n 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 R 
 
 J? 
 
 4 
 
 1.0 ^f^ tSi 
 
 1.1 l*^^ 
 
 1.6 
 
 i.25 iu 
 
 ;hic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 ■17 
 
 <v 
 
 <v 
 
 >s\ 
 
 <> 
 
 
 "^>. 
 
 >^ 
 
 o^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 23 WEST MA!N STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. MS80 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 -b^^ 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHIVl/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical IVIicroreproductions / Ini^titut Canadian de micrureproductions hiitoriques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Nutos techniques at biNiographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibiiographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or whit i, may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checiced below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'ii iui a 6tA possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui pouvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m^thcde normaie de filmage 
 sont indiquAs ci-dessrjs. 
 
 E 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 J Couverture de couleur 
 
 r^ Covers damaged/ 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Couverture endommagAe 
 
 Covers testored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^e et/ou peiiicuiie 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le titre dd couverture manque 
 
 rn Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes giographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured \i\k (i.e. other than blue or blacic)/ 
 Encra de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 □ Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reiiura serr^e peut causer de Tcmbre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge int6rieure 
 
 Blank liaves add'^d during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have bem omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certsines pages bianchts ajoutAes 
 lor^ d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6tA fiimies. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplAmentairas; 
 
 r~~] Coloured pages/ 
 
 Pages de corleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag^es 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restauri&es et/ou peliicMi6es 
 
 Pages discolour«td. stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d^coiortes, tachetdes ou piquies 
 
 □Pages detached/ 
 Pages d^tach^es 
 
 "^ Showthrough/ 
 i— I Transparence 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 D 
 
 Quaiit^^ inigale de ('impression 
 
 includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplemental: e 
 
 Only edition avciiable/ 
 Seule Edition disponioie 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, 9tc., have been refiimed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuiilet d'orrata, une peiure, 
 etc.. ont M filmAes A nojvbau de fa9on A 
 obtenir la meilieure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
Tha copy filmed here has beeii reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Izuic Walton Killam Memorial Library 
 Dalhousie University 
 
 L'exemplaire fllm6 fut reproduit grdce A >a 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 izaak Walton Killam Memorial Library 
 Dalhousie University 
 
 The Imapes appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites evec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les exemplaires o'iginaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont film6s 9n commen9ant 
 par le premier plat et en terminsnt soit per la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont film6s en commen^ant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et er. terminant par 
 la derni^re page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — h» (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"}, 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diff6rents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproiiuit en un seul cliche, il est iiimi d partir 
 de i'angle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
*T« T.S , Ic^^V.^. , B-<Srx N ^ 
 
 1. 
 
 ^y 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 TARIFF 
 
 LITERATURE 
 
 LETTERS FOR THE PEOPLE. 
 
 COINTENTS : 
 
 Page. 
 
 Preface 5 
 
 How the Poor are Burdened 10 
 
 ** No Increase but Keadjustment " 11 
 
 The Grit Tariff. ......'...'. 12 
 
 Mr. Jones and the Coal Dut\ 13 
 
 Have we a Kevenue Tariff and Incidental Protection ? 15 
 
 To what Tariff-protection is labor entitled \ M7 
 
 Utterances of the National Policy Party on the injustice of 
 the present Tariff to the Working ('lasses. What then 1....21 
 
 How a uniform Duty would work 25 
 
 How should a Revenue be raised \ 27 
 
 The great obstacle to a Pinjhibitory Li(|Uor Law 29 
 
 Our Sugar Importations 30 
 
 The present duties average 28 i)er cent 31 
 
 Dominion Imports and Expoi'ts of Flour and Gfain 32 
 
 Dr. Tupper on the Coal and other Duties. 32 
 
 .^ 
 
 BY J. R. LITHGOW. 
 
 
 HF 
 
 iTeo 
 .L"r9 
 
 HALIFAX, N. S. 
 ILY REPORTER AND TIMES STEAM JOB PRINTING HOUSE. 
 
 1878. \ 
 

 mn 
 
 H9?voo.pB oq, >,HB'i,,nj,oacLa i 'lou Ij 
 'eraneaiJ t , i. "safiodjiul pjioocfB .101 
 
 espxo p,„, «aK.as..o ,«,,., eq^'^^Uo]!^ 
 
 A0/&/ 
 
 z 
 
 much so i>3 was Pontius Pi late, to wnoiu 
 Christ said — " Thou conldest have no pow- 
 er at all ai,'anist me, except it ivcrc given tlwe 
 from above." John xix. 11. Hence, the 
 popular vote, the rax populi is really vox 
 Dei, and to the elect of the people — the 
 Christian renders " I heir dues." 
 
 How ituportant, then, that the people 
 should choose able and jnst vion, who may 
 in turn choose from amonii' themselves a 
 Premier, Finance Minister, and so on, well 
 qualified for their high positions, and by 
 whom our country may be blessed, and the 
 promise in a measure be fulfilled to us, 
 which Israel restored will one day realise ; 
 ** I will make thy officers peace, and thine 
 exactors righteousness." Isa. Ix. 17. "Thine 
 exactors righteousness." That is what I 
 greatly desire to see in Canada. " He that 
 ruleth over men must be just,"' in what 
 David the King of Israel, as the 'mouth- 
 piece of he Highest, said ; 2 Sam. xxiii. 3 ; 
 and altnough the vorld will not see such 
 a Ruler on earth uniil " the Hoot and Off- 
 spring of David" come and reign, I see 
 no reason why we should not hav^ u mea- 
 sure of the promise tilled in our next Fin- 
 ance Minister and a uniform ad valorem 
 tariff, such as for the past three months I 
 
 "^"ve been writing up with fear and tremb- 
 \jg, well knowing how slowly the people 
 
 I receive anything new ; remembering also 
 how prone they are to ask — " Have any of 
 the rulers belioved on him ?" 
 
 WW-G'??!- ?8?.'0Sf'8 
 
 Ll fJ!»*'y<ij- Dfiji'f-ag'* " 4" 
 
 if. OJIO'KIQ IfiO'r.'JO'l " ^ii 
 
 ••uaa aiv.i ^ •a^a"vf'' "P""^ -^ifP m^^4 
 
 -ioj SB 8B.tt oMuoA^a 0810X0 pt.B fimo^Tno'om 
 
 im 'cui.r 'HOC '^uipuo suBo.f OM, o,„ IP^ 
 
 . .Mo„oj eii, puB,saapun 'nJ^^,, '";?, 
 
 f -"'cI Ppn,opoBjv[ "qo^. a.sao ivun^lPe^} 
 n.ouiB,u,Bn, .u. pesKvea ^^^Jvp i^nfupu^ 
 puB aood oq, c, ,8nfuu 'oh 'flU '.Si 
 
 ^ao. B oABq «pBj-j,uBj, iiuJouoPelT 
 
 -^UAv s3LLna iN3S3^j mi ' 
 
 / 
 
 Ale 
 country would receive all the tariff protec- 
 tion to which it is entitled. At least the 
 exceptions would be found very few and 
 these could easily be arranged. 
 
 May every elector who reads this be ira- 
 proHsed with the importance of tlie great 
 question now before the country, and have 
 wisdom enough to see the good that would 
 result from a tariff thai would he just to all. 
 
 P. S. — If your space permit, I v/ouldlike 
 to append a list of duties imposed by the 
 present Canadian tariff, against the injustice 
 of which every just man must protest. 
 
 On each dollar's worth. 
 
 West India rum pays equal to -93.50 
 
 Gin 
 
 
 
 2.50 
 
 Brandv 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 0.80 
 
 Choice Wines 
 
 
 
 0.20 
 
 Common Tobacco 
 
 
 
 2.10 
 
 Best Cigars 
 
 
 
 0.30 
 
 Brown Si;gar 
 
 
 
 0.55 
 
 Crushed tlo. 
 
 
 
 0.40 
 
 Common Tea 
 
 
 
 0.30 
 
 Best do. 
 
 
 
 0.10 
 
 Ilice and Starch 
 
 
 
 40 
 
 Kerosene 
 
 
 
 0.40 
 
 Vinegar 
 
 
 
 0.50 
 
 Molasses 
 
 
 
 0.25 
 
 (Beskles eiiual to about IJ cent per gii. on packafre.) 
 
 Silks, satins, velvets, flowers, lacea, 
 jewelry, plate, china, and luxurious articles 
 generally, pay only 17^ cents on each dol- 
 lar's worth ! J. R. L. 
 
 to 
 
To the Mtiior of the Mvming OhronicU : ^ 
 
 - tbABk yon for pablithiog my Moond 
 lettw denying th« truth of your Maertion 
 tli»t owloin datit deaoaaoed by me in 78 ai 
 anjost'to the poor man had "ia moat oaaea 
 I been iaereased." bat regiet to find you per- 
 '■»8t in r^lMMnfiryour statemeat, the incorrect- 
 neea of jphloh yoa ought to be awara of. 
 No#, I MB determinad to oonrinoe your 
 readera, tf not yonraelf, that you» atatemeat 
 waa $mA ia fain, and that my Matemeat— 
 that oaiy 0*14! of the dutisa denouaoed by me 
 as oujuat to the poor haa been inureased -ia 
 
 READER. 
 
 ;er of the following letters has \\\ 
 ) People to see the i;toss injustice 
 
 perfeotty eoTOKJt •, "^ i ' i " 
 
 Flrat, now, aa regarda your atatament. I > aucl tO see alsO that tllC I'onietly 
 ^, .-day that the duty on the poor njan'a brown at is, aS many COUtS (luty OH OVOry 
 
 y for home consumi)tion as will 
 Jriie present customs and excise 
 «l1 to al)out 28 cents on every dol- 
 
 ■ 
 
 ' Why then should there not be 
 
 lese <;'oods 1 Certainly it would 
 
 ,e of the present tariff, as illustrat- 
 
 n\ pa.i>e 11. (See Grit Tariff'.) I ask 
 
 chat wine ^osting only 50 cents per 
 
 ty, as wi. '"osting 64 or upwards ? 
 
 I whose cost is 40 cents should i)ay 
 
 brandy whose cost is SI. 2.") pays 
 
 ** M 40 ce.its worth of gin should 
 
 •?u9o j8.^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ P^^*^ ^^^' sherry wine 
 
 owq? 01 anoj taojj e^wodsp no ^sajj it jUSt that a dollar's WOrtll of 
 
 ■ni «»ti; puw '-juoo Jed ^ib oj neAos uio.d pay Only 30 cents, while upwards 
 -«od«7To^° ^'^' ^''^ ^"•'"^P"' ^"^ '"^« worth of fair tobacco ? Above 
 
 regarda your atatement. 
 deny that the duty on the poor ooau'a brown 
 augar haa hmux inoreaned. The great bulk of 
 the aaid augar ia what is known aa No. 14 
 Dutch standard. That sugar now pays i 
 cent leaa apeoific duty per pound than in 78, 
 and although tae .ad ■yOorem duty is 6 per 
 cent, mere than In 78, yet the p .ckage which 
 th^apaid 25 per cent, duty being now /ree, 
 the whole duty ia about, one-eighth cedQper 
 poo^k^atbaoi^dskL^^Mn^lariff. Ifcope 
 yon will now admit, what any sugar importer 
 knows, that the duty on the poor man'a brown 
 sugar has not been increatei. 
 
 The duties on rice and kerosene, you ad- 
 mit, are the same as uader the old tariff, not- 
 withstandinar a general increase in the tariff. 
 
 / £ f 
 
 K'lmoauoaje^, „e9M,9q eoii^ « g„oZ"''^''''^'' ''^" ^^^^^^^'^^^^^^ articles pay 
 
 ®q? JO joA«j ni piBB eq o; pep poog « ^"^^^ ^^^^ must say, No ! such duties 
 weqx -QoaiAojj eq, p fsijjBd juejogi'vemment that maintains them can- 
 nj s^oqs ,ow?Sfp ?8i9w oij peen eq ^oBiitled to the name of "Keformers.'* 
 U W^ ^"^^ '^^''^'"- ^"^^ "^ ?«tvvould not condenni them ; but they 
 oq uoniqmx^J 1.?"'' ""^^"^ °- Pl^'^ovdd luivc remedied it, if they had 
 -SfneaedBd boibb eqj- "jadid o ^ r? "^ ^ Simple (me. Lveu the adop- 
 o? pejBdejd ejB eidoed s!>i ji" aomqi^xV^'^ ^^ United States had from IS 57 
 •" PPq o; xTjjipjg^ p i^tiSu'eq, Hpuejar'^P^i^i^^itu.re obliged them to alter it, 
 Y^-^rmQ oatiii m— sijorxiwaxa he American Tariff of that period 
 
 v^ym -vuqor^sp^p •.^. 
 
 ^-P«m ait, Hpneu, eu,i,„BK «q p .,Btfte 
 
 U 
 
 -^ 
 
 -4 
 
 /■ 
 
i 
 
 6a 3^ -„- 
 
 «q l>|l» >M 010 'sTLUfls tnrui oi uoasi n.,-. 
 nojf,up omvs oq, 'awnoo >• 'ind mnoi 
 
 'emiiBo.^ X „i ■^^""djnd [UToods .loi 
 
 8? Ji q.)}! A\ j( oji,iowj„ut,ra puv uonruod 
 
 espx-oV". «nunsno l«,o, eq^ s« ^'mo^^ 
 
 oi^u-nMiunap;;;;^:;;!^!";;^!^-^:;^ 
 
 njo.ijon,<M.n xwiuuuna ou. „,;," ,!" J ^ "^''^ 
 
 A^/&/ 
 
 ■«l^ 
 
 jiasaii 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 - much so pa wai Pontius Pilate, U) wikmu 
 Christ said — " Tliou conldest have no pow- 
 er at all ftj,'ninst me, except it 'werc (jiven thre 
 from above." John xix. 11, Hence, the 
 popular vote, the vox popvli is really vox 
 Iki, and to the elect of the people — the 
 Christian renders " their dues." 
 
 I How important, then, that the people 
 iJ should choose able and jnst raon, who may 
 in turn choose fi"om among themselves a 
 Premier, Finance Minister, and so on, well 
 qualified for their high positions, and by 
 whom our country may be blessed, and the 
 promise in a measure be fulfilled to us, 
 which Israel restored will one day realise ; 
 *' I will make thy officers peace, and thine 
 exactors righteousness. "Isa. Ix. 17. "Thine 
 exactors righteousness." That is what 1 
 greatly desire to see in Canada. " Hi that 
 ruleth over men must be just,'^ i% what 
 David the King of Israel, as the 'mouth- 
 piece of the Highest, said ; 2 Sam. xxiii. 3 ; 
 and although the world will not see such 
 a Ruler on earth until " the Root and Oif- 
 
 '■' spring of David " come and reign, I see 
 no reason why we should not have a mea- 
 sure of the promise tilled in our nevt Fin- 
 ance Minister and a uniform ad valorem 
 tariff, such as for the past three months I 
 
 V''»vo been writing up with fear and tremb- 
 \ig, well knowing how slowly the people 
 
 I receive anything new ; remembering also 
 
 j how prone they are to ask — " Have any of 
 
 jthe rulers believed on him ?" 
 
 >> 9 
 
 >» or 
 
 {: *ro ifii't m'na'ni 
 
 Mail (l\V,\ •HAtVA 
 
 im 'ouuf q,08 Su.puo 9.,«U om, oq, uj 
 >. |Mo„oj eq, p„T,,„epnu \„opT.e. S' 
 
 put, aood eq, <,, ,8nfun oh 'n a^ V.oS 
 "unsonb ^v.^,r. o,n no Sn,a«oq ^LuXn 
 
 country would receive all the tarifi" protec- 
 tion to which it is entitled. At least the 
 exceptions would be found very few and 
 these could easily be arranged. 
 
 May every elector who reads this be im- 
 pressed with the importance of the great 
 question ntnv before the country, and have 
 wisdom enough to see the good that would 
 result from a tariff that would he jitd to alL 
 
 P. S. — If your space permit, I woiildlike 
 to append a list of duties imposed by the 
 present Canadian tariff, against the injustice 
 of which every just man must protest. 
 
 On each dollar's worth. 
 
 West India rum pays equal to 83.50 
 
 Gin 
 
 Brandy 
 
 Choice Wines 
 
 Common Tobacco 
 
 Best Cigars 
 
 Brown Sugar 
 
 Crushed do. 
 
 Common Tea 
 
 Best do. 
 
 Rice and Starch 
 
 Kerosene 
 
 Vinegar 
 
 Molasses 
 
 (Besides e(nial to about IJ cent per gn. on packajre.) 
 
 Silks, satins, velvets, flowers, laces, 
 jewelry, plate, china, and luxurious articles 
 generally, pay only 17^ cents on each dol- 
 lar's worth ! J. R. L. 
 
