^^^ Vu^ ^^ IMAGE EVALUATrON TEST TARGET (MT-3) €^0 €// V ^ W / ^^ / Us t 1.0 III I.I ' la 11.70 L25 ill 1.4 6" 1.8 1.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation 13 WEcussing the duties on different goods, and endeavouring to prove to the Young Men's Liberal Association of Wal- laceburg that the poor mai is paying the burthen of duty, and the rich man is getting oflf scot free, or nearly so. What does he say 1 " We have the item of blankets. A good article costing 63 J cents per pound is taxed 35 per cent., so that in order to get three you have to pay the price of four, or, if you bought in four, it cost you more than the price of the fourth blanket for the duty. Those at 17 pence, 40 per cent., and the cheaper article in more common use, 70 per cent. The goods in demand by the wealthy pay 35 per cent. ; those used by the working classes pay 70 per cent. — a most un- righteous discrimination. Who is it that pays the 70 per cent. ? The man Avho is the least able and who is obliged to buy the poorer classes of goods. Who pays the least ? The man whose circumstances enable him to pay the most. In ladies' jackets and mantles, too, they have a kind of sliding scale, illustrated by 54 per cent. ; 48. 8d., 48 per cent. the following; Goods at 3s. Ud. lid., 42 per cent.; 7e. 3d., 40 per cent.; Os. lid., 37 per cent.; 98. 5s. , ... 9d., 30 per cent. ; 29s. 9d., 28 per cent. This is the Tariff as it affects woollens. I could go on and give you the cotton instances too, if time permitted. Now, if your Government had put on the Statute Book in words to this effect : Whereas it is desirable that an Act should oe passed putting the burden ot the taxes upon the poor to the exemption of the rich, therefore be it enacted that the cheaper classes of blankets be taxed 70 per cent, and the best blankets only pay 35 per cent. ; and the cheaper classes of cloths pay 50 per cent., and the fine cloths only pay 23 per cent. ; that the poorest carpets pay 36 per cent., and the rich goods only 20 per cent. ; also that the poorer mantle cloths pay 54 per cent., and the high class cloths only 28 per cent. Suppose that if either Mr. Hawkins or Mr. Smith had voted for such a Bill you would have condemned him when he returned for re-election, lor having sanctioned such an unjust and iniquitous measure. And because they knew you would, that is not the way they did it. They say the rich man shall buy a pound of cloth and pay so much ; a poor man shall buy a pound and pay the same. But, gentlemen, it is kept in the back-ground that th« rich man's pound is light and costly goodJs, while the poor man's is heavier and cheap." 9d., "We had tho hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Mills) there too. I had the pleasure of listening to liini, and I think he spoke a great deal better in tho country than he does here. It seemed to me the other night that he was not really sure whether he was here representing the views of the majority of the people of Bothwell or not. I have heard the hon. gentleman illustrating this Protective Policy with his hat. He would say, " Gentlemen, there is a hat (holding it up). Suppose we had not tho National Policy and I went Lito the United States, I would pay $1 for that ha'^; I would come over from Detroit to Windsor, and pay 17J^ per cent., so that it would cost me $1.17|. Under this policy, however, I pay $1 for the hat in the States, I come over to Windsor and pay 25 per cent, duty, so that the hat would cost $1.25." Then his friends would choer the hon. gentleman and say " that is splendid." But tho 25 per cent, was not put there to burthen tho poor man, but to give our manufac- turers the home market for all kinds of goods they manufacture. Now, supposing that hat is made in Canada, and the Canadian maker can sell it for $1.20 ; another man comes, offers to make the same kind for $1.15 ; then. No. 3 brings tho price down to a dollar ; and another manufac*iurer still comes along and says, I will not allow the Americans to get this trade, ?. id I will sell the hat for 90 cts. So home aompetition brings down the price. (Applause.) But that is not tho best of it. Without this National Policy, v/e would be compelled to j-et these ..ats in the United States ; and the manufacturers of hats . o^uld have all that country to sell their hats in, and would bring their surplus here. Now, without this policy, we would have to pay that dollar. Where v ould it go to ^ Every man knows that it would go to the United States. The hatter would pay the dollar to the whole- sale man, the wholesaler would pay it to the retailer, the retailer to the labourer, the labourer to the butcher, the butcher to the farmer, the farmer to the blacksmith, and the