IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) V // /> €<. C^, 1.0 I.I 1.25 155 2.5 tt 12.2 IIIIM »40 12.0 1.8 14 III! 1.6 ^i s images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et cie la nettet6 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. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — »> (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont filmis en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commen9ant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en torminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbole 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 film6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est film6 A partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauchd d droite. et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m6thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 •- , . ! > 'I Ir<"' Q '■ «/* •r 4 I ^^^^^ '/^/ .^r~ r-. ,. yqw w i ig wcrw ■ n il — ■ I« 1 WI—1 11 ^ ^' • iVS' .^a-:> XO THK b.IAKEHO.-J>ERfci, UCVf;F.f?j>fENT. OiT RAn_,VVAT O'H A.:iTEKS ."JKANT-KD BY 8T OCTOEER, 1887 7:-'.Krr;i my ArTHoniTv of the W lANlPIU, JSOAI'O Oi" TKADft; AM) Tlfi: B«ANDi:)\ Rf#ARI) OF T5?AI)i:. \l \ ♦ ■>^ To the Shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway ^ Company: Gentlemen, — TJie Boards of Trade of the City of Winnipeg, the capital of the Province of Manitoba, and of the City of Brandon, request, as a matter of justice, your consideration of the appended statement of facts connected with the present agitation in Manitoba, for the construction of a line or lines of railroad in competition with the lines of your Company, This information is demanded by the recent circular or letter r idressed to you by your president, Sir George Stephen, which circular or letter is so unjust and so untruthful in character that it cannot be allowed to pass without challenge. We think we will be able to convince you that that document is based upon misquotation of the contract with^the Company, and misrepre- sentation both of the constitutional rights of the Province and of the extent and character of the present agitation. THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. In order that a proper understanding of the matters in dis- pute may be arrived at, it is necessary to consider the pro- visions of the Canadian Constitution, and the position with respect to the Federal authority that Manitoba, and the' other provinces, occupy. This is admirably summarized in a letter declared to be from "an eminent Canadian statesman," published in the London (Eng.) Economist : Under the Confederation Act two vetoes are reserved. One is in favor of the Imperial Government, under which they are empowered to disallow any act of the Dominion Parliament within two years The other is in favor of the Dominion Government, by which they, in turn, have the power to dis- allow any act of any of the IocaI legislatures with one year. These powers are couched in precisely simile: terms and confer precisely similar autnority. They were naturally very fully discussed during the debates on the Confed- eration act and subsequently, afid it was then most plainly declared — as, in- deed, might be expected from the very nature of the case— that these vetoes were most strictly of the nature of reserved powers, only to be exercised in extreme emergencies, and where it was dear that the Provincial or Dominion legislatures had overstepped their legitimate functions. It was never con- templated for one instant that such a power would be had recourse to for the purpose of depriving a province of the right to legislate on any subject clearly within its jurisdiction, and it is not possible to conceive a grosser violation of the whole spirit and intent of the Act of Confederation than to attempt to use it for any such purpose I hardly need point out to your readers, that were the Imperial cabinet to use its power to veto any act passed by the dominion Parliament on a matter admittedly within its juris- i I! — 2 diction, the result would be most serious^ ; and the situation as between Mani- toba and the Dominion authorities is exactly similar. Sir John Macdonald himself said, during the course of these debates : " The rights of self-government heretofore conceded to the several Prov- inces are not in any wise unpaired by their havinjj entered into a Federal compact, and no infringement upon those rights, wmch would be at variance with constitutional usage, or witn the lilterty of action previously enjoyed by the Proviiicf.s when under the direct control of the Imperial Government, would be justifiable on the part of the Dominion Executive." There was no misunderstanding the purport of the Confeder- ation Act. Lord Carnarvon, in 18'^fj, in alluding to the veto power, used this language : * ♦ "If the Dominion b^gislature, or those members of it who, for the time being, are selected as the advisers of the Governor-Genoral, could be said to have the power of controlling the enactment or operation of Pro- vincial Acts, the consequence would be a virtual repeal of the section