 
 
 2.50 
 
 
 « 
 
 0.80 
 
 
 
 0.20 
 
 
 
 2.10 
 
 
 
 0.30 
 
 
 
 0.55 
 
 
 
 0.40 
 
 
 
 0.30 
 
 
 
 0.10 
 
 
 
 0,40 
 
 
 
 0,40 
 
 
 
 0,50 
 
 
 
 0.25 
 
 "0 
 
 iM 
 
 lOJ 
 
 1* 
 
 I. 
 
?^ 
 
 m 
 
 I punoa» MAo;t<q^ 'jojao ttq; .jooaaoo ._ 
 ^ joiq* aq oj p^jS oa« o^ -ijueuiaiOAOir 
 *0 "°!"T"'oa •M'J M?!^ aouenyni ou bah! 
 'wjtpJH joj weqiuaiu oi^ 'Xji^ pJ 
 8M Xeqoi^ Bjwoj^ !»«q!j uoiuido J-ni|i«A©j] * 
 'oj « IT ejBqx— flraxnauHoo hokhh uy 
 
 «J . ..'^°?X I«1Juairax, oq) jo qdmnu) an' 
 
 „ o^juaqoiBo o» ezsaaq eq) o% »«b 8Un«.>o PI" eM 
 
 p9|jnjnn 'oas aj«9^ oM^f^xw 'oq/a 'B^biiwi,; "IZ> TT* A T^ IT' TI> 
 Hi |o ^awdmoo inq? |o joajatob i]un oq? bi 'iHpin ATX. llu /\ i_J Xlj LX • 
 
 jno D! S9PI80J nil* oq« ''JS '^iwefl' B9tn« 
 
 I JO B)MJ)a neq!) eip nj f)©^«idi|p jaAo Jenu« -zsrwr 3.,- 
 
 l*''»*'*^iw' ^rwd«e.-« ,;,^^-^,.^n'Tnou9ber 01 the tollowing letters has in 
 l*^.°V[s to open the eyes'af tlie People to see the ^^ross in justice 
 ef the present Dominion Tariff, and to see also that the remedy 
 for it is an ad valorem Tariti'; that is, as many cents duty on every 
 dollar's worth of goods entered for homo consum))tion as will 
 raise the requisite revenue. The present cuiloms and excise 
 duties, I have shown, are eciual to about 2^ cents on every dol- 
 hir's worth of dutial)le goods. Why then should tliere not 1)0 
 simply 28 per cent, on all these goods ? Certainly it would 
 remedy the monstrous injustice of the present tariff, as illustrat- 
 ed in the specimen given of it on page 11. (See Grit Tariff.) I ask 
 you, as a just man, is it right that wine costing only o() cents i)er 
 gallon should pay as nnicli duty, as wine costing $4 or upwards ? 
 Is it just that a gallon of rum whose cost is 40 cents should pay 
 $1.40 duty, while a gallon of brandy whose cost is S1.2."3 pays 
 only 81.00 duty ? Is it just that 40 ce.its worth of gin should 
 pay $1 duty, when a dollar's worth of best port or sherry wine 
 pays only 18 to 20 cents ? Is it just that a dollar's worth of 
 the best imported cigars should pay only 30 cents, while upwards 
 of 82 is levied on a dollar's worth of fair tobacco '\ Above 
 all, should a Government so levy duties as that brown sugar, 
 rice, petroleum, molasses, conniion l)lack tea and starch, pay forty 
 cents on every dollar's worth, while silks, satins, velvets, choice 
 wines, jewelry, laces, a^id all manner of luxurious articles pay 
 only 17 g cents on the dollar ? 
 
 In answer to these (piestions you must say, Xo ! such duties 
 are far from just, and the Government that maintains them can- 
 not be a righteous one, or entitled to the name of 'VUeformers.'* 
 If there was no help for it I AVT)uld not condemn them ; but they 
 could have helped it. They could have remedied it, if they had 
 been willing. The remedy was a simple one. Even tlie adop- 
 tion of such a scale of duties as the United States had from 18.")7 
 up to 1861, when their war expenditure obliged them to alter it, 
 would have remedied it. The iimerican Tariti of that period 
 
 ."^ t> t;^ ^ 
 0/ > -^ N 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 -4 
 
 C 
 
6 
 
 imposed no sjn^rijic or erris«' dutien, hut was a purely nd nilonm 
 taritt', every article was taxed, if at all, on tluj value of it. IJut, 
 above all, not a sin,L;le article paid over :>(» per cent, ad valorem. 
 All licpiors, excei)t malt. i)aid 'M) per cent., also tobacco, cigars, 
 certain spicivs, fruits, &c., only a few articles in nil. 'i'lie <;reat 
 ladk of tlieii' imports — the (Mpiivalent chiefly of (mr \7\ per cent, 
 ^•oods, but including; ale, beer, 2)orter, coal and sU(JAi;, ]>aid '24 
 per cent. Then came certain j^oods ])ayin«4' 111, 15, 12, 8, and 4 
 j)er cent. Tea and Coflee when im|)orted in .American or 
 o(pialized vessels were fref\ otherwise they paid 1.") percent. 
 
 There was a tarifl'for our Reform (government to luive imitat- 
 ed had they desired to revise the glariiii;' injustice of the la-eseiit 
 one. Had they the will the way Avould ha\'o l)een found without 
 much ditliculty, and ample revenue could have l)eeu raised. 
 
 The previous Dominion tarilf was far from beini;' a Jus<; one, 
 iov it levied hifiiier duties on the '•'oods use<l lar-'elv bv the in- 
 dustrial classes than on those used l)y the weallliy, but it was 
 not l)y any means as oppressive as the present one. Several of 
 the duties sijice imposed have a(hled dispro[)ortioi\ately to the 
 burdens of the i)Oor. For instance, they added i{() cents 
 per proof i.>allon on rum. ^i;in, and brandy, chiefl}' used in 
 these provinces. That might seem fair to all, l)ut it was far from 
 it. Let me explain. West India rum, 40 per cent, over proof, 
 costs about 40 cents per jL-allon in the West Indies, the addhioital 
 duty of 20 cents per proof gallon really added 28 cents to the duty 
 on the gallon of rum 40 per cent, over proof. Now 28 cents on 
 40 cents is equal to an ad valorem duty of 70 per cent. On 
 gin, in like manner, costing al)out 40 cents, the 20 cents \)qv gin. 
 additional duty was equal to an ad valorem duty of 50 per cent. 
 While on bi'andy, which costs al^out $1.25, the 20 cents per gal- 
 lon additional duty was e(pial to only K) per cent ad valorem. 
 This illustrates the iniquity of the Grit alterations of the tariff. 
 Under the guise of 20 cents per gallon additional duty they 
 really put 70 per cent, additional dnty on the poor man's rnm, 
 50 per cent, on the poor man's gin, and only 10 per cent, on the 
 rich man's brandy. Perhaps they did it not knowing what they 
 w^ere doing. I would fain hope u/norance has much to do >vitli 
 the tariff-injustice it is my aim to expose. And yet for over a 
 year now Messrs. Mackenzie and CartwTight have had it brought 
 to their notice. In March, '77, in a letter to the Acadian Re- 
 corder, under the heading ** The Dominion Tariff unjust to others 
 
 hmdi 
 
 heav 
 
 duti< 
 
 maiU 
 
 , an et 
 
 ' (pien 
 
 nion< 
 
} 
 
 
 f/t'.'iule.^' coal oirnt'i't!,'' I poi .ted out how unjust it was iu iniposiui; 
 heavy duties on articles used ])V the masses, and puttin;^' lii-ht 
 duties (ni articKsof hixurv for well-ott'i)e(»ple; and that pa[)('rwaH 
 maikMl to every Senator and ^[. P., and un(iuestionably awoke 
 an echo in both Houses of Parliament, as the pul)lished sn1)se- 
 c[uent debutes show, and as I learned personally from Mr. Dy- 
 luond, when examined by him before the Coal Committee. 
 
 At th.esauie time they also gave additional protection to the 
 Ontario distillers. Umler the Sir John Macdonahl rriini6 
 these distillers had a protection of 17 cents per proof o>aUon, that 
 beinL*' the the diUbrence between the then customs and excise 
 duties on spirits. Mr Mackenzie j^'ave them H cents per :;allon 
 additional protection, makini'- in all about lOII \)QV cent., or -.') 
 cents per gallon on an article worth about that. This also 
 proves conclusively how "free traders" can be protectionists 
 when it suits them. The present (j-overnment can give Ontario 
 distillers 100 p.^r cent, protection, and Sarnia oil wells r)0 per 
 cent., but nuist refuse as being contrary to free trade })rinciples 
 any j)rotection whatever to N(jva Scotia's coal industry. Thus, 
 the (irit tarilf is oppression and ftuoritism combined. 
 
 But the giving to Canadian distillers an additional protec- 
 tion of 8 cents per old gallon ou their fiery productions, was not 
 all that Mr. Cartwright effected for Canada bv his alteration of 
 the spirit duty. He not only in so doing increased the burdens 
 of the poor, Init imposed an additional heavy tax on the Maritime 
 Provinces, which he knew were largo consumers of imported 
 liquors. I ask the reader's special attention to this point. 
 AVhile the duty on the liquors chiefly drunk in Ontario 
 was raised only I'J cents i^er old gallon, the duty on those 
 chiefly used in the ^Maritime Provinces was raised 20 cents per 
 old gallon. What has been the result ? Just this. For the 
 three years ending June, 77, the iVIaritime Provinces have paid 
 20 cents per old gallon additional duty on 1,091,451 gallons of 
 brandy, gin, rum and whiskey. Ontario and Quebec, with over 
 four times their population, paid on only 1,726,965 gallons. In 
 other words, the Maritime Provinces have paid a customs duty 
 of $1,691,451, against 81,726,965 paid by Ontario and Quebec, 
 whereas their proportion according to population would have 
 been about a million and a quarter dollars less ! True, the Up- 
 per Provinces consume far more home-distilled liquors than we 
 
8 
 
 <1(), but the favoritisni shown tlicni consists in llwir liquors pay- 
 ing only 7') cents per ;^aIlon, while onrs \)\\y 81.00 per jL»:allon. 
 
 I ini<;'ht also refer to the inicpiity of iniposini; T) cents per 
 11)., equal to 50 i)er cent addiliontil <luty on the poor man's 
 tol)ac«'o, and Scents per 11). on his tea, formerly /r^t;, but space 
 forbids. 
 
 The reader will see I advocate a tiiufonn ad valorem tariff 
 as the onlf/Jftst one ; the only tariff that affords to labor the ex- 
 act protecticm to which it is entitled, as being also a purely 
 revenue tariff, and as nearlv a free trade one as our national in- 
 debtedness will admit. I feel sure it is the true principle, al- 
 though not aware of any country having such a tariff. 
 The idea, indeed, is original, and it will doubtless bo 
 sometime before its simi)licity and Justice jin; perceived. 1 be- 
 lieve it would work s|)leudidly, and afford great satisfaction to 
 the mercantile comnuuiitv. I believe it would bo such a re-ad- 
 justment of the tariff as would fulhl the National Policy l*ro- 
 grannne, namely : ** ]>knefit and foster the AcaiicuLTUKAL, 
 THE Mining, the ]\Iani;factikin(; and other interests of the 
 Dominion ; retain in Canada thousands of our countrymen 
 NOW obliged to expatriate themselves in search of the 
 employment denied them at home ; restore prosperity to 
 our str'jggling industries now so sadly depressed," and in 
 connection with such exceptional legislation as our neiglil)ours 
 have had to develope their tea and coffee trade, would " pre- 
 vent Canada p>eing made a sacrifice market ; encourage 
 and DEVELOPE an active inter-provincial trade," &c. Above 
 all it would raise ample I'evenue with a lower average duty than 
 dutialJe goods uow pay, for many goods now free would then 
 pay duty. I take exception most decidedly against raw mate- 
 rials l)eing free of duty, clearly seeing our natural wealth can 
 never be developed by such a policy, nor is it the way in which 
 to protect theuL ^Manufacturers can have all the protection that 
 is good for them, and yet pay duty on their raw materials. 
 When they manufacture for exportation the duties they have 
 paid should l)e refunded. Any exceptional legislation a uniform 
 tariii' might re(|uire would only prove tlie soundness of the rule 
 or principle. 
 
 And now, my reader, hi conclusion, let me ask you to assist 
 
 n putting into power men whose policy it is to revise the present 
 
 unjust tariff, and some of whom I know — able men, too, — are in 
 
 in f 
 efloi 
 see, 
 leas 
 coal 
 wor 
 
 ou 
 th 
 
 ye 
 
 to 
 
 IS 
 
 d^ 
 
 S 
 
■s per 
 
 IMtlll's 
 
 ^pace 
 
 9 
 
 ill favor of tlic iiniforni (til rtflari'/h dutv. If von ;lo aiul your 
 
 • • • 
 
 efforts he crowiUMl with success, as 1 hope they will, yon will soon 
 see, with (rod's l)lessin;,^ a change for the hetter thron^hoiit, at 
 least, Xova Scotia. Then, and not till then, will our iron and 
 coal mines ge; fair pKu, and the Halifax Su^ar Ketincry attain a 
 world-wide reputation for its cheap and excellent sugars ! 
 
 il 
 
 Yours, resi)ectfully, 
 
 J. R. LlTHGOW 
 
 Halifax, lOth Aumst, 187S. 
 
 Extract from. Mr. James Thomsons pamphlet, referred to on 
 
 page 20. 
 
 ** Is it a matter of wonder that witli a tariff pi*essii\i,f so oner- 
 ously and so unjustly ^n this Province, the assessed values of 
 the different counties show a larL!,e decrease durin<^ the last ten 
 years — that Cape Breton has decreased from $2,821, 000 in 1869, 
 to $2,025,000 in 1878 ; that Digby from $1,284,000 has sunk to 
 $1,084,000 ; that East Hants from $1,655,000 has gone down to 
 $1,472,000 ; and West Hants, Avhich in 1870 stood at $2,423,000 
 is now assessed at $2,064,000 ; and that Queen's County has 
 dwindled down from $1,812,000 to $1,245,000." 
 
 Thus, it appears from the aljove, four counties in Nova 
 Scotia are $1,505,000 ^wo^v^r now than in 1869 ! 
 
 J. R. L. 
 
TARIFF LITERATURE. 
 
 LETTERS FOR THE PEOPLE. 
 
 Hew the Poor are Burdened. 
 
 How the poor are burdened I beg 
 tc illustrate. 
 
 1. Retailers usually put a certaia 
 per ceutage on the cost of their 
 articles. On some there is a greater 
 per centage imposed than on others, 
 chiefly because everybody will not 
 retail certain articles — for example 
 liquors ; hence there is less competi- 
 tion in the liquor busine?.-*, ^nd con- 
 sequently larger profits than, say on 
 groceiies. 
 
 2. The rum, +obacco, sugar, v\ce, 
 tea, and kerosene, used largely — 
 some of them chiefly by the working 
 classes, pay an average customs duly 
 ofjully 120 per cent ; thai is, on every 
 dollar's worth of these articles imported 
 an average duty of one dollar and 
 twenty cents is paid ! It the working 
 classes continue to stand that, when 
 they get their eyes opened, 1 greatly 
 mistake their spirit. I lor one do 
 not mean to stand it, and with God's 
 help no working man in the Domini- 
 on of Canada shall have to bear such 
 an intolerable burden this time next 
 year. It is monstrously unjust, in 
 view of only about 17^ cents d ity on 
 a dollar's worth of choice wines and 
 hundreds of other luxuries imported 
 lor well off people. 
 
 3. But not only does the working 
 man pay one dollar and twenty cents 
 duty on every dollar's worth of those 
 eix articles entered for duty, but for 
 
 the reason stated in my first para- 
 graph, the working man pays two 
 profits, the one on the goods, the 
 other on the duty. J^or example, the 
 importer gets nis rum for 40 cents 
 per gallon from Deraerara ; it is 40 
 per cent over proof ; he pays the 
 duty on it, $1.40 per old gallon. 
 Thus it costs him 81.80 ; he sells it 
 at a profit of about 5 per cent to the 
 letailer in town or country. The price 
 is consequently say $1.90. The re- 
 tailer mu?^,t have his profit on $1.^0, 
 not this time 5 per cent, or 50 per 
 cent, or even 100 per cent, but far 
 more I Let us see ; rum, I hear, 
 sells at 5 ce'.fcs per glass; how many 
 glasses does the relailer make out of 
 one gallon, 40 per cent overproof ? 
 One gallon of that proof v/ill make a 
 gallon and a half of the ordinary 
 retail rum, equal to 96 glasses. That 
 number of glasses at 5 cents amounts 
 to 5?4.80. Thus what cost $1.90, 
 when retailed yields a profit of $2.90, 
 which is equal to about 150 per cent ! 
 Thus, the gallon of rum costing 
 originally 40 cents, by the time it 
 gfts into the stomach and brain of 
 the working man has cost him W.80. 
 Just twelve times its o.'iginal cost ! 
 