blacksmith to someone else, and every man whose hands that dollar went through would make from 10 to 26 percent., and it would benefit thousands of people in the United States. Where would the hat be 1 In Canada, and in six months it would be worn out, then we would have neither hat nor money. I have a hat that was bought in London at the rate of $4.50 a dozen, or three York shillings a piece. That hat can be sold for 50 cts., giving a profit of 33J per cent. ; and the result is that when that hat is worn out, the money is in the country, and the poor man can buy another with it. But the argument of the hon. gentle- man is that the poor man has to pay this duty. Now, how is it ] The poor man comes into a store where there is a hat for 50 cts., another for 75 cts., another for a dollar, and another for ^1.25, all manufactured in Canada. But if he wants a finer hat, he takes a fine wool hat on which duty has been paid ; and I say that if he buys a $4.G0 hat, that is his business, and not the business of the Keform party of this country. The poor man is not compelled to buy that kind of a hat, but if he wants 8 a hat like the one the leader of the Opposition wears, and he pays his three or four dollars for it, that is his business, and not the business of the Reforra party. (Applause.) Now, Sir, we will come to the ques- tion of a particular kind of cloth. The hon. gentleman, when talking to the people of West Kent, told them that the poor class of people paid 50 per cent, on their cloths, while the rich man paid only 23 per cent. Well, 1 had occasion to go to a factory in West Kent, and I said : " I want a yard of your heaviest cloth." There is the piece of cloth I got (holding it up). It has a pound of wool in it, and I paid 50 cts. a yard for it. It cost 30 cts. to manufacture it. Now, I would like to know where is the 50 per cent, paid on that piece of cloth. 1 will promise the hon. gentleman that if he or any of his supporters behind him — and there are a lot of merchants there — can stand up and show the house that there is 50 per cent, of duty paid on this kind of cloth, I will leave this side of the House, and go and support the hon. gentleman. Well, I explained this at a meeting in West Kent. After I got through, an old French gentleman came up to me and said : " Do you see that cloth in these pants 1 " slapping his hand on his leg. My sheep grows that wool, my wife bpins and my girl weaves it, ar. i. would like to know how I pay 50 per cent, on that." WI.at xs the difference whether it is done om my farm, or at Mr. Taylor's factory in Chathaoj, it is all done in West Kent,, and I would like these hon. gentlemen to show mo how a cent of duty is paid on it. (Cheers.) But it is just like the case of the hat. A poor man goes into a store, and he sees different kinds of cloth tkere at from 60 cts. a yard to a dollar or $1.25, all manufactured in Canada, but if he must have Scotch goods or goods imported from other countries, then he pays the 23 per cent, the hon. gentleman spoke of. So that it is the ri?^h man that pays 23 per cent, and the poor man does not pay anything at all. Now, we will carry this argument a little further. If the hon. gentlemen's argument were correct, thon if the duty was 75 per cent., the poor man would have to pay 75 per cent, more for his cloth ; if the duty was a dollar, the poor man would have to pay a dollar more ; and if the cloth were prohibited altogether, then the hon. gentleman would have to go back to Wallaceburg and tell the boys there, " Unless you put us back in power before your last pair of breeches are worn out, you cannot get another pair, because cloth is prohibited from coming into the country." Then, of course, he would have to say : ** Gentlemen, if I was wrong when I said in Nova Scotia that it took 9 yards to make a shirt, am I wrong now in telling you that you will have to take 9 yards for a shirt, after your pants are all worn out 1 " (Cheers.) Well, Sir, when we went to West Kent, '"e found that the Reform candidate and all the speakers for the Reform party w«re attacking the National Policy, just as it was attacked here by the 'eader of the Opposition. They all say the same thing. It puts me in nyind of the two little boys who were quarrelling. One says it is so, and the other says it is not so, " Well, 1 tell you it is so," says the ; pays his isiness of the ques- i talking )f people y 23 per nt, and I e is the a it, and Now, piece of 7 of his jre — can uty paid ise, and bis at a ntleman pants 1 " my wife ' pay 50 e om my 3t Kent, ' duty is A poor ■here at irod in tn other poke of. an does a little he duty i. more lave to hen the he boys pair of ) cloth rse, he 1 Nova telling ats are mt, "'e leform i