of the British North America Act, 1867, which gives the exclusive right of legislation in certain matters to the Provincial Legislatures," As further evidence of the abuse of the veto power by the Federal authority, of which Manitobans bitterly complain, atten- tion is called to the fact that an Interprovincial Conference is about to be held, when all the Provinces of the Dominion, origin- ally comprising Confederation, will be represented, and at which it is the declared intention to request Imperial Legislation with a view to the entire removal of a prerogative that has oeen grossly abused. Clearly, if the Federal authority has technically the legal power to disallow Manitoba Railroad Legislation, the exercise of that power is to perpetrate a constitutional wrong, and to en- danger the very ground work of Confederation. Yet, it is only upon this slender thread that a pretext can be found for thwarting the railroad projects of Manitoba. THE MONOPOLY CLAUSE. We now come to consider this constitutional question as it atfecta the charter granted to the Canadian Pacific Railroad Com- pany, and in so doing will deal with the letter of the President of the Company. On the second of October, 1880, the now famous contract be- tween the Dominion Government and the Canadian Pacific Rail- way Company was signed, and on the 17th of February following it was adopted. Sir George Stephen says : Article 15 of the contract provided that for twenty years the Dcnninion Government should not authorize the construction of any line of railway run- /KJ — 8- ning south from the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway to any point within fifteen miles of the international boundary. The very words of the clause are : For twenty years from the date hereof no line of railway shall be author ized by the Dominion Parliammt to be constructed south of the Canadian Pacific Railway from any point at or near the Canadian Pacific Railway, ex- cept such lino shall run west or west of southwest, nor within fifteen miles gf latitude 49. and in the event of the establishment of any new Province in the Northwest Territories, provision shall be made for continuing such 'prohibition. It will be observed tliat there is an apparent willful mis- quotation by Sir George of the wording of the monopoly clause, by using the words " Dominion Government," while the contract leads " JJominion Parliament.' By the alteration he destroys the meaning of the entire clause. " Mind you, the Dominion Parliament, ' said Sir John Macdonald, referring to this clause, and he did well to emphasize the words. The Dominion Parliament — which could not check Manitoba — was bound, and not the Dominion Government — which might, through the veto power, (although committing a constitutional wrong,) have done so. In any event, it would scarcely have been possible for parliament to have given a pledge that the power of disallowance would be exercised, because that power is a prerogative of the crown, over which parliament has no control beyond approval or disapproval of the advice given to the Gov- ernor General by his constitutional advisers. Advice which, in the opinion of many eminent jurists, and in that of the popula- tion of this Province, it is not necessary His Excellency should ask in using so high a power. Indeed, in taking such a course, his instructions from Her Alajesty might undoubtedly be of such a nature as to debar him on this question asking the advice of his ministers. At any rate, had members of the Dominion Government bound themselves to advise the disallowance of such acts, they could only have bound themselves as individuals as long as they remained in power, and could not have bound a government composed of men who took an opposite view of the question, and might have ditfereutly advised the Governor- General. For reasons already stated, the Dominion Parliament could not control the action of the Provincial Legislature of Manitoba, and did not attempt to do so. Manitoba was then an existing Province, clothed with all the powers of a Province under the British North America Act to charter railway lines within its own borders. That this fact was present to the minds of the makers of the contract at the time y '.i, I ul' making it is manifest from the caic taken to provide for tho (;a.se of any neiv Province. Yet, in full view of this fact, no provision of any kind was inserted in the contract, nor was an}' attempt made to establish monopoly in Manitoba. In other words, Manitoba was deliberately left free. But we have not to rely on the words of the "Contract alone. Sir John Maedonald said dui'ing the debate on the questions of ratifying the contract : In order to give them a chance wc have provided that the Dominon Pw- liament — mind you the Dominion PaiUftuient— we cannot checic Ontario, we cannot check Manitoba, — shall for the first iPti years after the construction of the road into which they are putting' so much money and so much land have a fair chance of existence Hon. Thos. White, then a supporter of the government, and now Minister of the Interior, used