 Sir, what I say is, the working man 
 18 entitled to his glass of D. merara at 
 Jar less than twelve times its cost, if he 
 is entitled to it at all. He ought to 
 get it if he get it at all, for not over 
 2 cents per glass. Under a square 
 revenue tariff the price of strong 
 
 mi 
 
 Cl! 
 
 ce 
 sii 
 th 
 
tl 
 
 u. 
 
 :ara- 
 
 s two 
 the 
 
 e,the 
 
 cents 
 is 40 
 r3 the 
 gallon, 
 sells it 
 
 to the 
 e price 
 Che re- 
 
 i?5i.yo, 
 
 50 per 
 
 but far 
 [ hear, 
 w many 
 e out of 
 rproof ? 
 
 make a 
 ordinary 
 es. That 
 amounts 
 i $1.90, 
 of!|2.90, 
 )er cent 1 
 costing 
 13 time it 
 
 brain of 
 im !it^-l-.80. 
 ial co3t ! 
 
 •king man 
 merara at 
 cost, if he 
 ) ought to 
 • not over 
 c a square 
 of strong 
 
 i 
 I 
 
 Demerara rum, duty paid, would be 
 about 55 cents, which would be the 
 cost of 96 glasses ; lience 2 cents per 
 glass would give the retailer a profit 
 of uearly Ih cent por glas=?, or 250 
 per cent, which ouirht in all consci- 
 ence be enough. Yes, I say, either 
 let spirits pay the same ad valorem 
 duty as wine, or prohibit its importa- 
 tion and its manufacture in the 
 Dominion. (The mariulacture of 
 good beer ^ would encourage and 
 cheapen it. It is wholesome.) 
 
 The very same reasoning applies 
 to tobacco. I say it is a sin to put a 
 customs duty of 25 cents per lb. and 
 12^ percent, ad valorem on a pound 
 of the poor man's luxury and solace, 
 costing in New York only 12 cents ; 
 thereby obliging him to pay 50 cents 
 for what he should pay not over 16 
 or 20 cents, and will not this time 
 next year if r "cnows his rights, and 
 knowing dare maintain them. The 
 
 f)Gor man's tobacco should not pay a 
 ligher per centaa;e than a gentle- 
 mun'fs port or sherry, or Havana 
 cigars. 
 
 And so with the duties on other 
 things; the poor ought not to be 
 burdened with 55 per cent, on their 
 brown sugar, 40 per cent on their 
 kerosene, 40 per '^ent on their rice, 
 <fec., while the rich p^y only 17^ per 
 cent on their luxuries ; and the 
 simple remedy is a uniform duty on 
 those things. 
 
 o 
 
 Maintain the present tariff! I 
 would like to see the man who would 
 dare maintain it before a crowd of 
 "working men '.n my presence. A 
 17J per cent tariff is a misnomer for 
 our present one. 
 
 « 
 
 No Increase but Re- 
 Adjustment." 
 
 Tlic morning " Chronicle '* 
 quotes the above from "the leader of 
 the Opposition," and then goes on 
 to say : — " The millers desire Trom 
 fitty cents to a dollar, or beyond, on 
 each barrel of their fiour. Would 
 their gratification not be an addition 
 to taxation since flour now comes in 
 duty free :" I replv, no more than 
 would a dollar on each barrel of our 
 farmers' potatoes, or a dollar per 
 barrel on our fishermens' mackerel 
 or herring. Put a dollar per barrel 
 on flour and how many barrels of 
 foreign flour would be imported, 
 except for exportation in bond P Pat 
 tw dollars a barrel on it and my 
 belief is Canada flour would be 
 cheaper than when American was 
 free, for the Canadian wheat grower 
 would be encouraged to sow more 
 than ever. It is silly in the extreme 
 to argne that a thousand per cent 
 duty on articles of which our country 
 produces abundance would raise the 
 price 01 them, or yield any revenue, 
 and it is high time the people under- 
 stood this. Still, no one contem- 
 j)lates more than the average tariff 
 jjrotecdon to flour, or any other 
 agricultural produce, and I challenge 
 Mr. Cartwright when he comes to 
 Halifax to prove tnat the farmers of 
 the Dominion are not entitled to it. 
 " Some coal owner>/' adds the 
 Chronicle, "insist upon a duty on coal. 
 If granted the favor they ask, will they 
 assure the consumers of antiiracite, 
 English coal, or any of the people 
 of West Ontario that tiiis re-adjust- 
 ment will be no augmentation of 
 taxes:' Smart that ! Cornered, the 
 coal owners, surely ? Suppose I 
 
12 
 
 I 
 
 follow the example of the Hifrhest 
 and answer a question by asking- 
 one. Might not a re-adjustment of 
 the duties on say rum, gin, and 
 coal oil be a great relief to the con- 
 sumers of these articles in the 
 Maritime Provinces? Let us see. 
 I hapj)ened a year or two ago to make 
 a memo of the amount of duties on 
 these articles piid by the different 
 Provinces and just now seems to be 
 the right time to put it in print, 
 Mr. Cartwright being on his way 
 here. 
 
 year '75, was $103,665 ; of this P. E. 
 Island contributed 812,387 ; New 
 Brunswick, 5^20,712 ; Nova Scotia, 
 
 What was 
 
 Only $22,- 
 
 <pccimens 
 
 For the year ending June 30, '75 
 
 $22,502 ; in all 855,661. 
 Ontario's contribution ? 
 146. 
 
 To sum up these three 
 of Grit taxation : 
 
 For the year ending June 30th, '75» 
 the Maritirje Provinces paid in duties 
 on rum, gin and coal oil the sum of 
 $361,761. Ontario in the same year 
 on the same articles paid only $66,597, 
 a little over a sixth I 
 
 Talk after that about the inequality 
 the whole revenue from rum was of a duty on coal, that it would be 
 $189,882. What proportion of that hard on Ontario! I think there is 
 did the Maritime Provinces pay ? room for a little hardness. The coal 
 p. E. Island paid $8,493 ; New duty would simply enable Ontario to 
 Brunswick paid $19,538 ; Nova pay in time an honest debt due ta 
 Scotia paid $117,068 ; total rum duty Nova Scotia, and possibly also help 
 paid by the Maritime Province: $145,- her to collect some debts honestly due 
 099, What did Ontario pay ? Only her by shopkeepers at the coal mines. 
 9,179 ! ! ! What a fall is there But the coal duty would not be so 
 my countrymen ! Only, unfortu- unequal. The anthracite coal duty 
 iiately, a fall that does not hurt all the Provinces would pay alike, 
 Ontario. No wonder there is 350 and the revenue therefrom would go 
 per cent on rum. What cares Mr. to make up existing deficits, or to re- 
 Cartwright ? Ontario don't drink dace the duty on sugar or other arti- 
 rum. The Maritime Provinces un- cles. Such is re-adjustment, 
 fortunately do ; hence rum is by far «a»i^ 
 
 the highest taxed article imported. TheVailfl which iheGnta want to lAalntaln. 
 
 »See the Grit tarifi. Dtmeraia Rum piys duty equal to about 3M) p. c 
 
 The next highest is gin. It pays ?reDd;BVana;\':::;:::::::::::;.':.:;:;::.. ^30," 
 
 over 250 per cent. That is enough So'od she'r*^*"® 2» '' 
 
 to base a bet on that the Maritime Good To^a-;co",'.".'.'.'.'.'."/,*.!.!.'!!!;!!!*""'".V" 210 ',1 
 
 nrt ■ 1*1^ • ii Oood Civars KO ,. 
 
 ProvHices dnnk tar more gm than PoitoRuosu^ar ta ,, 
 
 Ontario. To the testimony : M"1'!*.!.T^;:;::.V;.■.■.■.•..V.■.'.V.•.■.•.■.■.V.V.•. S " 
 
 For the year ending June 30, '75 commonT;aV///////.V.Vr//^V/.V.V.V.V.'." 30 «» 
 
 ,, , , •' ° . ' ChoiceT.a 10 „ 
 
 the 'wnoie revenue li m gm was common vne^ar loo " 
 
 $534,225. Of that ^ E, Island Iz ^..::^\::::^:^v^\\::::v.:\ II ;; 
 
 contributed $11,504 ; xN^va Scotia, ^^"^ [■'':::::, ::\:\\\::-\\\\:y-\y:,\: II" 
 
 $59,071; New Brunswick, $90,426; be.ide8''abuuVVquai'to"iiV"iJ^r j'aiVou 
 
 inall $161,001. What was Ontario's suk^.^oniy "?.!'"1'.T: m^ 
 
 contribution to the gin duty? Only y:^^^\]\^[\]'.[\y/^^.\]\['[\\\\\y^[:^'.\\ JJI;; 
 
 $35,372 ! Jewelry, Braceleta, Of ament , «niy 1,4 |I 
 
 XT .. 1 •! mi 11 A Borts of luxuries to w.ar Or toeat p»y oilv 17j ,, 
 
 JNeXt comes coal oil. The whole a susrar hoiish.al paya aoout « 2 00 duty 
 
 Customs duty collected from it in the 1 rTrnVaachtnoniy :: :: I S? :: 
 
13 
 
 lis P. E. 
 ; New- 
 Scotia, 
 
 Hiat was 
 
 ily 822,- 
 
 jccimeus 
 
 50tli, '75, 
 in duties 
 e sum of 
 imo year 
 
 lequality 
 rould be 
 there is 
 The coal 
 )iitario to 
 t due to 
 also help 
 estly due 
 al mines. 
 not be so 
 3oal duty 
 lay alike, 
 would go 
 !, or to re- 
 thcr arti- 
 
 Ualntaln. 
 
 out 
 
 Ion 
 
 3V> 
 
 260 
 
 SO 
 
 .0 
 
 so 
 
 210 
 
 »a 
 
 65 
 40 
 Bi> 
 30 
 10 
 100 
 35 
 40 
 50 
 15 
 
 p. C 
 
 >> 
 
 ... 17i„ 
 
 ... 1U„ 
 
 ... 17J,. 
 
 ... lvi„ 
 
 r oilv 17j ,, 
 
 $1 00 dutv 
 
 2 10 „ 
 
 1 05 ,. 
 
 Mr. Jones and the Coal Duty. ^^''i^J^^^^^'l^l 
 
 In 1877 upwards of two hun- 
 dred of the leading business men 
 of Halifax signed a petition to the 
 Dominion House of Commons, pray- 
 
 unji 
 
 coal industry has been subjected 
 under the Dominion tariff. Was 
 ever a constituency so misrepresent- 
 ed as was Halifax on that memorable 
 occasion ? Mr. A. G. Jones, forsooth. 
 
 ing that a duty of 50 cents per ton bo ^.g jf j^^ ^^^^^ ij^tter than the petition 
 
 imposed on imported coal and coke. 
 So quickly and cheerfully, as a 
 general thing, was said petition signed 
 that I feel sure all Halifax, with very 
 few exceptions, would have signed 
 it, had there seemed any occasion for 
 more signatures. Only one business 
 man refused to sign it, not believing 
 
 ers,Vhat they sliould or should not ask 
 for, stood up and virtually said, " J. 
 S. Maclean tt Co.. Bauld, Gibson & 
 Co., John Tobui & Co., J. & R. B. 
 Seeton, S. Cunard & Co., T. & E. 
 Kenny, Pickford & Black, John 
 Stairs, John P. Mott, John Taylor, 
 N. L. West, A. W. West, Anderson, 
 
 in duties on anything. Subsequently Billing A: Co., J. Northup & Sons, 
 
 at a meeting in Temperance Hall, ^^s^ ^ ^J Silver, Avery, Brown & Uo., 
 
 the asked-for coal duty was unani- ^ j^ g^rt & Co., E. Morri.son, W. 
 
 mously approved. .Similar petitions RqcIip, ir., and ail the other leading 
 
 were also numerously signed ni citizens^vho signed the petition, do 
 
 Pictouand Cape Breton. j^^^ understapd what is for their in- 
 
 Our petition was handed to Mr. ^^^.^g^g i,^ ^^]^i^^„ ^j. ^ duty on coal 
 
 Jones, who presented it to Parharaent , ^^^^ ^i^^j^. petition shall not be granted 
 
 as m duty bound to do. Soon after, ^f j^ ^if^.g^j q j^^^q^^ autocrat of 
 
 Mr. N. L. McKay, of Cape Breton, Halifax, can prevent it. I trust ihe 
 
 moved for a Coal Committee ; then Government will not aijree to the im- 
 
 our representative, in the face of the position of the dutv these silly people 
 
 petition of his constituents, stood up ^^^ for." 
 
 " He 
 
 NOT 
 
 and had the audacity to say, 
 TRUSTED the Government would 
 agree to tlie imposition of the duty 
 
 ASKED FOR." 
 
 A more daring and insulting 
 speech no M. P., under the circum- 
 stances, could have made. Mr. 
 Jones snapped his fingers at his con- 
 stituents and expressed his utter 
 contempt for their petition, when he 
 spoke those few emphatic words and 
 
 However, the Government grunted 
 a Committee on Coal and Interpro- 
 vincial Trade, and abundant evidence 
 was given in support of the coal duty, 
 and the coal owners hoped that ere 
 the last session of Parliament closed 
 the coal question would be equitably 
 settled ; hence, when Mr. Jones 
 offered for re-election last winter, the 
 coal que=^tion was kept in abeyance. 
 
 gave the death-blow to all the hopes But the hopes of that time have since 
 
 of the petitioners. His words " fell 
 like cold water" on the friends of the 
 coal duty in the House ol Commons, 
 ■wrote a friendly Grit M. P., and my 
 conviction is that to Mr. Jones's 
 utterances on that and other occa 
 
 been blasted. The Grit Government 
 has done nothing for the coal industry 
 but increase the duties on articles 
 used by mines and miners, and yet 
 Mr. Jones, now a worthy member of 
 It, is again seeking for a renewal of 
 
 sions, is chiefly due the failure of the his autocracy, and of his best efforts 
 
14 
 
 to perpetuate the tariff injustice 
 which is wipinir colliery after colliery 
 out of existence. I believe a majority 
 of the electors of Halifax have had 
 enoujih of him and Mr. Mackenzie, 
 and will at the earliest opportunity 
 tell them so. 
 
 Not only did Mr, Jones openly ex- 
 ])ress ids trust that the Govermiient 
 would not grant the prayer of his 
 constituents ; he also Avas so un- 
 patriotic as to declare that a duty on 
 coal would be lor the benefit of Nova 
 Scotia alone. His words, as reported 
 in the published debates, were — 
 
 *' They knew very well that Quebec, 
 Ontai io. P. K. Island and New Bruns- 
 wick wouid be compelled to pay duty 
 on coal for the benefit of Nova Scotia 
 alone, and he could not think that 
 such would be a satisfactory arrange- 
 ment to those four Provinces, because 
 it would be for the benefit of onlv one 
 Province." 
 
 Electors ! read the above over and 
 over till you have it engraven on 
 your memories and hearts. There is 
 your representative, a representative 
 also of our taiitif-oppressed Province, 
 contending against a measure that he 
 is compelled to admit, would be for 
 Nova iSooda's benefit. 1 ask you, was 
 it becoming in a representative of 
 Nova Scotia to stand up at Ottawa 
 against a duty that he admits would 
 be for his country's benefit ? Might 
 not, yea, ought not, Mr. Jones have 
 left it to some M. P. fr^m Quebec, 
 Ontario, P. E. Island or New Bruns- 
 wick, to oppose the coal duty on the 
 plea that it would onlt/ benefit Nova 
 Scotia 'i You will agree with me 
 when I say that Mr. Jones, while so 
 speaking against the interests of his 
 country, forgot that Nova Scotia, as 
 well as England, expects every mm, 
 to do liis dutv : and that it was far 
 
 from his duty to affirm of the coal duty 
 tnat it would be ''for the benefit 
 ol Nova Scotia alone." 
 
 But, besides being unpatriotic, his 
 statement was fahe, and he must 
 have known it was so, for he is not 
 a fool, nor even a kuvyer^ who, ac- 
 cording to some people, can know 
 little about duties — coal or suixar — 
 and cannot possibly master the details 
 of such abstruse matters, wliich yet; 
 are familiar to every Customs clerk. 
 