here [t puts ^s it is ys the first boy, " because mother says it is so, and when she says it is so, it is- 80, if it is not so." (Laughter.) That is just the way with hon. gentle- men opposite. They say it is so if Mr. Blake says it is so, because when he says it is so, it is so, if it is not so. . . . ;, , ! T WHAT WEST KENT SAID. > I It happens that "West Kent sent to tlie Ontario Legislature a supporter of the Mowat Government, from 1879 to 1883, with a majority of 140. But the party were not satisfied with that majority, and at the general election they sent the Attorney-General to Chatham to have a grand mass meeting the night before the election. Well, they had a grand mass meeting ; the Attorney-General was there, and Mr. Meredith was there to meet him ; and the result was that the people of West Kent decided to send to the Ontario House a supporter of Mr. Meredith, with 400 majority. At the last general election of this House, Mr,- Smith was elected by only 166 majority. His opponent, Mr. Sampson, was sick in bed, and it was said that if he had been up, he would have been elected. Well, there has since been another election, when the leader of the Opposition went to Wallaceburg, and the hon. member for Bothwell also went into the Kiding to educate the people, ao that they would be sure to send Mr. Sampson here with a large majority. Instead of Smith coming back with 166 of a majority, after the people heard from all these gentlemen, they sent him back with 283 of a majority. (Applause.) I do not pretend to say that I can argue con- stitutional law with the leader of the Opposition ; I do not pretend to say that I can argue Chancery law with the hon. gentleman ; I do not pretend that I have had the experience in public speaking, or the education he has had ; but I say that when I am talking about cloth and cottons, I know as much of what I am talking about as he knows when he is arguing a question of constitutional law. In the matter of law, I only have the theory, where he has the practice, but iu the matter of these goods, he has the theory, and I have the practice. Now, ho puts me in mind of Henry Ward Beecher. Henry Ward Beecher was a great preacher and a great theorist. He found out b\' i*eading and observation — he had read a great many books on farmint; and he made lip his mind he would try the farming business — he found out by read- ing and observation that dried apples were worth more than green ones, so the first year he planted $1,500 worth of dried apples. It was a dry summer and the apples did not come up. The next thing h© tried was pork. He bought a pig for $S ; fed it with $25 worth of corn and sold it for $9 ; and then he said : I did not mind that so much, for though I lost a little on the corn, I made on the pig. The hon. gentle- man argues theory and not from practice. I say he can- not show, nor can one of his supporters show, where the poor man pays a single cent of duty on the mass of goods worn by him. The hon. member for North Norfolk said the Finance Minister haa- i «tated in tLis House that grey cottons were as cheap in Canada to-day as in Massachusetts, but he would like some one to show him that they are as cheap. I will give the hon. gentleman practieal proof. Here is a piece of cotton manufactured in Canada, a yard wide. It does not take 9 yards of that to make a shirt either. (Cheers,) That cotton costs 5| cents a yard, and I defy anyone to show where he can get goods cheaper in the United States. Why cannot cotton be manufactui-ed here as cheap as in the United States 1 The raw cotton is brought from the United States into Canada free, it is taken into the manufactories and there worked up ; it is sold to the wholesale dealer who sells it to the retailer, And why should it not be sold here as cheap as in the United States 1 , '■'■'''':'-;:^:'-^. ^'f: COMPKriTION REGULATES OGST. Competition is bringing it to a figure as cheap to-day as in the United States. These gentlemen said that the competition would not bring the prices down, did they not also say that the manufacturer would make 40 per cent ? That the rich would get richer and the poor man poorer 1 Their policy was to make the rich man poorer and then starve the poor man to death. They told us that goods would be dearer. Did they not tell us that when we put 35 per cent, on cotton that cotton would cost the poor man 2 or 3 cents a yard more 1 Did not they tell us that nails, that sugar, that everything on which a duty was put, would cost the people more ? Did they not tell us that people would have to pay more for agricultural implements t Now, the ei-Minister of Finance himself says : You are right when you say they are cheaper than ever I)efore. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. I do not. Mr. WIGLE. The hon. gentlemen said " hear, hear," when 1 said they were cheaper to-day than ever before. He said "hear, hear," when I said competition among the manufacturers b^-ought the prices down. (Applause.) He cannot deny that. If he did not say it, he ought to say it. (Applause.) When the Conservative party were in Opposition, did they stand up here and whine at the Government and say your policy is wrong but we have nothing to propose 1 No ; they stood u and said, your Revenue Tariff of 17^ per cent., under the cir- cumstfi 'es, is not what we want. We want a Protective Policy, and if you dc lot give it to us, we will go to the people, and we went to the people with a platform. But when we ask these gentloraen what their platform is, what their principles are, what do they say ! Principles — we have no principles ; we are not iv. power. That is their whole action. While the hon. member for North Norfolk stated that the manufacturers were making 37 per cent., another hon. gentleman on that side said the competition among manufacturers was breaking them, all down. I would be glad to know the manufacturers are making 11 acla to-day that they Here is a s not take 'S 5| cents iheaper in J as cheap le United md there 3 retailer, d States ? 9 United tot bring aid make I poorer ? the poor 3r. Did \t cotton ;hey tell was put, le would U^inister cheaper a 1 said , hear," prices it, he were in jnt and j they the cir- and if to the >t their iples — whole at the jan on them laking I "f A a fair profit, I would much rather they made a good profit than see ourselves keeping up manufacturers in other countries. Foreign manufac- turers do not manufacture goods for nothing for Canada, and why should we ask ours to do so 1 These gentlemen would rather read from the Blue Books of the United States that manufacturers there were making from 10 to 15 per cent., than read in our Blue Books that our own manufacturers were making the same profit. That is their policy. Our policy is to build up our manufactures, and we hope they will make good profits. Hon. gentlemen opposite, all through their speeches, have said this National Policy has caused so many man- ufacturers to ejftond their capital that it is ruining them. But that is their owa business, if they choose to put their money into enterprises of this kind. We all take our risk. They go into the business with their eyes open, and if they come out unsuccessful, they cannot blame the Government. We all have the liberty to put our money into manu- factures or to keep it out. AFTER RECESS. MUNICIPlL AND FEDERAL TAXATION. — THE DIFFERENCE. In one portion of the hon. gentleman's speech (Mr. Blake) before the Young Men's Liberal Association j^in Wallaceburg, pointed to the Finance Minister of the present Conservative Govern- ment, and said : " Gentlemen, what would you think if a Reeve of your township would come before you for re-election, and would claim your support on the ground that he had a surplus of |5,000 from the last year ? " He was arguing that the surplus of this Government was a wrong thing, and not a good thing for the country. He asked them what they would do if this Reeve, claiming he had a surplus of $5,000, asked them to elect him on that account. "You would ask him where he got his $5,000, and he would reply that he took it from the pockets of the people. Would you send a man like that back again as your representative in the County Council] " That was not a fair argument. The hon. gentleman ought to have told the young men of that associa- tion the truth of the case. He did not tell them that there was a great difference in the way municipal affairs were carried on, and the way Government affairs were carried on. He did not tell them that municipal affairs were carried on by direct taxation. Every man in this country knows that municipal affairs are not carried on in the way the affairs of Government are carried on. They know that applications are put in for money for diffCTent parts of the munici- pality, and on a certain day the assessor has the assessment roll com- pleted, and all the municipal Reeve has to do is to figure up how much is appropriated and see how much the assessment is, and figure out so much on the dollar on the amount the township is assessed, and he need not have a surplus at all. On the other side, the Government have to 12 look to the future, and calculate as to impoi'ts and exports, and so on ; so- it is very different. (Applause.) But, when he was putting this as he did, why did he not put it as it was, and say : " Gentlemen, this Finance Minister, the Finance Minister of the Conservative Govern- ment, left us this last year with a surplus of .