these words : There is nothing to prevent Manitoba now, if it thinks proper, giantinc a charter from Winnipeg to the boundary line. This provision does not t^lce away from Manitoba a single right it possesses. * * * There is nothintj to ]irevent tiu, Province of ManUoha from charieriwj a raihoay from, Winnifeij to the. boundary to connect with any southern railway. Th(i only guarantee which this company has under the contract is that the traffic shall not be tapped far west on the prairie section, thus diverting the traffic away from theii- line to a foreign line. But there is nothing to prevent a railway being built in Mani- toba, within the Province, that would carry the traffic to any railway that may take it from tb'. American side. This inter pietation of the provisions of the contract was gener- ally accepted by parliament and by the country. It was reiterated by the Ministerial press the length and bicadth of the Dominion, and not a single voice — although Sir George Stephen and his as- sociates were in hearing when these statements were made — was raised in contradiction. And, on the faith of these assurances, the contract was ratified and became law. It must, therefore,, be plain to ev^ry unprejudiced mind that the C P. R. Co. coidd not have expectod a monopoly in Manitoba. To make this plainer, it may be pointed oiit thnt within six weeks after the incorporation of the Company and the ratifica- tion of its contract, the same Parliament, at its same Session, passed an Act extending the limits of Manitoba, by. adding there- to a large tract of territory, which, up to that time, had been a part of the Northwest Territories, and subject to the fifteenth clause of the contract, and by the enactment making that exten- sion, Parliament provided that the said increased limits and the territory thereby added to the Province of Manitoba, should be subject to all such provision^ as may have been or shall hereafter be enacted respecting the 0. P. R. and the land to be granted in aid thereof. Here was an opportunity if it had been/ intended « that monopoly should be established within the original limits of Manitoba to have that matter placed beyond dispute. Yet the (lovornment and Parliament of Canada deliberately granted to Manitoba the large extension of her boundaries and confined the restriction to the added territory, which was already subjeijt to it. Despite tb.e pledges made to Parliament and the country with respect to the Legislative freedom of Manitoba, the Dominion Government in Novembei, 1882, disallowed several railway acts of this Province. This a'^tion caused a great deal of complaint in Manitoba, as it was regarded as a breach of faith. Protests by deputation and i'.emorial were made to the Ottawa authorities, and in I88i, on the occasion of a fresh application to Parliament for financial assistance for the C. P. R. Company, Sir Charles Tupper, the then Minister of Railways, said : I am glad to be able to state to the House that such is the confidence of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the power of the Canadian Pacific Railway to protect itself that when the line is constructed north of Lake Superior the Government feel it will not be incumbent upon them to pre- serve the position they have hitherto felt bound to preserve, that of refusing to consent to the construction of lines within the Province of Manitoba, connecting it with American railways to the south, Tt is quite clear that if the contract with the Railroad Com- pany called for a monopoly in Manitoba, the Government would not have set an early date for the abandonment of its policy of disallowance. Sir George Stephen and the other directors of the (A^mpany were aware that this promise was made and did not dissent. In fact, though challenged to do so, they have not denied that the promise was made with their knowledge and consent. Despite Sir Charles Tupper's promise, disallowance did not cease on the completion of the line north of Lake Superior, but Government has continued to declar > that its policy was a tenta- tive one. As to the factt; of the contract, the Hon. Thomas White ad- dressing the Junior Conservatives of Winnipeg, on the 8th of March last, said : Your address refers to the question of disallowance, and the elections must have recently occurred, and the discussions to which they have given rise have added additional interest to this question. As you are aware the contract with the G. P. R. in no way interferes with the right of (lie Legislature of ManitAjha to grant charters wUhin uw boundaries of the Province as they existed at that time. This was very clearly pointed out during the debates in Parliament, when the contract with the Svudicate and the charter to the Company were granted. During tlu iame month the Montreal Gazette, a newspaper which is underetood to be under the immediate control of Mr. White, said : ( I' -6 — Thequeatica of (iisallnwaucc of railway charters within the old bound- aries of Manitooai'i a iiuestion of policy, andin no vxiy either a legal wmfr.al obligation. On tVie third of May