 No one knows better than Mr. 
 Jones that no duty benefits only one 
 Province of the Dominion. Every 
 dollar of duty collected goes into the 
 Dominion chest, out of which the 
 expenses of all the Provinces are 
 paid. Hence, every dollar of duty 
 collected benefits tlie whole Domin- 
 ion ; and every dollar due^ but not 
 paid, is an injury to the whole Do- 
 minion. And can you believe Mr. 
 Jones did not understand this when 
 he said that the duty paid on coal 
 would benefit Nova Scotia alone ? 
 Of course he understood it, but, well, 
 he would say anything, I believe, to 
 baulk the coal duty, and please Mr. 
 Mackenzie. Else, why did he not 
 also say that cents per gallon oa 
 coal oil was for the benefit of Sarnia 
 alone ? For whose benefit, let him 
 say, is $1.40 duty imposed on a gallon 
 ot West India ram, that he knows 
 costs about 40 cents ? or one dollar 
 on a gallon of gin, which costs about 
 the same? while there is one fourth less 
 duty on the liquor Ontario manufac- 
 tures, and chiefly drinks ? Why has 
 Mr. Jones never pomted out the 
 injustice of tlie Grit tariff to the work- 
 ing classes and as taxing dispropor* 
 twnately articles Nova Scotia uses 
 far more of than Quebec and Ontario 
 put together ? Lynx-eyed as to the 
 operation of the coal duty, why blind 
 
15 
 
 ;oal duty 
 benefit 
 
 otic, his 
 must 
 5 is not 
 tvho, ao 
 1)1 know 
 suiiar — 
 e details 
 lich yet 
 s cleric. 
 
 an Mr. 
 
 nly one 
 Every 
 into the 
 lich the 
 
 ces are 
 
 of duty 
 
 Doiiiin- 
 but not 
 ole Do- 
 eve Mr. 
 is when 
 on coal 
 
 alone ? 
 It, well, 
 ieve, to 
 ase Mr. 
 he not 
 Hon on 
 
 Sarnia 
 let him 
 I gallon 
 
 knows 
 I dollar 
 1 about 
 irth less 
 anufac- 
 hy has 
 ut the 
 e work- 
 propor- 
 L uses 
 Ontario 
 to the 
 T blind 
 
 as a bat to the injustice of other 
 duties ? For whose benefit let him 
 answer, is there 2 cents per lb on 
 starch, an article supplied by Onta- 
 rio, but which could be importtd 
 from the United j-'tates for 4 cents 
 per lb. were it not for this 50 per cent 
 duty? Mr. Jones objected to about 
 17i percent on coal for the benefit 
 of Nova Scotia, but had no objeciion 
 to 50 per cent, on slarch and petro- 
 leum for the beiu^fit ot his beloved 
 Canada ? 
 
 The coal duty benefit Nova Scotia 
 alojie ! Wliy there is hardly a lawt^er 
 \\\ the Dominion but knows better 
 tiian that ; much more a merchant 
 of Mr. Jones's experience in West 
 India fish, sugar, molasses and rum 
 
 Not only would the amount of tlie 
 duty on imported anthracite and 
 bituminous coal directly increase the 
 revenue of the whole Dominion, it 
 would also add indirectly to it by 
 excluding more or less imported coal, 
 which contributes nothing directly 
 or indirectly. Suppose 200,0(JO tons 
 le.^s of soft coal Wr^re impone.l in 
 conse(juencj of the duty ; that much 
 more Nova Scotia coal would i--e 
 raised and shipped. That means 
 the expenditure of sime S200,000 
 addition:^! for labor and materials, 
 the latter chiefly 17^ per cent goods. 
 The hxbor in turn goes in part for 
 s['irits, beer, tobacco, petroleum, 
 sugar, rice, tea and molasses, which 
 pay an average 100 ['cr cent duty, 
 and in part fur other things which 
 pay 17^ per cent. Who that con- 
 siders the coal duty aright will 
 endorse Mr. Jones's statenieut that 
 it would be for the benept ot Nova 
 iScotia ahne ? The n-yaby. from the 
 extra 200,000 tons of coal raised in 
 [Kova Scotia amounting to $20,000 
 rould be for her benefit aloue, I 
 
 admit, hut goodness- knows such a 
 benefit is much needed in view of 
 our empty provincial chest. 
 
 But, again, when we consider the 
 Dominion shipping — not certainly 
 all Nova Scotian— the extra 200,000 
 tons coal would employ, and the 
 dutiable goods their crews would 
 use, we see how inaccurate and 
 uncalled-for was the utterance r.f the 
 gentleman who offers to do according 
 to his will for Halifiix and Nova 
 Scotia for 'iWQ, year's more. No 
 thanks ; we have had enough of him 
 and HIS OPPOSITION to what would 
 BENEFIT Nova Scotia alone Better 
 henceforth have even lawyers pledged 
 to stand up for what will benefit 
 Nova Scotia. 
 
 Have we a Revenue Tariff and 
 inciadP.tal Pretext on ? 
 
 I see it everywhere asserted 
 in the organs of the present Govern- 
 ment that Mr. Mackenzie is s(|uarely 
 in favor of a revenue tariff policy and 
 incidental protection, and yet these 
 same organs declare that the j)resent 
 tariff must be maintained, evidently 
 believing — in th.eir simplicity — that 
 we have now a "' revenue." tariff and 
 '• incidentiil" protection. Now, my 
 conviction is, that we have neither. 
 What is a revenue tariff? And what 
 is incidental protection ? Correct 
 answers to thes ' v^'iestions will enable 
 any one, acquainted with our i)resent 
 tariff, to say whether or not it is a 
 revenue one, and whether or not it 
 affords incidental protection. 
 
 In reply to the question. What is a 
 levenue tariff? I would say, an 
 uniform per-centage on the value 
 of goods entered for home consuimp- 
 TioN. Suppose we had, at present, 
 
16 
 
 Free Trade, or no duties, as Free 
 Trade implies, and we concluded on 
 raising say $25,000,000 by a duty 
 on imports estimated to amount to 
 8100,000,000, a 25 per cent, tariff 
 would be required, leaving cost of col- 
 lection of duties out of the question. 
 Clearly, said 25 per cent, tariff would 
 be a revenue one. Its S0I3 object 
 would be revenue. It would make no 
 such distinction between flour and 
 butter as our present tariff does, ad- 
 mitting one free while imposing 4 
 cents per pound on the other. It 
 would not impose 350 per cent, on 
 Demerara rum, and only 18 per cent, 
 on choice sherry, as does our present 
 so-called " revenue tariff.'' It would 
 not levy 55 per cent, on West India 
 sugar, and only llh per cent, on the 
 silks, satins, velvets, millinery, jewel- 
 ery, china, and hundreds of other arti- 
 cles used by the wealthy. It would 
 not make a pound of the workingman's 
 tobacco, costing in New York 12 cents, 
 pay 2Gi cents duty, equal to 214 per 
 cent., while a gentleman's choice 
 Havanas paid only 30 per cent., as 
 does the tariff Mr. Mackenzie is deter- 
 mined to maintain. A revenue tariff 
 would be guilty of no such injustice to 
 the workingman, but would tax his 
 rum, tobacco, sugar, tea, rice, and 
 petroleum, which now pay an average 
 duty of 120 per cent, ad valorem, 
 neither more nor less than the rich 
 man's sherry, cigars, broadcloth, and 
 jewellery, which now pay on an aver- 
 age about one-sixth of 120 per cent ! 
 
 The Toronto Globe said some time 
 ago — '• The issue before the country 
 is, 3hall the present Kevenue tariff be 
 maintained, or a Protective one im- 
 posed? The Halifax Chronicle, told 
 its readers about the same time that 
 " the Mackenzie Government was 
 squarely in favor of a revenue tariff 
 
 policy." I know not what to think 
 of such statements, when I consider 
 the details of our present tariff, and 
 remember what a revenue tariff is. Is 
 not 120 per cent, average duty on 
 half a dozen articles largely used by 
 the working classes, while only 11 h 
 per cent, is levied on the hulk of the 
 articles used by well-to-do people, a 
 protective tariff to these, an dan op- 
 pressive one to those ? The man 
 who calls our present tariff a revenue 
 one is either ignorant of the meaning 
 of a revenue tariff, or he is a fraud, 
 a hypocrite, a deceiver of tho people. 
 Any deviation from an uniform duty, 
 and a revenue tariff becomes a pro- 
 TECTIVE ONE TO SOMEBODY. Let me 
 illustrate this statement. If it would 
 require a 25 per cent, duty on -flOO,- 
 000,000 imports, to raise a revenue of 
 i'25,000,000, let 100 per qent. average 
 duty be imposed on certain imports^ 
 say spirits, tobacco, molasses, and 
 kerosene, amounting to $10,000,000, 
 and evidently only $15,000,000 re- 
 venue would have to be collected from 
 the remaining $90,000,000 worth of 
 imports, consequently al6| per cent 
 duty on these would suffice. Would 
 not such a tariff be a protective one 
 to those using only, or chiefly, the 16 f 
 per cent, goods ? and would it not be 
 a very unjust and oppressive one to 
 those using almost exclusively the 
 100 percent, goods ? I trust all just 
 men will see and consider how this 
 applies to our present tariff, under 
 which the four articles mentioned — 
 spirits, tobacco, kerosene and molasses 
 pay on an aven,',ge over 150 per cent, 
 ad. val, ! ! 
 
 Again,if instead of imposina' 100 
 per cent, on $10,000,000 worth of 
 imports, that amount of certain 
 articles were admitted free of duty, 
 the result would be an increase of 
 
 protcc 
 
17 
 
 ) think 
 consider 
 riff, and 
 ffis. Is 
 duty on 
 used hy 
 nly 17^ 
 k of the 
 eople, a 
 
 an op- 
 
 le man 
 
 revenue 
 
 meaning 
 
 fraud, 
 
 people. 
 
 •RM DUTY, 
 ES A PRO- 
 
 Let me 
 
 it would 
 
 m UOO,' 
 
 3venue of 
 
 average 
 imports^ 
 ses, and 
 ,000,000, 
 0,000 re- 
 cted from 
 worth of 
 per cent 
 
 Would 
 jtive one 
 ■, thel6! 
 it not be 
 J one to 
 vely the 
 t all ju?t 
 how this 
 f. Under 
 tioned — 
 molasses 
 )er cent. 
 
 ino- 100 
 vorth of 
 certain 
 of duty, 
 !rease of 
 
 the rate of duty on all other goods 
 to about 27f i)or cent. Thus the 
 once revenue tariff would have again 
 become a protective one ; protective 
 in this case to those who get their 
 imports/ree. This shows how free 
 goods affect a tariff and destroy its 
 revenue character. 
 
 And so it will be found that any 
 deviation from an uniform ad valorem 
 duty is inconsistent with a strictly 
 revenue tariff; which as its name im- 
 ports, is no respecter of persons, 
 habits or callings, ))ut only of re- 
 venue. 
 
 The next question is — Incidental 
 protection ? Incidental means acci- 
 •dentaljunintentional. Picidental tariff 
 protection is iiotooO per cent on rum, 
 and only 18 per cent on sherry to 
 protect rich wine-bibbers. It is not 
 214 per cent on tobacco and only 30 
 per cent on cigars, to protect those 
 Avho puff mild Havanas. It is not 
 7 1-5 cents per gallon on coal oil, and 
 not a cent per ton on coal, t© protect 
 Sarnia oil wells, and wipe out of 
 existence Nova Scotia coal mines. 
 That sort of thing, done under the 
 Tariff Mr. Mackenzie maintains, is 
 not incidental but intentional protec- 
 tion, favoritism and oppression 
 -combined. 
 
 Incidental protection is the acci- 
 dental, unintentional protection afford- 
 ed by a revenue tariff, that is by an 
 uniform duty on imports. The 
 object of such duty is revenue, not 
 protection, but it happens to more or 
 less protect certain industries, while 
 at the same time raising the requisite 
 ffcvcnue. 
 
 Thus, a 25 per cent, ad valorem 
 duty would protect quite incidentally 
 aiid foster the agricultural, the min- 
 ing — coal, iron, copper, salt, ttc, — 
 faanufacturing. «,nd other Dominion 
 
 interests. It would especially protect 
 the working men from the enormous 
 disproportionate duties they pay 
 u:;d-3r the present unjust tariff. A 
 dollar's worth of spir'ts under such a 
 tariff would pay the same duty as a 
 dollar's worth of wine, not twenty 
 times as much, which it does now. 
 A dollar's worth of sugar would pay 
 as much as a dollar's worth of silk, 
 not three times as much, as it now 
 does. The Dominion revenue would 
 be raised under such a tariff on 
 precisely the same principle as Hali- 
 fax, and — I presume — Toronto raise 
 civic revenue. 
 
 There are exceptions to every rule, 
 and doubtless, every tariff must have 
 exceptions. Still the principle of a 
 revenue tariff — a genuine, not a 
 bogus one — must commend itself to 
 all just men. 
 
 To what Tariff-Protection is 
 Labor Entitled? 
 
 A truth, when understood, is 
 simple and explicable. Thus, when 
 a child comes not only to say "1» times 
 9 are 81," but to understand 
 how it is that 9 times 9 make 81, 
 neither more or less, that child 
 sees it to be a simple truth, and can 
 explain it. And so any truth, no 
 matter how deep and mysterious, 
 when understood, is simple and 
 explicable. How, then, should we 
 lift up our voice for understanding 
 
 Well, I have done so with reference 
 to the tariff question now before the 
 people of Canada, and am " persuad- 
 ed in my own mind" as to the 
 true principle upon which our 
 tariff should be constructed, and 
 see it to be simple and explicable. 
 
18 
 
 i \ 
 
 That tli(3 true and only just 
 way iu wliich to raise a 
 revenue IVoni imports is i)y the im- 
 position of a uniform duty is us 
 plain to my mind as that 1> times 
 make 81. Test it by the answer I 
 shall now irivo to the questi' n — 
 " To what taritr-protection is labor 
 entitled ?" If the answer to that 
 test question commend itself to sound 
 iuibiiss3l minds, th?. tariff I l)'.)iieve 
 to bo the only just one should be 
 ad(»))ted. Every tree is known by 
 its fruit, and if a uniform duty of, 
 say, 2o cents on every dollar's worth 
 of imported j^oods would not only 
 yield the requisite revenue, but 
 espeeiall) , alford exactly the tariff- 
 protection to which labbr is entitled, 
 then a uniform duty is the true 
 principle. Otherwise it is not. For 
 a true and just tarilFwill not only 
 raise revenue, but extend to every 
 workiii"' man thai protection — neither 
 more nor less — to which he has as 
 much right as have " the powers 
 tliat be" to the duty they collect. 
 
 In reply then to the question — To 
 what taritf protection is labor entitled? 
 I answer, to exactly the same per 
 centage as the labor is taxed. If the 
 agriculturist, the miner, the manufac- 
 turer, or other industrial man, is pay- 
 ing 25 per cent, duty on the imported 
 goods he eats, drinks, wears or uses, 
 he is entitled to have 25 per cent, 
 duty imposed on the imported goods 
 which come into competition with the 
 article he produces. 
 
 To illustrate this principle. The 
 farmer whose sugar, tea, rice, petro- 
 leum, tobacco, liquors, c.ockeryware, 
 carpets, clothing, &c., pay 25 per cent 
 duty, if he raise an ox is entitled to 
 claim that imported oxen shall pay 25 
 per cent ; also when his ox is convert- 
 ad into beef, tallow and a hide, he 
 
 can justly claim th:ir these tlireo 
 articles when imported shall piy 2') 
 per cent. He lives in a country 
 whose national indebtedness reijuires 
 him to pay 25 percent, on tli) value 
 of all importe 1 goods lie uses, then 
 should not articles similar to those 
 ho produces, pay his Government 
 the same duty that ho pays ? Of 
 course. Then there should l;o 25 
 ])ercent. on beef, tallow and hides. 
 Well, under our present tariff there 
 is one cent, per lb. on beef and tallow, 
 but hides are free. Vv''jiy aie they 
 free? " thy are raw material, anil 
 raw materials must be free." Not so, 
 I reply. Tliere is no must about it. 
 The farmer is as much, entitled to 
 have 25 per cent, on foreign iiides as 
 on foreign beef and tallow. All 
 three are the fruits of his lal)or in 
 in raising his ox, and all three aro 
 entitled to the very same tariff pro- 
 tection. 
 