$6,000,000 ; the ex -Finance Minister, Mr. Cartwright left you with a deficit of $11,000,000 in five years ; which would you rather have to represent you, the on«! who left you with a surplus of $6,000,000, or the other who left you with a deficit of $11,000,000] " That would be the way to put it, if his argument was correct. (Cheers.') That is one part of the hon. gentleman's speech. I was just thinking it would be a fine thing for him to go over and make a speech to the American young Liberals against the National Policy there. Would it not be a nice thing for the hon. gentleman to stand up there and say to the young Liberals in the United States : " Boys, see here, the Government •( the United States have put 35 cents a pound duty on leaf tobacco coming from Canada, and so you will have to pay 35 cents a pound more for your tobacco." Why, they would say, every little boy would say : *' That is not so ; I can buy tobacco here for 5 cents a jiound." Suppose he said the poor man's clothing cost 60 per cent, more because of the tarifi" on coarse goods from Canada or England, they would say : " No ; we have no Canadian or English goods here for the poor man; we manufacture our own goods, we grow our own wool and make our own clothes, and we do not pay a single cent duty." This speech of the hon. gentleman, where he tells the people that the poor man has to pay 50 per cent, on cloth, and 70 per cent, on other goods, 54 per cent, on mantle cloth, and so on, would not that be a fine speech for a pamphlet for an American emigration agent countries 1 in foreign WHY THE UNITED STATES OBJECTS. I imagine I see an American emigration agent in a foreign country saying : " The United States is the place to go to. It is true that we have protection and that they have protection in Canada, but the protection that we have is not the same as they have in Canada. In the United States we protect the poor man. He pays nothing for his coarse cloths in the way of duty, but here is the Hon. Edward Blake's speech, the leader of the Reform party in Canada, and he says it is the poor man who pays for the protection in Canada. Go to the United States, where the poor man is protected and the rich man has to pay the duty, and not to Canada, where the poor man has to pay all the burdens." Would not that be a nice pamphlet for a Yankee emigration agent ? What do we find in the Boston Herald ? The Boston Herald says Canada is over-protected, that the high protection has made agricultural implements dearer than before the National Policy ; and what do they give? They give the Globe for their authority. There would be Another nice little sheet to put in the American emigration pamphlet^ al r| tl -jiiitiiii memm 13 to read in foreign countries. (Applause.) Why is it the Americans always copy from the Reform papers 1 It is because they are always running Canada down, and the arerage American editor would rather that his people should read that Canada was lagging behind the United States than that she was coming even with the United States, under her policy. It would not do for us all to see alike ; I admit that. It is necessary to have an Opposition. There were some ministers of the Grospel once discussing this question, and one said : " It would not do for uE all to see alike ; if we had all seen alike, if everyone had seen with my eyes, every person would have been after my wife." (Laughter.) Another said : *' Yes, that is so ; but, if everyone had seen as I see, no one would lave been after her." (Renewed laughter.) That is just the same with the Reform party. If everyone saw as hon. gentlemen opposite see, everyone would have gone for a 17^ per cent, revenue Tariff, and we would have had a deficit every year ; but, if everyone had seen as the vast majority of the people have seen during the last two general elections, there would not be an hon. gentleman on that side of the House opposing this Government. That would not be right. We want them there. It makes tlip ^^^^,le in the country feel better to know there is an Opp'^'.laon to any Government. (Cheers.) I will tell you what I believt p\it those gentlemen out of power. It was their Finance Minister, nov. the ex-Finance Minister ; and that puts me in mind of another compai'^'on. A lady ai^plied to a child for some- thing for charitable purposes. " No," she said, " we cannot afford it, our father is poor, he was a mercL .nt,but he took a bad two dollar bill and failed." So with these gentlemen ; they took a bad two dollar bill, in the person of the member for Huron, and failed, and I am afraid they will never get back as long as he is their financier. Under this policy, there have been over 600 organs, made by Bell