last, the Minister of Justice, addressitig the presidcJit of the Winnipeg Board of Trade and other n>eia- bers of an anti disallowance deputation f-om the (!ity of Win- nipeg, said : There is no lugal or conntitutional reason to prevent the Province charter- ing railways that may connect with American lines from the south mooting them at the boundary, it is a question 8in»i)ly of the Qovernmeut's trade policy. And oven since the letter of the President of the C. P K. Co. was made public, the Montreal Oazette, the leading organ of the Dominion Government, and, as already stated believed to beooji- trolled by Hon, Tlios. White, has said : Exactly the application the, Preitiicr intended his words to have we cannot, of course, know, tney may be read as referring solely to the legislative action of Manitoba, and certain it is that the disallowance of provincial charters to the houmlary v)as not a matter of contract loith the Canadian Pacific Raikoay Com- pany. It has also said : Tlu; harvest this year will {jo far towards solving the difficulty and rend- ering the abandouuient ». f disallowance possible without injury to the Railway Company, and, therefore, without menace to the commercial pros- perity of the country at large. And again : The duration of monopoly is dependent upon circumstances. If the interests of the country, which are so closely allied with that of the Company, •warrant its abandonment hi the early future, we believe the Government can consistently advise the Governor-General to assent to Provincial Railway Acts. ■ Could facts be found more damaging to Sir George's conten- tion, that his company was to have a monopply in Manitoba ? Every line of evidence is directly to a contrary effect : and your President admits the weakness of his case when he misquotes the monopoly clause, and completely ignores the facts so formid- ably arrayed against him. The contract did not provide for monopoly, and the existence of any private agreement — which at the best would be an insult to Parliament — has been publicly denied bv Sir Donald A. Smith. . * A FALSE CONTENTION. In view of the interpj etations above given, as to the consti- tutional powers of a [»rovince, it is useless for Sir George to pre- sent his afterthought that the province of Manitoba cannot char ^pafr;fe3tg^-. : J^v,^*^^. _7-. ii'V roads intended to connect at the boundary isvitli a foreif^n road. Mo says: " Power to legiBlate concerning railwayH extPmUiif,' bi-yonu the inter- iintioual boundary or intended to connect with other line« at huch boundary is nowhTC in the constitution given to the provincoH.'' Section 1)2 of tho British North Aniorica Aot, whlcli lays down the legislative povvars which the Dominion Parliament and the Provincial Legislature r spectively jmsHoss, and to vvhicl» Sir George refers, provides ns follows: " XCir ill each Province the Legislature niny excliisivoly make laws in rclntion tn matters coiuin^^' within the clasHes of Htiljecti- next honjjnaffor on- imiuerated, that is to say ; * ♦ * (10.) Local wori{« and undeitakin!?^ other than .such as are of tho follow- in tr classes : (a.) Line." of steamers or other ships, railways, canal.S; tel'';?ra]>h.s, and other works and undertakings connecting the Province with any 'olhi^r or others of tho Provinces, or extending beyond tho limits of \,. v Province, (b.) Lines of steamships between the Province and any Biiii'ih or foreign coiintry, (c.) Such works as, although wholly situate within th» Province, arc ho- fore or after their execution declared hy the Parliame jf Canada to ■ o for the general advar+age of Canada, for the udvantag'^ ot two o m uc of the ['rovince.s." N -v the Red River Valley Railway does not connect with any '• other or others of tho Provinces," it is not a " line of steamships," nor has it been "declared by tho Farliarnenf of (Canada to be foi* the general advantage of two or more of the Provinces;" if anything, the very reverse bas hai)pened. The only question, then, is. is it "a line extending beyond the limits of the Province," for if it is, it is not one of those subject-^ in re- lation to which the " Provincial Legislature may exclusively make laws," and in that case the Dominion Parliament might have the right to inteufere. The fact that a railway is at this raon>ent in construction from Port Arthur southwestward to a point in the United States boundary under the authority of a charter granted by the On- tario Legislature, ought to dispose of the contention put forward by Sir George, that there ar;; legal decisions on this particular point. This very question came before the Supreme Court of New Brunswick (another Canadian Province and therefore in precisely the same position as Manitoba) in 1871 in the case of the "Euro- pean and North Ami-ican Railway Company for the extension from St. John's, Westward " against " Thomas " and Chief Jus- tice Ritchie, who is now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, held as follows in delivering the judgment of the Court : li. ^ — 8 — "But it is claimed to have bt-en shown by evidence outside the Act that, at