 O, but what will become of the 
 tanner, if he must pay 25 per cent, 
 on the hides he imports, or if the 
 home-produced article cost him 25 
 per cent, more than formerly ? I 
 reply ,it will not be the fault of the tariff 
 if his industry do not prosper. The 
 25 per cent, on the hides is the pro- 
 tection the farmer is unquestionably 
 entitled to ; what is the tanner's ? 
 His protection is 25 per cent, on the 
 labor and materials and capital by^ 
 means of which the hide becomes 
 •two sides Of leather, whether at 
 home or abroad ; in other words, 25' 
 per cent, on manufactured leather. 
 The tanner did not produce the hide, 
 but the farmer's ox ; the farmer not 
 the tanner therefore is entitled to 
 the 25 per cent, protection on it ; 
 but when labor has been expended 
 on the hide and two sides of 
 leather produced, that labor is 
 
1 
 
 19 
 
 no threo 
 
 piy 2.'> 
 
 country 
 
 ro{iuires 
 
 13 valut) 
 
 ses, tlieii 
 
 ti) tiiose 
 
 'ornmcnt 
 
 ivs 
 if 
 
 or 
 
 1)0 -2.3 
 1(1 liides. 
 
 ilf tllt3l'0 
 
 1 tallow, 
 lie tliny 
 ii'ial, and 
 Not so, 
 a'>out it, 
 itlod to 
 
 hides as 
 )w. All 
 
 lal»or ill 
 throe are 
 iril'f pro- 
 
 10 of tlie 
 per cent. 
 Dr if the 
 
 him 25 
 aerly ? I 
 f the tariff 
 •er. The 
 
 the pro- 
 jstionably 
 tanner's ? 
 ;. on the 
 apital by^ 
 
 becom>?.s 
 ether at 
 ^ords, 25. 
 
 leather, 
 the hide, 
 :mer not 
 ,itled to 
 1 on It; 
 expended 
 sides of 
 ial)ar is 
 
 entitled to the sarae tariff protection 
 UH tho duty imposed on importetl 
 articles the tanner consumes, rum 
 and tobacco included if it plea'o him 
 to use them. If li'^ does nor. use them, 
 80 much tiie better for him. The 
 capital, material and skilled labor 
 expended on the hide perha]>3 trebles 
 or qu;idruple.s its value, hence the 
 duty on manufactured leaiher is three 
 or four times as much as on the hid* ; 
 and thus the leather mmuficturer 
 has his due tariff protection. 
 
 But some one may say — put 25 p r 
 cent, on iiides and 25 per cent, on 
 leatiier, and how will tlie shoe-maker 
 get along? First rate, if lie l)e an 
 Industrioii.s man, and there be 25 
 per cent, on boots and shoes. At 
 any rate he will have exactly the 
 taritr-urotection he is entitled to, if 
 the inn>orted eoodshe uses at home 
 and in his bu^*iness pay also 25 per 
 cent. Why should the shoemaker 
 object to 25 per cent on leather any 
 more than the 25 per cent, on his 
 tea and sugar ? He did not labor 
 on it, but buys or imports it ready 
 for his work. As he cuts and ills 
 and hammers and sews, so the 
 leather grows in value, and in a 
 week he has added to the value 
 of his materials, by his skilled labor, 
 say $10, on which he has a taritf- 
 flirotection ot 25 per cent., equal to 
 ^,50, which is exactly what he pays 
 jM duties on $10 worth of tea, sugar, 
 1^. What has he to complain of ? 
 4- revenue has to be raised, and he 
 B|ust contribute more or less accord- 
 ^g to the amount of goods he uses. 
 IC no revenue had to be raised, his 
 iia, sugar, etc., would pay no duty, 
 feut neither would boots and shoes. 
 Jie pays 25 per cent., and he has a 
 
 protection of tho «\me, and ip.ani- 
 festly should be able to got along as 
 well as liis imiustrious neighbour in 
 the same or any other line of business, 
 with whom the tariff deals precisely 
 as with him. 
 
 And so tire man who raises a ton 
 of ore shoulil claim that the same a<l 
 valorem duty shall be imposed on 
 foreign ore as on the au^rar, etc., he 
 raises. The man who makes the iron 
 ore into pig iroii should claim that 
 his pig iron should be in like manner 
 protected ; labor an<l capital have 
 been expeniled on it, and th -so are 
 clearly entitleil to tho current tinff- 
 protection. P^xjtendyet m )re labor 
 ai.a caj)ital on the pig iron by con- 
 verting it inti> bar or r. d iron, or 
 steel, and ng.iin all concerned in the 
 industry should claim tint imported 
 iron and .steel should pay the current 
 duty on other things Would not 
 such a claim bo perfectly just ? And 
 if so, how unjust is tho present tariff; 
 ini[)osing as it does an average 100 
 per cent. (I) duty upon the spirits, 
 tobacco, beer, sugar, tea, rice, 
 molasses, and petroleum consumed 
 by the men who work our iron mines 
 and manufacture iron and steel ; 
 while putting only 5 per cent, on 
 foreign iron, cUid not a cen*: on pig 
 iron or manufactured steel I Is that 
 the way to develop our iron mines 
 and give employment to our people 't 
 Is that the way to develop our coal 
 mines and our mineral wealth 
 generally, to impose such a mountain 
 of taxation on the working men, and 
 afford their industries little or no 
 tariff-protection ? What a change in 
 our country would in a few years be 
 produced by some 25 per cent, on 
 the articles these men use and on 
 
20 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 all imported iron, steel, coal, etc. 
 No duty on raw materials ; trifling 
 <lutie3 on articles which vinder a 
 revenue tariff our country would 
 have produced ; but 350 per cent, on 
 rum, 214 per cent on tobacco, 50 per 
 cent, on beer, 55 per cent, on brown 
 sugar, 30 per cent, on common black 
 tea, 40 per cent, on rice, same on 
 petroleum, etc. etc., how unfair, 
 how foolish, how iniquitous I Whore 
 are our wise men ? Where our know- 
 all scribes and statesmen ? No 
 wonder that without war or other 
 caiamitv Nova Scotia is decreasinpj 
 in wealth. (See Mr. James Thom- 
 Bon's pamphlet.) How can we pro- 
 sper under a tariff that keeps our 
 coal, iron, copper, and other resources 
 in the bowels of the earth? Truly, 
 " where no counsel is the people fall." 
 *' Woo to thee, O land, when thy 
 king is a child." (in understanding.) 
 May God grant us a Finance Minister 
 worthy of the name and teach our 
 Senators wisdom. 
 
 The same line of argument applies 
 to manufacturers of cotton and wollen 
 goods, furniture, piano, and nail 
 factories. On every article they 
 import, raw or manufactured, they 
 should pay the regular tariff duty, 
 for they have expended no labor on 
 them, but the moment they begin to 
 work on the imported cotton, wool 
 mahogany, rosewood, or iron plate, 
 their tariff protection begins, and 
 culminates in 25 per cent, on the 
 finished cloth, chair, piano, or nail, 
 the value of which exceeds by lOU to 
 500 pr cent, the value of the materials 
 on which duty was paid, and 25 per 
 cent, on the difference of value is the 
 
 just tariff protection one and all are 
 entitled to. It gives to every man 
 according to his work. 
 
 And thus labor as well as capital 
 is fairly protected under a uniform 
 udvalorem duty on all imports; 
 under a tariff which no one can deny 
 is a purely revenue one, and as nearly 
 a free trade tariff (if such a thing 
 can be) as the indebtedness of the 
 country and abolition of excise duties 
 would permit. Excise duties would, 
 of course, be no longer recpiired under 
 a 25 per cent, tariff. The distiller, 
 now trie best protected manufticturer in 
 the Dominion having at present 25 cts. 
 per gallon protection on liquor, whicfi 
 does not cost him that, would then 
 have enough to do to compete with 
 West India rum, a far better article, 
 without paying excise duty. The 
 tobacconist and tlie brewer also 
 would pay no excise duty, but have 
 simply the tariff protection afforded 
 to all industries. 
 
 Ship-builders might require a 
 return of duties paid on certain 
 articles, their ships being built as it 
 were for exportation. Such an ex- 
 ceptional industry might require 
 exceptional legislation until the time 
 carao when all the heavy articles 
 our ships require would be home 
 manufactured, (sweet words.) in- 
 cluding all iron, copper, anchors, 
 chains, canvas and cordage. Speed 
 the day ! 
 
 And now if any one thinks the 
 tariff I propose would not afford to 
 labor the tariff protection to which it 
 is entitled, I shall be vary happy to 
 hear from him. 
 
I 
 
 I 
 
 21 
 
 «1 all are 
 vary man 
 
 s capital 
 
 I uijitbrm 
 
 imports ; 
 
 can deny 
 
 1 as nearly 
 a thing 
 
 sq of the 
 
 ise duties 
 
 ies would, 
 
 red under 
 
 distiller, 
 
 facturer iu 
 
 sent 25 cts. 
 
 lor, v/hicJi 
 
 Duld then 
 
 npcte with 
 
 :er article, 
 
 uty. The 
 
 ewer also 
 
 but have 
 
 n afforded 
 
 •cquire a 
 m certain 
 Duiit as it 
 ch an ex- 
 t require 
 :il the time 
 'y articles 
 be home 
 )rd3.) in- 
 auchors, 
 ;e. Speed 
 
 thinks the 
 afford to 
 
 to which it 
 happy tc 
 
 Utterances of the National 
 Policy Party 
 
 On the Injustice of the present 
 Tariff to the Working Olassoa ; 
 
 WHAT THEN ? 
 
 The National Policy proposes such 
 a ''judicious readjustment of the 
 tariff as will benefit and foster the 
 Agricultural, the Mining, the Manu- 
 facturing and other interests of the 
 Dominion." In otiier words, it pro- 
 poses to give this country a tariff that 
 will be JDST to all its great industries, 
 hence just to the industrial classes. 
 Verily, there is not iu this country 
 an honest man but will say in his 
 heart, let us have such a tariff as 
 soon as possible,for it is much wanted. 
 The present government has " wiped 
 out of existence" su^jar refining, an 
 industry on which the success and 
 extension of our trade with sugar- 
 producing countries depends, and has 
 compelled the Dominion of Canada 
 to buy over seven-eighths of the five 
 millions and a half dollars' worth of 
 sugar last year consumed, not in 
 those countries but in Britain and the 
 United States, to our great loss and 
 national disgrace. It is doing the 
 same for our coal industry — wiping it 
 out of existence, by ijaposing heavy 
 duties on the various articles used by 
 mines and miners, and admittingabout 
 a million tons of coal annually into tho 
 Dominion " free of duty." It does 
 little better for tho iron and rope in- 
 dustries, imposing only a paltry and 
 insufficient duty of 5 per cent on im- 
 ported iron and cordage ; c(iual to 
 about one-eighth the average duty 
 the workmen pay on their sugar, mo- 
 lasses, tea, petroleum, and rice ; and 
 not one-thirtieth the duty they pay 
 
 on their tobacco, spirits and l)oor oa 
 an average. 
 
 What I propose now is — 1. To 
 (piote from tho speeches of National 
 Policy Senators and M. P.'s, state- 
 ments respecting tho injustice uf tho 
 present tariff lo the working classes, 
 who, through it, are kept with their 
 nose to tho grindstone. 2. To shew 
 what is the logical outcome of said 
 utterances — or what then ? 
 
 1. On tao injustice of the present 
 tariff to tho industrial classes, I rpiote 
 from the speeches of National IVlicy 
 Senators and M.P.'s, as follows; 
 
 Senator Smith said — debates 1877, 
 pages 260, 4 — (italics are mine) : 
 
 '' He would also suggest that in the 
 next readjustment of the tariff, tho 
 farmer, meclianic and laborer should 
 not he oblifjed as they now arc,^ to pay 
 more taxes in proportion titan the 
 wealthier classes of the community. 
 On tea the farmer has to pay 18 to 30 
 per cent, while the man who gets his 
 tea for 00 cents per lb., pay only ten 
 per cent. That was was unfair to the 
 poorer classes. On sugar tho poorer 
 classes pay 40 cents on every dollar's 
 worth they consume. Then on rice 
 the duty is 33^ per cent. On tobac- 
 co the duty is at least 200 per cent, 
 on whiskey 500 per cent, and ou 
 brandy only 100 per cent, although 
 brandy is generally used by the weal- 
 thier classes. On beer the duty 
 amounts to GOO per cent. Now this 
 was 7iot a fair way to levy taxes. Tho 
 tariff was so formed as to give no en- 
 couragement tj the jworer classes^ 
 The same and in some cases a lower 
 duty was put on the goods consumed 
 by the rich than on those used l)y the 
 poor. The same principle should hz 
 applied to the tariff that municipali- 
 ties apply to '\e raising of taxes. The 
 more valuable the property the higher 
 
I 
 
 it is taxed. Tho present tariflT was 
 not a t'roo trade tarilV. Jt wat unjutt 
 imposing on thejMor heavier duties than 
 en the rich, and ho ho|)ed tho (Jovern- 
 mcnt would readjutt it so that each 
 class of the community would hear its 
 Jair share of taxation.^'' 
 
 I would rem ^rk on tlio above that 
 while far astrry as to the duties on 
 whisky and l)L'cr, the principles ho 
 enunciates are to my mind admirable. 
 Imports should pay according to their 
 value. 
 
 In the same debate Senator Wilmot 
 thus expressed himself, page 261 — 
 
 " We must regulate our tariff in 
 such a way as would be most benefi- 
 cial to ourselves. Instead of impos- 
 ing high duties running from 25 to 
 60 per cent — on the necessaries of 
 life, like sugar and molasses, they 
 should be levied on manufactures. 
 8ince we must bo taxed, it is better 
 to be taxed for tho benefit of home 
 manufactures than to pay high duties 
 on tea, sugar and molasses, which we 
 cannot produce." 
 
 The latter part of the above is true 
 only to a certain extent. We have 
 to bear in mind that a revenue of 
 some $20,000,000 is required, and 
 that home manufactures yield us no 
 direct revenue, unless their raw or 
 other imported materials pay duty. 
 Indirectly, of course, they pay duty 
 through the dutiable goods consumed 
 by the working men and women whom 
 the manufacturers employ, la other 
 words, home industries indirectly 
 contribute to the revenue by increas- 
 ing the number of consumers of duti- 
 able goods. The coal industry, for 
 example, especially as it was, say in 
 '73, and as it may be, let us hope, in 
 '79. 
 
 In the House of Commons,on March 
 2, 1877, Mr. Bunster, alluding to the 
 
 doubling of the duty on maU and 
 malt liquors, and adding 2 cents per 
 pound to tea, said — page 415, debate* 
 llouso of Commons. 
 
 " lie did not tliink it creditable 
 that tho necessaries of life siiould be 
 taxed in this way, when the luxuries 
 were allowed to go free. This was 
 owing to the fact that workingmen 
 never had a voice in tho making of 
 tliu laws, and the rich mon wore 
 ijouud to take care of their own lux- 
 uries." 
 
 In Britain rich meu pay immense 
 amounts yearly of income tax, iience 
 may justly claim that tiieir glass of 
 brandy shall pay no more than the 
 poor man's glass of rum ; but here 
 there is no income tax, hence the 
 rich man's brandy, wine, cigars and 
 luxuries generally should pay the 
 same percentage on their cost as the 
 poor man's rum and tobacco do on 
 their cost. If they did, would there 
 uot be a hullabaloo ? Fancy S50 per 
 cent, on brandy costing f 1.25, and on 
 wines costing iS to $-4 per gallon ! 
 Well, the working men will make a 
 hullabaloo when they find out that 
 their rum pays 350 per cent, tobacco 
 214, sugar 55, rice 40, and so on, 
 while tho luxuries of the rich pay 
 chiefly 17J per cent. 
 
 During the same session the fol- 
 lowing M. P.'s thus came out for 
 justice to tho working men : — 
 
 The Hon. J. C. Pope said — page 
 973 : 
 
 " He felt bound to vote against the 
 increase of duties proposed by the 
 Government, as bearing particularly 
 hard upon tlie working and poor man, 
 more particularly at a time of great 
 depression, when he ^elt that the 
 Government should do all in its power 
 to relieve the working classes, instead 
 of putting increased burdens upon 
 them." 
 
I 
 
 ^8 
 
 limit and 
 
 cents |)or 
 
 5, debates 
 
 Lirndi table 
 hliould be 
 ) luxuries 
 This was 
 rkingmon 
 Hiking of 
 uoii wore 
 own lux- 
 
 immcnso 
 ax, hence 
 • glass of 
 
 than the 
 but here 
 icnco the 
 gars and 
 
 pay the 
 )st as the 
 ;o do on 
 lid there 
 y 850 per 
 15, and on 
 V gallon! 
 1 make a 
 out that 
 , tobacco 
 d so on, 
 rich pay 
 
 the fol- 
 out for 
 
 id — page 
 
 ;ainst the 
 I by the 
 'ticularly 
 oorman, 
 of great 
 that the 
 its power 
 i, instead 
 QS upon 
 
 Mr. Rochester said — page 902 : 
 *' Did it seem right tiiat silks, rel- 
 ▼ots, jewolery, pianoH, and such 
 aristocratic articles, should pay 17 i 
 per cent., while the poor man's Kugar 
 was taxed 45 per cent.; his molasses 
 25 per cent.; his oi! 35 per cent.; his 
 tobacco over 100 percent.; his butter 
 4 cents per lb.; his cheese 3 cents per 
 lb., and so on. Upon what principle 
 was our tariff got up ? Was it that 
 the poor and middle classes, who 
 consumed quantities of sugar, etc., 
 should pay what ought to \)e paid by 
 ladies and gentlemen who wore silks, 
 velvets, tine cloth and jewellery, and 
 played on pianos." 
 
