
been before us at every hustings, whereas our
voice has never been asked until recently,when we
hurled all these men from power who have ventured thus to mislead you,"— I ask, would
there
be any harm in requesting the British Parliament
to release us, and to restore the old relations making as once more a colony not of
Canada, but of
England? Surely there can be no treason in that
sentiment, and it could not but benefit this Province to have restored to it the large
and increasing revenues which we possess, and to remain a
dependency of England.
Hon PROV SEC—I have only one remark to
make, and that is in relation to the action of New
Brunswick. We have given the Opposition two
years to find a case in which a minister, with a
majority in Parliament, ever appealed to the people, and not being able to produce
one such case,
they yet rise and repeat the old story about the
rights of the people having been invaded. In
New Brunswick the Premier thought to advance
the measure by dissolving the House, and what a
spectacle was presented. By means of certain
influences brought to hear an overwhelming majority was returned against the measure,
and a
second appeal resulted in the people sending an
overwhelming majority to its en support. Would
that be a creditable spectacle for Nova Scotia to
present? But let me ask the hon member if he
did not, on the face of public document, declare
that the action of New Brunswick was the greatest
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
198
brand of disgrace that could rest on a people, and
ywas only to be compared to a corrupt verdict
given by a brow-beaten jury ?
The House then adjourned.
Cet individu a participé aux :