 Mr. Palmer said, page 1181. 
 ** If any principle of taxation were 
 correct it was that Capital should 
 bear its fair proportion of the burdens; 
 and if the capital were not to 
 pay the whole of the burdens the 
 whole tax should not ba placed upon 
 the energies of the men without 
 capital, ilut under the system which 
 had been inaugurated, the laboring 
 men would pay more than the rich 
 men into the Public Treasury." 
 Mr. Orton said, page 603 — 
 " They found by a return brought 
 down, that the laboring classes paid 
 the largest taxes of the people of this 
 country. The tax on tea had been 
 placed in such a manner as to boar 
 more heavily upon the poor man than 
 upon the rich ; upon the industrious, 
 hard working laboring men more 
 than upon those who were living upon 
 their wealth or enjoying the luxury 
 of Government offices." 
 
 Mr. Farrow said, page 603 — 
 In every way in which the Govern- 
 ment had handled the tariff, they had 
 acted against the poor man." 
 
 I might quote much more to the 
 same effect, but the foregoing utter- 
 
 ances of the National Party should 
 suffice to '■ ''sfy any reasonable man 
 as to a parr of their policy in the 
 readjustment u'. the tariff. They 
 point clearly to a reduction of the 
 duties on spirits, tobacco, beer, sugar, 
 rice, tea, etc. They point also to ad 
 valorem in lieu of the present specific 
 duties, for otherwise the principles 
 enunciated could not bo carried out. 
 And hero I would remark that not 
 only would ad valorem duties raise 
 revenue on the fair principle referred 
 to b;' Senator Smith — " the moro 
 valuable the property, the higher the 
 tax" — but they would encourage 
 trade with the countries where the 
 articles imported are produced, and 
 can be got cheapest ; this is too plain 
 to require any illustrations, but 1 may 
 mention tea, coffee, sugar, &,c. And 
 our shipowners will please make a 
 note of it, and go for the abolition of 
 speciGc duties as far as possible ; and 
 so for direct trade with China, Brazil, 
 Mediterranean, &c. 
 
 But a reduction in the duties on 
 these articles would require to be 
 made up somehow, and hence arises 
 the questiuii — What then ? What is 
 the logical outcome of these National 
 Policy utterances? The duties on 
 necessaries being made say 25 p^r 
 cent, and those on the tobacco and 
 liquors of the working classes being 
 levied also on their cost, and put at 
 the same rates as the wines and other 
 luxuries of the wealthier classes, there 
 would be uuciuestionably a very large 
 amount of revenue to be raised from 
 other articles which now pay 17 i, 10 
 and 5 per cent, and from goods now 
 free. Would an increase of the 17 i 
 per cents to 25 or 30 per cent, be 
 sufficient to make up the deficiency ? 
 Most certainly not. Indeed, it is just 
 a question whether or not the sub- 
 
24 
 
 •I 
 
 ptitution of 25 or 30 for 17i per cent 
 on such goods as are now, to a con- 
 siderable eytent, manufactured in 
 the Dominion would yield much ad- 
 ditional rev«nue, for the additional 
 7i or 12i j3or cent, would exclude 
 the imported article to such an extent 
 that 25 or 30 per cent on the dimin- 
 ished importation, which would result 
 from such a tariff, would possibly not 
 more than equal 17i per cent on the 
 previous larger importation. The 
 question then still is — What then ? 
 How is the revenue to be raised ? 
 True, 25 rer cent instead of Hi on 
 the many articles which would still 
 l)*^ imported would yield a large por- 
 tion of the deficiency, but not, by any 
 mean?, all. The fact is, with the 
 necessaries of life paying not more 
 than 25 per cent, all other goods 
 would have to pay an average duty 
 of 25 per ce"t ad valorem to yi .d the 
 necessary revbuue. 
 
 Giving the manufacturer 25 to 30 
 per cent protection, and leaving the 
 free list as it is, or in other words 
 giving him his raw materials free of 
 duty, would not work well for him. 
 Too much protection, any manufac- 
 turer will admit, is as ruinous to his 
 industry as too little, for it creates too 
 much home competition. A medium 
 iariff" is the best. And a medium 
 taritf would be, under existing Do- 
 minion circumstances, about a square 
 revenue tariff; — no free goods — no 5 
 per cents — no 10 or i7i or 350 per 
 cents, but one uniform per centage 
 on everything, without fear or favor. 
 That, or something prett^^ near it, is 
 the iOgical outcome of the utterances 
 of the National Party ; and that 
 would, in my opinion, benefit and 
 foster the agricultural, the mining, 
 the manufacturing, and other interests 
 of the Dominion. Under such a 
 
 tariff the induitvial classes would get 
 justice. They would contribute their 
 fair share to the revenue and no more; 
 hence they could live on less ; their 
 earnings would go farther than under 
 the present tariff; and that is a great 
 point not only for them, but also for 
 their employers who desire their 
 iiands to be able to live on their wages. 
 Under such a square revenue tariff, 
 anchors and chains, in fact everythin^g" 
 of iron ur steel, would be made in this 
 country, for we have plenty of coal 
 and iron. The fishermens' hooks, 
 seines, nets, lines and twines would 
 all be made here. Not a coil of rope 
 would be imported under a tariff of 
 25 per cent on the raw materials and 
 on the manufactured article. I 
 appeal to the proprietors of the Dart- 
 mouth Bope Works. The coal owner 
 would vv^illingly pay 25 per cent on 
 what he now pays i7i,and the royalty 
 of 10 cents per ton besides, were there 
 25 per cent on all imported coal and 
 coke. Mr. Dustan has given it to 
 me in " black and white " that such a 
 tariff — 25 per cent on raw and the 
 same on refined sugars — would suit 
 the refining interest — with a counter- 
 vailing duty to meet bounties, and 
 tlie packages free as they ought 
 to be. The absurdity and enormity 
 of charging 12 duty on an old sugar 
 hogshead, or a molasses puncheon, 
 must cease. The agriculturist could 
 not but be well satisfied with a square 
 25 per cent tariff. It would certainly, 
 too, be moving in the direction of a 
 reciprocity of tariffs with our neigh 
 hours. In short, I want to know 
 what great Dominion interest such a 
 tariff would not incidentally and 
 fairly protect, taking into account the 
 greatly diminished duties it would 
 impose on the working classes. If 
 there is one, let it speak, and its just 
 
25 
 
 Id get 
 te their 
 
 more; 
 their 
 
 under 
 a great 
 Iso for 
 
 their 
 wages. 
 
 tariff, 
 
 ythiii- 
 in this 
 f coal 
 hooks, 
 would 
 of rope 
 iriff of 
 als and 
 e. I 
 
 e Dart- 
 owner 
 
 ent on 
 
 royalty 
 there 
 
 kl and 
 
 I it to 
 
 such a 
 
 nd the 
 
 d suit 
 
 )unter- 
 
 3, and 
 
 ought 
 
 )rmity 
 
 sugar 
 
 3heon, 
 
 could 
 
 iquare 
 
 ainly, 
 
 . of a 
 
 leigh 
 
 know 
 
 uch a 
 and 
 
 it the 
 
 should 
 If 
 
 I just 
 
 claims will be beard. " Whatsoever 
 ye would that men should do unto 
 you do ye also unto them," should be 
 a Finance Minister's motto. The 
 petroleum,. furniture, boot and shoe, 
 broom, brush, nail, cotton and woollen 
 cloth, leather, soap and candle, 
 wooden ware, siove, whisky, spirits, 
 ale, porter, lumber, butter, cheese, 
 flour, coal, iron, and other industries, 
 would all have true incidental pro- 
 tection under a square revenue taritf. 
 And, I ask, why should any one 
 industry ask for or receive more 
 tariff protection than another ? In 
 many cases said protection would 
 have no more effect than to exclude, 
 wholly or in part, the foreign article, 
 and would not enhance the price of 
 the home produced article. No more 
 than the present 4 cents per lb. duty 
 on butter and 3 cents on cheese, 
 makes butter and cheese higher than 
 it the foreign article were admitted 
 free. Such duties protect almost 
 entirely by preserving the home 
 market, while abundance and coiii- 
 petition keep down the price. In 
 like manner, the American duties of 
 40 to 60 ner cent on screws, saws, 
 etc., published by the " Morning 
 Chronicle," week after week, serve 
 only to exclude tne imported article 
 from the United States, and do not 
 enable the manufacturers to obtain a 
 single per cent more for them- The 
 well known fact is that we import 
 these very articles from the United 
 States and pay 17i per cent on them. 
 The question is — why are they not 
 manufactured here ? Because of the 
 lack of the tariff protection to which 
 labor is entitled. 
 
 How a Uniform Duty on Im 
 ports would work. 
 
 In speaking with people on the 
 tariff we hare, and on the tariff I have 
 recently suggested as being " a square 
 revenue one" and also " incidentally 
 protective," and as nearly a free 
 trade one as our national indebtedness 
 will admit of, I find an unexpected 
 lack of intelligence, and in som.o 
 cases, great ignorance. In truth, 
 the people generally have not known, 
 do not know, I may say, the ABC 
 of the great question on which they 
 are soon to vote. This is to me a matter 
 of deep regret, feeliiig as I do how 
 much depends on the sort of tariff 
 we are to have in the future. The 
 tariff is. by all odds, the most potent 
 instrument for good or evil a Govera- 
 ment can wield. By means of a wise 
 tariff a Government prepares the way 
 for the development of their country's 
 resources, while an unwise tariff 
 renders them valueless. For instance, 
 a uniform duty on imports, since 
 Confederation, in lieu of the customs 
 and excise duties we have had, would 
 have imposed, say 20 per cent, ad 
 valorem, on iron and steel and manu- 
 factures of tn^se articles, in common 
 with other goods. What would have 
 been the result ? Tens of millions of 
 dollars' worth of rails and other iron 
 and steel goods, for which the money, 
 or money's worth, has been sent to 
 Britain and the United States, would 
 have been left in our country ; and 
 some of Mr. Mackenzie's steel rally 
 would have cost us much less, if 
 purchased at all up to the present 
 time. A uniform ad valorem duty 
 on imports and no excise duties since 
 1867, would have saved the importa- 
 
26 
 
 
 tion of milions of dollars' worth of 
 anchors, chains, iron, wire rope, 
 cordage," canvas, iron, 'copper and 
 composition bolts, spikes, &c., for 
 ships, and all these things would 
 hi.7e been home-manufactured, and 
 sold as cheap as the imported article. 
 The tariii I believe in, as +he only 
 just on-", to rich and poor, manufac- 
 turers,their employes and consumers, 
 farmers aiid fishermen, would have 
 nearly excluded foreign coal from 
 the Dominion, and our base-burners 
 would have been all home made and 
 adapted to the ercellent Pictou and 
 Cape Breton coals of which to-day 
 the output would be ten-fold what it 
 is ! Let any one who thinks this is 
 an exaggeration think of the coal 
 and coke, numerous iron furnaces, 
 sugar refineries and factories would 
 have consumed, consequent on Nova 
 Scotia becoming the Wales/Bristol and 
 Sheffield of the Dominion ! A 
 uniform ad valorem duty on all im- 
 ports in lieu of the unfair and unwise 
 tarifi' we have had for the last eleven 
 years would have led to our fisher- 
 men's salt being made largely from 
 our own resources ; and their seines, 
 nets, lines, twines and hooks, would 
 have been all home manufactured. 
 Under such a tariff the breadstulis 
 of a foreign country would be dis- 
 pensed with, as they may well be, 
 when we have a superabundance ; 
 as thanks to Him who is kind even 
 unto the unthankful, our country 
 now has. 
 
 An advalorem duty of 25 per cent. 
 on raw and refined sugar, Mr Dustan 
 says would start sugar-refining, were 
 the packages free, as all worthless 
 packages should be ; at least they 
 should never pay more than they 
 are worth. The dutv should never 
 exceed the value of the article duty 
 
 paid. Yet our present tariff" in 
 numerous cases, imposes more duty 
 on packages than tney are worth •, 
 for example, it puts $2 each on a 
 sugar or molasses hogshead, being 
 25 per cent, on their cost in the 
 West Indies. 
 
 I find many people do not see how 
 say 25 per cent, on raw material and 
 25 per cent on the manufactured arti- 
 cle would protect the manuiucturer ; 
 let me therefore explain. Take su- 
 gar-refioinc:, the raw sugar costing 
 exclusive of package, si ^ 83,00 per 
 lOOlbs., would pay 75 cents duty: 
 the refined sugar costing 86,00 per 
 100 lbs, wouid pay $1,50 duty ; the 
 difference of duty iS' the sagar- 
 refiner's incidental protection. 
 
 Again, take a rope work ; the hemp 
 co.-ts say 6 cents per lb., the manu- 
 factured rope costs about say 9 cents, 
 both would pay 25 per cent; here, 
 again, the manufacturer's incidental 
 protection is 25 per cent, on the 
 difference between the cost of the 
 rkw material and that of the manu- 
 factured article. At present hemp 
 is free while rope pays 5 per cent, 
 this gives a protection of only 5 per 
 cent, which is too little in a country 
 whose tariff imposes an average 120 
 per cent duty on the rum, tobacco, 
 sugar, tea, rice and petroleum 
 working men use. A 25 per cent, 
 tariff would give a rope work ^J per 
 cent, incidental protection, supposing 
 the cost of imported hemp and rope 
 1 J be respectively 6 and 9 cents per 
 lb. It would also substitute 25 for 
 the 120 per cent average duty on 
 the articles above mentioned. 
 
 Once more ; take the cotton manu- 
 fc^cturer. On 100 Ibp. raw cotton, 
 costing in the Southern States $10, 
 he would pay §2,50 duty. It would 
 make 825 to $28 worth of shirtings, 
 
 -say 
 unc" 
 wo\ 
 on 
 
 cot< 
 
 perl 
 
 tarl 
 
 ceo 
 
 tuil 
 
 pr( 
 
 ceni 
 
 in 
 
 it 
 
 coil 
 
 dill 
 
 wo 
 
 as 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
27 
 
 tariff in 
 
 lore duty 
 
 je worth ; 
 
 lch on a 
 
 id, being 
 
 in the 
 
 see how 
 erial and 
 ured arti- 
 acturer ; 
 ake 8u- 
 coatinff 
 3,00 pe? 
 s duty; 
 nOO per 
 Jty; the 
 
 sugar- 
 11. 
 
 he hemp 
 luanu-- 
 
 y cents, 
 t ; here, 
 'cideiital 
 
 021 the 
 
 of the 
 
 mauu- 
 t hemp 
 r ^cent, 
 
 5 per 
 country 
 ge 120 
 obacco, 
 roleum 
 r cent, 
 
 ^i per 
 •posing 
 i rope 
 ts per 
 25 for 
 ty on 
 
 fnauu- 
 otton, 
 $10, 
 vould 
 tings, 
 
 3 
 
 «ay $26,50 ; on that value of cotton, 
 under a 25 per cent tariff, the duty 
 would be 6,62. The difference of duty 
 on the raw and the manufactured 
 cotton would be i4:,12, equal to 15i 
 per cent, on 26,50. Thus, under a 
 tariff which would impose 25 per 
 cent, on both the raw and manufac- 
 tured cotton, the manufacturer's 
 protection would be about 15i per 
 cent, or 3 per cent, more than it was 
 in 1867, while 2 per cent, less than 
 it now is ; which 2 per cent would, I 
 consider, be oftset by the greatly 
 diminished duties a 25 per cent tariff 
 would impose on the working classes 
 as compared with the present one. 
 So it appears to me a uniform ad 
 valorem duty would work fir'it rate 
 for the country at large. It would 
 raise revenue on the equitable prin- 
 ciple of so many cents duty on a 
 dollar of value, uotasnow, make a 
 dollar's worth of common tobacco 
 pay ^2,14 diity,whil6 a dollar's worth 
 of cigars only pays 40 cts. It would 
 be better than free trade and direct 
 taxation, for while raising a revenue 
 it would incidentally protect and 
 loster our industries and dev^elop 
 our natural resources, making 
 available our mineral wealth, coal 
 and iron especia'ly. It would greatly 
 simplify custom house biisiness. It 
 would dispense with the nuisance 
 and expense of excise duties and 
 oflBcials, It would decrease smug- 
 gling and frauds on the revenue. It 
 would make an end of all favoritasm 
 to certain classes and industries, and 
 be an immense relief to the ^^inance 
 Minister. It would prepare the way 
 for a prohibitory liquor law. In 
 the mean time, certain liquors would 
 be purer and cheaper, and all would 
 pay duty according to value, as they 
 ought ; not 18 cents on a dollar's 
 
 wortli of sherry, and $3,50 on a 
 dollar's worth of rum, as at present ; 
 as if a poor man were not just as much 
 entitled to his liquor as Uie rich man 
 is to his, but must needs be visited 
 with a penal*;y of 3 cents every time 
 he buys a glass of spirits and be 
 made pay as it were a fine of 3 cents 
 every time he buys a fig of tobacco ! ! 
 Out upon such a tariff, say I ; and 
 out all who would maintain it. It 
 has depopulated and impoverished 
 Nova Scotia, and especially Halifax^ 
 and dve years more of it would see 
 us still fewer and poorer. 
 
 How should a Revenue be 
 Raised. 
 
 Never witiiin my recollection has 
 there been before the people of this 
 country a more important and prac- 
 tical question than the one awaiting 
 an answer from them at the next 
 general election for the House of 
 Commons. How should a revenue 
 be raised ? is the question of questions 
 for the people to understand and 
 wisely answer. It is easy enough to 
 impose duties that will yield twenty 
 or more millions annually ; but how 
 to impose them so that, if possible 
 every man in the country siiall con- 
 tribute according to the value of im- 
 ported goods he consumes is the great 
 question. 
 
 That a revenue should be raised on 
 the principle that every ma i should 
 pay duty in proportion to the value 
 of imported goods he jats, drinks and 
 wears, or uses in his business to make 
 his living out of them, no one, it 
 appears to me, can dispute. It is a 
 just principle, none more so that I 
 
\ 
 
 28 
 
 can think of. Suppose the Govern- 
 ment imported everything, and sold 
 to the people at a certain advance, 
 which advance was used for public 
 purposes, in lieu of custom duties ; 
 that would be carrying out the prin- 
 ciple I maintain is a just one, in fact 
 the only just one. If the Govt, imported 
 10,000 puns, rum, 10,000 casks wine, 
 10,000 boxes tobacco, 10,000 cases 
 cigars, 10,000 cases dry goods, 10,000 
 puns molasses, 10,000 hides, 10,000 
 sides of leather, and 10,000 cases 
 boots and shoes, and sold the whole 
 at 25 percent, advance on cost and 
 charges, would it not be just to 
 everybody ? Could there be a fairer 
 way of raising a revenue ? To whom 
 would it be unjust ? Would not 
 every purchaser pay in proportion to 
 the value of the imports he purchas- 
 ed ? 
 
 But would it be right or just on 
 the part of tlie Government to charge 
 350 per cent advance on the cost of 
 their rum, and only 18 per cent 
 on the cost of their wine ? Would 
 not the rum-drinkers if numerous 
 enough, rebel against such manifest 
 injustice ? Would not such partiality 
 to wine-bibbers, be too glaring to be 
 maintained ? Would it be right for 
 them to sell their 10.000 cases of drv 
 goods, silks, satins, velvets, laces, &c. 
 at an advance of only "T ~ J per cent, 
 and exact 55 per cent, advance on 
 on the cost of their 10,000 hhds sugar 
 and 25 per cent advance on their 
 10,000 puns molasses ; besides 25 per 
 cent on the 20,000 sugar and molasses 
 hogsheads, average cost of which was 
 $2, thus charging $10,000 advance 
 on the cost of 20,000 almost worthless 
 packages ? What would be thought 
 of a government that would do busi- 
 ness in that unprincipled fashion ? 
 Jf Paul were to-day in Halifax, I 
 
 would like to ask him his opinion of a 
 government that raised revenue iu 
 that way? It would, in view of all 
 that I could tell him, go hard with him 
 to say — " render to all their dues, 
 custom to whom custom." Dues 
 and custom never could have meant 
 in Paul's day, that a poo/* man should 
 pay f 3,50 on his dollar's worth of 
 one article,and $2 on a dollar's worth 
 of another, while a rich man paid 
 only m cents on his dollar's worth I 
 the enormity of such taxes ! Talk 
 about the Turkish tax-gathers [ 
 Shame, shame, on those who impose, 
 and on those who submit to such 
 grossly unjust duties ! And a double 
 shame to any one who would knowing- 
 ly maintain them ! Once more, 
 why should the government sell their 
 10,000 hides at no advance ? Is it 
 fair to the home producers of hides 
 to do so ? These men have to pay 
 the government the advance charged 
 on all imported goods they consume, 
 why should hides be imported and 
 sold at no advance, and so deprive 
 them of their home market ? The 
 government cliarge say 25 per cent 
 advance on their 10,000 sides leather 
 and on their 10,000 cases boots and 
 shoes, why not the same on their 
 hides ? They could justly do so, 
 and the tanners who purchased them 
 could not reasonably complain. 
 When a tanner manutactures a hide, 
 it is worth what the same quality of 
 imported leather is, and the advance 
 he has paid on the hide, costing only 
 10 cents per lb, is only half the 
 advance per lb. charged the slioe- 
 maker on the imported leather costing 
 20 cents. On the hide it is equal to 
 2i cents per lb. ; on the leather, it is 
 equal to 5 ; the 2i cents per lb. on 
 hides, is an incidental protection to 
 the home producer of a hide ; the 
 
 diffel 
 
 centa 
 
 tectij 
 
 encei 
 
 on tl 
 
 boot] 
 
 a pail 
 
 makj 
 
 of cc 
 
 the 
 
 alike 
 
 turel 
 
 ing 
 
29 
 
 •pinion of a 
 evenue in 
 iew of all 
 d with him 
 lieir dues. 
 Dues 
 ive meant 
 lan should 
 worth of 
 ai 's worth 
 man paid 
 s worth ! 
 3s ! Talk 
 i:-gather8 i 
 
 impose, 
 to such 
 
 1 a double 
 knowing- 
 ce more, 
 sell their 
 
 ^? Is it 
 
 of hides 
 
 e to pay 
 
 charged 
 Consume, 
 I'ted and 
 
 deprive 
 It? The 
 per cent 
 s leather 
 3ots and 
 m their 
 
 do so, 
 ed them 
 )mplain. 
 
 a hide, 
 ality of 
 advance 
 ng only 
 alf the 
 
 2 shoe- 
 costing 
 laal to 
 3r, it is 
 
 lb. on 
 ion to 
 J ; the 
 
 difference between that and the 5 
 cents on leather is an incidental pro- 
 tection to the tanner ; and the differ- 
 ence between the government advance 
 on the leatlier, &c., used in a pair of 
 boots, and the advance on the cost of 
 a pair of imported boots, is the boot- 
 maker's incidental protection. This, 
 of course, is intended to illustrate 
 the working of a 25 per cent duty 
 alike on raw materials and manufac- 
 tured articles. 
 
 Well, now, if it would be so unjust 
 and unreasonable for a government 
 to import spirits, wine, tobacco, 
 cigars, ifec, and sell certain of them 
 at enormous profits, is it not every 
 whit as urjust and unreasonable for a 
 government to compel the people 
 who consume certain i^oods, to pay 
 enormourt prices for them, by impos- 
 ing on them enormous duties, 
 while certain other goods used by 
 people who can afford to pay duty 
 are lightly taxed? Of course, it is. 
 Hence, inasmuch as the present 
 government thus levy duties, and 
 express their determination to main- 
 tain their present tariff, I say they 
 arc unreasonable and unjust, and 
 should give place to men who \vill 
 raise revenue upon tbe true and 
 righteous principle of a uniform ad- 
 vance on the cost of all "mported 
 goods wlien taken forborne consump- 
 tion. In so doing, they will not only 
 raise all the revenue they require, 
 but at the same time deal justly by 
 every natural resource, and protect 
 and foster every indur.try 
 
 The Great Obstacle to a Pro« 
 hibitory Liquor Law. 
 
 The advocates of a Prohibitory 
 Liquor Law, or rather some of them,, 
 appear to think that a great reduc- 
 tion of the present enormous duties 
 on rum, gin, etc., would not be a step 
 in the right direction. I beg to state 
 why it appears to me, it would not 
 only be a right step, but a necessary 
 step in the direction of a Prohibitory 
 Law. 
 
 Not long agO; speaking on the sub- 
 ject of the liquor duties and a Pr 
 hibitory Law with Mr. G. G. Gray — 
 better known as *' General Gray,'' as 
 beini!; the General of the " Cold Wa- 
 ter Army" — he said, some twenty 
 years ago the late Honorable Judge 
 Johnstone, long an advocate ot tee- 
 total principles, stated in the Divi- 
 sion Room, substantially, that a Pro- 
 hibitory Liquor Law was out of the 
 question until the duties on liquors 
 were greatly reduced, so that the reve- 
 nue from them could be made up by 
 the duties on other goods. Now, if 
 that was true then, much more is it 
 true now ; for the liquor duties are 
 far higher now than then, and tht> 
 revenue from them, malt included, 
 for the last fiscal year, was over one- 
 fourth of the entire gross revenue 
 from customs and excise duties. 
 
 As it may not be uninteresting to 
 your readers to know the Dominion 
 income from the spirits, wine, and 
 beer drank in a single year, I will 
 giTC it : — 
 
 Duty coilected on tpirit-, bratdy, &c,, $3,7(17,101.79 
 
 •• »• altt, betr, porter, and milt, 430,-z95.09 
 
 Total dii'.y for year ending Juno 30, '77, $4,4;S3,0zy.5j5 
 
 Now, as the total customs and er • 
 cise duties for the same period 
 
 xi 
 
30 
 
 amouatei to only 117,488,885.90, it 
 is plain that over one-fourth of the 
 whole duty collected was from spiri- 
 tuous and malt liquors, the importa- 
 tion and manufacture of which it is 
 proposed to prohibit, except, I pre- 
 sume, for special purposes. 
 
 Is not, I respectfully ask the ad- 
 vocates and friends of a prohibitorv 
 liquor law, that $4,423,869.85 the 
 great obstacle ? 
 
 Now, the uniform tariff that I 
 propose would put, of course, the 
 same duty on liquors as on other im- 
 ported goods ; hence the revenue 
 from spirits, etc., would be greatly 
 reduced, but would be made up by 
 the increased duties on articles which 
 now pay less than the uniform rate 
 would be — say 25 per cent. Thus, 
 it seems to me, the wav would be 
 prepared for a prohibitory law. By 
 tlie time a majority of Dominion Le- 
 pfislators were prepared to vote for it 
 the Government would be in a posi- 
 tion to pass it, without a very great 
 alteration of their tariff. 
 
 Respectfully submitted for the 
 consideration of Prohibitionists, who 
 have heretofore considered that a 
 large reduction in the duties on rum, 
 gin, etc., would not be a step in the 
 right direction. 
 
 Our Sugar Importations. 
 
 I feel sure comparatively few per- 
 sons will read the following simple 
 facts unmoved. " Deeds speak loud- 
 er than words." Our doings, then, 
 with respect to our sugar importa- 
 tions should cry aloud to the people 
 of this country. 
 
 For the years ending June 30th, 
 1875 and '77, the cost of the sugar 
 
 imported was $4,952,666 and $5,539,- 
 214 respectively. How much wa3 
 imported direct from the sugar-pro- 
 ducing countries ? In '75, $1,718,- 
 833, and in '77 only $680,103 
 worth ! ! ! Only think what this Do- 
 minion of ours is coming to. We 
 can now only get our sugar at second 
 and third hands. We cannot, it ap- 
 pears, import it from the West In- 
 dies and Brazil, or other sugar pro- 
 ducing country, but must get it from 
 Great Britain and the United States! 
 
 Merchants of Halifax and other 
 Dominion cities and towns, which 
 used to import direct nearly all that 
 was used in the country, how much 
 longer will you tolerate the importa- 
 tion of over seven-eights of that five 
 and a half millions worth of sugar 
 from Great Britain and the United 
 States? Is it not a reflection upon your 
 intelligence that you support a policy 
 whose result' is that in two years 
 your importation of sugar from the 
 West Indies and Brazil have fallen 
 off $1,038,730.^ That while in the 
 year ending June 30, '77, $2,757,611 
 worth of the sugar importe(i into the 
 Dominion came from Britain, and 
 $2,081,960 worth from the United 
 States, only ^(380,103 worth came 
 from — where every dollar's worth of 
 it should have come — the West In- 
 dies or other sugar-producing coun- 
 try. 
 
 I put it to you and to all who 
 have any ability to answer the ques- 
 tion ; — what difference would the di- 
 rect importation of that quantity of 
 sugar have made to the Dominion of 
 Canada ? How much less money, a 
 dead loss to this country, would have 
 paid for it ? Would not its direct 
 importation have saved the exporta- 
 tion of $1,500,000 in- cash ? Would 
 it not have been the means of greatly 
 
31 
 
 39,- 
 
 wa3 
 
 (pro- 
 
 ri8,- 
 
 1,103 
 
 Do- 
 
 We 
 
 jond 
 
 It ap- 
 
 t la- 
 
 oney, a 
 lid have 
 8 direct 
 sxporta- 
 Would 
 ■ greatly 
 
 extending our trade with sugar-pro- 
 ducing countries ? Would it not 
 have given our vessels many return 
 freights, and thousands of our people 
 employment in the refining and put- 
 ting up of the raw sugars ? 
 
 To speak plainly, there is among 
 us too much party politics, and too 
 littl) thought and anxiety how to 
 promote the material interests of the 
 couuLry among business men, other- 
 wise we would not be importing our 
 sugar.H in a way that any country 
 like ours should be ashamed of. 
 
 Here we are within ten days to a 
 fortnight's sail of Cuba and Porto 
 Rico, while Britain is not within a 
 month's, and yet $2,757,611 worth 
 oftliesui^ar we imported last year 
 was carried from those and other 
 sugar-producing places to Britain, 
 there refined — much of it adulterat- 
 ed — and brought out to Halifax, 
 IS*- John, etc. Is it not lamentable? 
 
 Tiie Present Duties Averag^e 
 28 per Cent. 
 
 The following tariff-fac^s have a 
 very important bearing on the great 
 question before the country, namely 
 — shall the present tariff, so unjust to 
 the poor and industrial classes, be 
 revised or maintained ? The Nation- 
 al or Sir John Macdonald Party de- 
 sire to revise it ; the Grit or Mr. Mac- 
 kenzie Party, wish to maintain it. 
 May he that readeth understand the 
 following figures and act according 
 to the dictates of his conscience : — 
 
 In the two years ending 30th June, 
 1877, the customs and excise revenue 
 was as follows : — 
 
 VAItUR. DUTT. 
 
 Bpecific duty Koodi |16,C04,8'>1. Paid 9 6 81)7 Hi 03 
 
 Soec. and nf. v»l.do 10 014,873. " 4 7L'l 831.«i 
 
 25 por oeut 2,058, 0S7. " 6 8,0i0.37 
 
 17i " 78.573,43:J. *' 13,751,201.53 
 
 10 " 4,^h4,ttJ-<. " 466,496.17 
 
 5 " 8,450,232 *' 422.5J«»a 
 
 121,141)606 85,881.862.78 
 
 Kxoise dutle« on -. " .. 6,750.746.00 
 
 U3s3,46 2Kn8iipir<t«, ( S " .. 3 4<>A,84i) 00 
 
 18,:^40,rt26 lbs tobacco, }--3 " .. 717 0*16 (0 
 
 6»,57',998lbsra»lt, 1^ 15fl,9« 5(;i.7C!).0J 
 
 a.iOO 5 j3 kuh peti 'im «' — — 
 
 127,806 54« " ..85,7^0 072 73 
 
 Thus, in the two years ending 30th 
 June, '77, customs and excise duties 
 amounting to $35,766,672.73 were 
 collected from goods valued at $127,- 
 306,546, which is equal to 28 1-10 
 cents on each dollars Nv^orth of duti- 
 aljle goods. Now, the question is, 
 why do the choice wines, broad 
 cloths, linens, silks, satins, velvets, 
 millinery, china, plate, cutlery, <fec., 
 <tec., used by the well-off classes pay 
 only 17 i per cent. ? Why do they 
 not pay at Uast the average 'luty ? It 
 is certain if they did there would be 
 no occasion for 350 per cent, on rum, 
 250 per cent, on gin, 200 on tobacco, 
 50 per cent, each on sugar, petro- 
 leum, rice, vinegar, and starch, 
 Surely no one will say one liquor 
 should pay a higher ad valorem duty 
 than another. Or that tobacco should 
 pay more in proportion to its value 
 ihan cigars pay. Or, that groceries 
 should pay a higher duty tiian dry 
 goods or hardware. 
 
 In conclusion, I would say to the 
 reader, the remedy for all our tariff- 
 injustice is with the people who be- 
 come enlightened. Let every man 
 whose eyes are opened become an 
 apostle of a just tariff, and the coun- 
 try will soon get it. 
 
 / 
 
32 
 
 Dominion Imports and Exports 
 of Fiour and Grain. 
 
 Value of Flour and Grain imported into 
 and «xported from the Dominion for the 
 years ending June 30th, 70 and 77 : 
 
 IMPORTS. 
 
 Barley 3 214.806 
 
 Flour and Meal 6,270.021 
 
 Grain, not othe^'wiae specified 30.271 
 
 Corn and Rye 6,659.881 
 
 Oats 843 028 
 
 Wheat 10,916.998 
 
 Oatmeal 27.243 
 
 Total imports ^24,962,254 
 
 EXPORT.S. 
 
 Barley and Rye $12,216,222 
 
 Flour and Meal 178.947 
 
 Grain 'jot otherwise specilitid.... 3.018 
 
 Indian <.'otv 4.031.080 
 
 0-it? 2797.340 
 
 Whear 14,518.846 
 
 Total Exports .$37,745,453 
 
 Excess of expoits over imports of bread- 
 atutt's for the two years ending June 30, 
 77— $12783,199. 
 
 Quantities of wheat and flour imported 
 anu exported duriug same period : 
 
 Wheat imported, 10,684,980 
 
 t,uah= 2,130 996 bbls 
 
 Flour iuiportecJ 925,177 *' 
 
 3,062.173 
 Wheat exported, 12,807,385 
 
 bu9h= 2,561 497 
 
 Flour exportea 696.375 
 
 (i 
 
 3,257.872 " 
 
 Exc'ss of Exp'rts ov'r lojp'rts, 
 
 195,697, 
 
 i( 
 
 Dr. Tupper on the Coal 
 and other Duties. 
 
 The Grits «ay the National 
 Party would not impose a duty 
 on coal or readjust the tariff in 
 
 the interests of the working 
 classes. I feel every confidence 
 that the National Party would 
 Jo both. Hear what Dr. Tupper 
 said in July last before thou- 
 sands of the electors of Cape 
 Breton at North Sydney and 
 Baddeck. I quote from the 
 Cape Breton Advocate and the 
 Morning Herald of the 25th 
 and 26th ulto. :— 
 
 "The country, as I said be- 
 fore, has now sunk into a con- 
 dition of great depression. All 
 admit that, and now, to whom 
 do they look for relief and guid- 
 ance ? Do they not look to 
 statesmen ? Will you not say, 
 what are statesmen for, if not 
 to guide the afttiirs of the coun- 
 try, and improve its condition 
 by wise legislation ? These men 
 sav the countrv is suffering, that 
 the times are bad but that it is 
 all nonsense to look to the Gov- 
 ernment — to use their own ex- 
 pression they are mere flies on 
 the wheel, (Laughter) powerless 
 to so guide the ship of state as 
 to conduct her out of the diffi- 
 culties into which she is plunged. 
 What do we sav ? That we be- 
 
 I. 
 
 lieve that if the people will en- 
 trust the Government to our 
 hands that we can bring forward 
 wise, patriotic and useful mea- 
 sures which will lift the country 
 out of the depression in which 
 it now lies prostrate, and restore 
 it to the same condition of pros- 
 perity which it enjoyed during 
 
 ' 
 
 the i 
 
 char«j 
 
 hear. 
 
 advai 
 
 sick 
 
 press 
 
 for t\ 
 
 it is a 
 
 for t 
 
 them 
 
 you n 
 
 and I 
 
 The ] 
 
 despa 
 
 not b( 
 
 would 
 
 That 
 
 (Laug 
 
 presse 
 
 all CO 
 
 Dr. M 
 
 of you 
 
 kept) 
 
 healtlj 
 
 remecl 
 
 deprej 
 
 store 
 
 have 
 
 of th( 
 
 rightlj 
 
 we ^vl 
 
 profes 
 
 to gi\1 
 
 undei 
 
 show 
 
 Now 
 
 you 
 
 belies 
 
 try t( 
 
 than 
 
 V/hd 
 
38 
 
 )rkiiig 
 <lenco 
 would 
 upper 
 thou- 
 Cape 
 y and 
 11 the 
 id the 
 i>r)th 
 
 lid be- 
 a con- 
 
 i. All 
 whom 
 
 i o'uid- 
 
 )ok to 
 ot say, 
 , if not 
 Q coun- 
 ndition 
 3se men 
 ig, that 
 lat it is 
 he Gov- 
 3\v'ii ex- 
 flies on 
 (wei'less 
 state as 
 he diffi- 
 )lunged. 
 i we be- 
 will en- 
 to our 
 forward 
 tul mea- 
 couiitry 
 n which 
 I restore 
 of pros- 
 l during 
 
 the seven years tliat we had 
 charge of its aftairs. (Hear, 
 hear.) I say that it is a great 
 a< I vantage to us. Suppose a 
 sick man — precisely like a de- 
 pressed country — were to send 
 for two doctors— and you know 
 it is a bad case when they send 
 for two doctors — and one of 
 them said, I am very sorry, Init 
 you must die ; you are very sick, 
 and I can do nothing for you . 
 The man, hearing that, would 
 despair at once, and if he had 
 not been likely to die before he 
 would be very likely to die then. 
 That is what Dr. McKenzie 
 (Laughter) says to-day to a de- 
 pressed country, low enough in 
 all conscience. But what says 
 Dr. Macdonald ? I had charge 
 of your constitution before, and 
 kept you in a vigorous state of 
 health, and I believe I can apply 
 remedies to-day, that, sick and 
 depressed as you are, will re- 
 store you. Therefore, I say, we 
 have a good deal the advantage 
 of them. You may tell me, and 
 rightly, that is all very well, but 
 we want something more than 
 professions ; we would like you 
 to give us an idea whether you 
 understand the disease, and 
 show us how you can help us. 
 Now I shall endeavor to show 
 you the grounds on which we 
 believe we can restore this coun- 
 try to even greater prosperity 
 than it ever enjoyed before. 
 V/hat is our poHcy ? It is the 
 
 very reverse of the present ad- 
 ministration, — to foster our own 
 industries, to do the work in our 
 own country that Canada has 
 to do, to give employment to 
 i>ur own people at home instead 
 of driving them out of it. 1 say 
 the policy of the present admin- 
 istration is to drive people out 
 of Canada. People go where 
 money goes, and the present 
 government are sending the 
 money out of the country. By 
 one [)lunder they destroyed the 
 West India trade of the country, 
 and the West India trade of the 
 country means a good deal. They 
 have refused the legislation re- 
 (juired to foster that trade until 
 what would have been the enor- 
 mous capital required to refine 
 sugar in this country, went to 
 Boston and New York, aiid the 
 people went after it. (Hear, 
 hear.) We say we believe wise 
 and judicious measures will 
 foster the industries of this coun- 
 try and restore them, not only 
 to their former prosperity, but 
 to even greater than was pre- 
 viously enjoyed. (Hear, liear.) 
 We say more ; we believe in 
 developing inter-provincial trade. 
 Some people say what a pity 
 that Cape Breton, with her in- 
 exhaustible stores of coal, is not 
 somewhere near Ontario and 
 Quebec. Gentlemen, I believe 
 it was a wise Providence that 
 placed Cape Breton where it is. 
 It was done l)y a wiser mind 
 
84 
 
 than that of any statesman of 
 us all. I believe that the future 
 will (lovclopo that truth. The 
 difliculty with this country is, 
 that it is lon;^" and narrow, reach- 
 in<4 thro(3 or four thousand miles 
 from the Atlantic to the Pacific. 
 What do we want to make the 
 countiy united and prosperous 1 
 The Union is but a theoiy 
 if you do not knit these 
 peO[)lo together politically and 
 commercially. There is no 
 bond by wliicli you can knit 
 comnumities like commercial 
 bonds, tor they are the bonds 
 of self interest. What are the 
 facts t Nova Scotia is possess- 
 ed of groat mineral wealth in 
 coal and iron ; Ontario is a 
 wheat growing country ; each 
 possess(;s what the other Avants ; 
 and you have got to devise 
 means l)y which the mineral 
 resources of Nova Scotia can 
 be sent there and exchanged 
 for the products which Ontario 
 can beat us in producing, and 
 thus make every man within the 
 bounds of Canada feel how great 
 an object has been achieved in 
 uniting these Provinces. . . . 
 
 Now, you may say, what can you 
 do about coal ? That is the subject 
 of greatest interest in this particular 
 locality . I will tell you. I think in 
 the first i)lace, that we have got a 
 great lever towards obtaining recip- 
 rocity by the settlement of the fishery 
 question. The late Government said, 
 you shall not take the fish from our 
 people without an equivalent ; the 
 
 United States must be oponod for the 
 froo admission of the fish of this 
 country. The arbitration, provided 
 by the Washington Treaty, settled 
 thut Bometlnng like half a million 
 dollars per annum forever was the 
 value to be paid for our fisheries by 
 the United States. And I say that 
 under that Treaty aad under that 
 arbitration we liave a lever to bring 
 about reciprocity, that only requires 
 the adoption of our national policy to 
 achieve what this country requires. 
 When tiie people of this country 
 understand that in 1876 Canada im- 
 ported 595,000 tons of coal from the 
 United States, and that Nova Scotia 
 only sent to the United States 69,000 
 tons, every person must see at once 
 how unfair and unjust it is that we 
 should receive these 595,000 tons 
 from the United States with open 
 arms, without a cent of duty. In 
 1877 Canada imported from the 
 United States 353,795 tons of bitu- 
 minous coal and no less than 415,000 
 tons of anthracite. That is to say, 
 we took from the United States 768,- 
 795 tons of coal, while all they took 
 from us was but 118,216 tons. Is 
 there any justice in that ? I put it 
 iipon the broad ground of justice, 
 just as I put it for long years in 
 Parliament. (Hear, hear.) I see 
 no justice in it. Take petroleum ; 
 every person knows that it is produc- 
 ed in Ontario ; what is the result V 
 Every person knows that Mr. Mc- 
 Kenzie and his party fostered that 
 industry by a duty of 200 per cent. 
 Who paid it ? Ontario ? No ; but 
 the people of the Maritime Provinces 
 and it was with difficulty that we 
 induced them to reduce that duty. 
 They say coal is a necessary of life. 
 Is it more necessary than clothing, 
 which is taxed ? or their light, which 
 
35 
 
 or the 
 )f this 
 ovided 
 settled 
 nillion 
 19 the 
 'ies by 
 J that 
 r that 
 
 bring 
 squires 
 licy to 
 iquires. 
 ;ountry 
 ia im~ 
 jin the 
 
 Scotia 
 69,000 
 it once 
 ;hat we 
 10 tons 
 ,h open 
 ity. In 
 m the 
 of bitu- 
 415,000 
 to say, 
 Bs 768,- 
 ey took 
 ous. Is 
 
 put it 
 
 lustice, 
 ears in 
 I see 
 Toleum ; 
 
 produc- 
 
 result 'i 
 tVIr. Me- 
 ed that 
 3r cent, 
 '^o ; but 
 rovinces 
 that we 
 it duty. 
 
 of life, 
 clothing, 
 it, which 
 
 is taxed fur the benefit of Ontario V 
 Why not tux coal for the hnn'^fit d 
 Nova Scotia ? You may say to me, 
 you have foi ght long and have not 
 yet got justice for the coal of Nova 
 Scotia. I will show you that all you 
 have got to do is to sustain Sir John 
 Macdonald and the Liberal-Consorva- 
 tivo party, and wo will obtain, not 
 only a duty upon our coals, i)Ut thai 
 whicii wo aim for, a free market in 
 the United States. ... I say 
 this not in Cape Breton alone. Take 
 the Debates of Parliament, and you 
 will find tiiat I have again and again 
 argued, why not make coal a subject 
 of taxation — as well as light ? If the 
 duty did not shut out American coal, 
 you would have got over $3r)0,000 
 revenue from it last year with a duty 
 of fifty coiits per ton, and the deficit 
 would have been that much less. But 
 I say the effect of the imposition of that 
 fifty cents would be to give ^ us the 
 United States markets. 1 say you 
 can compete in the city of Ottawa 
 now with American coals ; and with 
 that fifty cents a ton you can send 
 your coal to Toronto and compete 
 with the United States coals. (Hear, 
 hear.) 
 
 But you ask, what guarantee have 
 we that we will get this V I give you 
 this : ten years ago I stood single- 
 handed advocating it ; I stand to-day 
 with the whole of the great Liberal- 
 Conservative party at my back, 
 pledged to this policy. At that time 
 we were only compelled to take oil 
 the duty by the Keform Party united 
 against us, aided by some of the 
 manufacturers of Ontario. Now, 
 I have in my hand a report from fifty 
 of the most wealthy and influential 
 manufacturers of the Province of 
 Ontario, who met in the city of To- 
 ronto, and passed a resolution en- 
 
 dorsiL,*; the national policy. They 
 said, we are prepared with a propei 
 readjustment of the tariff, to accept a 
 duty on coal. When you see the party 
 which to-morrow will be in power 
 (cheers) pledged to carry out this 
 policy (hear, near), 1 say tliat you 
 have the best evidence that it will 
 be carried out, that instead of having 
 the hardy lal[)oror, who, a few years 
 ago, was 
 
 earning 
 
 his living by his 
 you will see 
 not only as 
 so than ever 
 
 toil, starving, as now, 
 him in a condition 
 nourishing, but more 
 before. (Cheers.) 
 
 But you may ask, is there not a 
 sting in the tail? Must we not have 
 a duty on flour? No intelligent man 
 will ask that <iue8tion. All you 
 have got to do is to read Mr. Mc- 
 Kenzie'w speech, in which, talking of 
 the duty on (lour, he says, it id all 
 nonsense to say that it would increase 
 the price of flour. Why ? Because 
 we export flour • and for once he is 
 right. (Laughter.) You might as 
 well say that the duty of ten cents a 
 bushel on potatoes increases the price 
 of potatoes. 
 
 There is a variety of means by 
 whicli the coal trade can be fostered; 
 one way would be by taking off the 
 royalty ; but they would abuse us if 
 we should hand over to Nova Scotia 
 an equivalent for the revenue derived 
 from the royalty. 
 
 Another mode would be by im- 
 posing a duty en imported coal. Ano- 
 ther mode would bo by subsidizing 
 steamers to carry it into the Upper 
 Provinces, or the granti^ic; of a boun- 
 ty on exported coal. 1 confess my 
 preference is for the imposition of a 
 duty, because I want to get at 
 those coal mining monopolists in 
 Pennsylvania ; I wavic to make 
 them take off the duty on coal going 
 
86 
 
 into tho United States, and have it nor wine, nor do I use tobacco in any 
 
 free all round. form, and I l»elievo people are better 
 
 I say there is another reason why without cither, but takiu}^ tiiis as a 
 
 Canada should foster the coai interests mere -piestion of fair play, I can safe- 
 
 of the country. Look at tho history ly ask you if the tariff does not need 
 
 of the world, and you find thai what- re-adjustmont in regard to those 
 
 ever country possesses great supplies items." — Morniwj Herald. 
 
 of coal and iron has risen in the scale * 
 
 From the ILdifnx Itej)(>rter, A mj. UHh 
 
 The Prohibitory Law. 
 
 of nations in wealtli and prosperity, 
 just in the ratio in which it develop- 
 ed coal and iron industries, I say just 
 in that ratio is she bound to rise ; and 
 
 just in that ratio is this groat country There certainly seems a great deal 
 
 to rise, by developing and fostering of sound common sense in wiiat Mr. 
 
 her great coal and iron industries. — Lithgow propounds in your last cven- 
 
 Cape Breton Advocate. ing's issue- 
 
 . . . *' Tea and colTee, that we As a member of the Dominion Al- 
 
 made free because they were articles lianco, and a warm and honest ad- 
 
 usod Ijy the masses of the people, this vocate of a Prohibitory Licjuor Law, 
 
 government re-taxed. When they I admit that his argument meets my 
 
 announced their intention of taxing views exactly, 
 
 these necesi;aries of life, we endeavor- It is, as ho says, the great revenue 
 
 ed to prevent it ; we were unable to arising from the enormous duty on 
 
 do that, and then we said to them, at alcoholic drinks, principally paid b) 
 
 least levy the taxes with some degree the working classes, which makes 
 
 of fairness ; they refused that. . . . such a law at the present time ab- 
 
 We moved that an ad valorem duty solutely an impossibility. But once 
 
 be put on. What did that mean 'i free the question from such an en- 
 That any xiian buying an amount of tanglement, and r Prohibitory Liquor 
 
 tea and coffee should pay in proper- Law would soon, I believe, become 
 
 fixed fact. 
 
 We also as temperance men — at 
 least many of us— are willing to bo 
 taxed ourselves, and we insist that 
 the whole land should be taxed, in 
 order that the unholy traffic may be 
 
 sug- 
 
 tion to what he got, that the poor 
 man should have an equal chance 
 with the rich. They voted that 
 down. What was the effect':' Hat 
 under tho tariff on the Statute look 
 to-day, the rich man pays ten per 
 cent, duty on the tea he drinks while stopped. 
 
 the poor man pays thirty on his. . . . Can we not in Mr. Lithgow's 
 Then take the article of wines and gestion, by supporting Sir John A. 
 liquors. ; . . Macdonald's policy, see an easy and 
 
 Mr. Lithgow shows that the spiritu- light way out of the difficulty, and tlie 
 ous beverages of the poor man are beginning of the glorious end we so 
 taxed two and three hundred per cent.j earnestly desire. 
 while the brandy of the rich man is This is a new phase of the question 
 taxed only eighty per cent, so tobac- worthy, I think, the attention of 
 CO pays 210 per cent, and good cigars thoughtful temperance men and 
 but 40 percent. I do not use spirits voters, B. 
 
wmmm 
 
 
 i 
 
 ;i\