the time it was passed au i also at the time of passing of the 32 Vic. C. 64, it was contemplated and intended by the promoters of the undertaking to connect with a line of railway to *be built in ♦he United States, to meet the E. & N. A. Railway for extension from St. Jolm, Westward," at the bound- ary of the United States, and, therefore, it is contended, it "vas a railway ex- tending beyond the limits of the Province. But we think 'ja have no right to look to intentions or anticipations, or doings of parties outside the Pro- vincial Legislature, either in the State of Maine or in the Province of New B^un3^vick, and that the intention of the Legiskturc, as expressed in the Act, alone ran control us — that the fact of the Legislature of the State of Maine authorizing, or its people intending to construct, or actually constriicting, a line of railway in that country, cannot in any way affect the authority of our own Legislature to legislate on, and deal with railway undertakings, provid- ed always such railways do not connect the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, nor extend beyond the limits of the Province. " This is the simple question, and all we have to consider in determining on t^e vahdity of the Act. As to any possible or probable connection of the railway authorized to be constructed under this Act (v;hich may have been thought of at the time of passing the Act) with a line or lines of railway to be constructed, not under the authority of these Acts, in the United States, we have nothing to do. W e therefore think this is a local work and under- taking other than such as are of the classes enumerated in paragrjvphs a, b, and c, to sub-sec. 92, in relation to which the Legislature or this Province may exclusively make laws." It need only be added that Judges Allen, Weldon and Fisher concurred in the decision of the Chief Justice. Thus we see that the entire bench of judges in the New Brunswick Supreme Court have found that " a line extending beyond the limits of the Province/ does not mean a line running to its boundary. Presuming the Province of Manitoba has no power to make foreign connections, what right has your Company to invoke Dominion interference ? It took the contract in knowledge ^•f the fact that it was to have no monopoly in this Province. If it has got all that the contract calls for, it cannot consistently ask for more. Your President says you were to be guaranteed protection from the south. Certainly, but only as far as the Dominion Par- liament had jurisdiction ; and that jurisdiction did not extend to Manitoba, but solely to the section of countiy then comprised in the Northwest Territories. To grant Sir George what he now claims would indeed be a breach of faith -not with the C. P. R. Company, it is true, but with the people and Parliament of Can- ada, and more particularly with the people of Manitoba. If representations of a diflferent and misleading cliaracter have been, and are being, made to you by your President and others, the fault does not lie with Manitoba, but with those who have made them. % — 9- THE LINEv NORTH OF LAKE SUPERIOR. ft is true the construction of the line north of Lake Superior was a condition imposed upon your Company, but it was part of a bargain, for which you received enormous grants both of land and money. You undertook the construction of this portion of the road knowing that monopoly in Manitoba was no part of the price, and your President should not now ba attempting to make it such. We are glad to have the admi&sion that even from this unpromising section a valuable traffic is likely to be secured, and protest that as the Company is here receiving something it did not expect, it should not be seeking to acquire in addition some- thing to which it has neither moral nor legal right. NOT A MEHE VILLAGE. Nor was Winnipeg a mere village, as Sir George asserts, at the time the contract with your company was entered into. So far was this from being the case that Winnipeg had a population of 12,000 at that time and an assessment of over S0,000,000, and it was from this mere village that Sir George Stephen and his associates were able at that very time tc extract the following substantial grants, viz : A cash bonus of $200,000, the building of the Louise bridge by thfi city at an expense of $250,000, exemption of all their pro- perty within the city from taxation for ever, and free right of way through the city with station grounds, costing about $20,000. Sir (TGorge's sneer at the position of Winnipeg in 1881 was, therefore, uncalled for and devoid of truth. ft is also untrue that the j-ailway monopoly was received without dissent in Manitoba. It was denounced by the Legisla- ture and at largely attended public meetings, and the clamor only ceased when positive assurances were given to parliament, and through the ministerial pi"e?3, that there could be no restriction placed upon Manitoba's rights in the matter of railroad contruc- tioii within her borders. BRANCH LINES. Sir George Stephen also claims credit for the Company for having constructed branch lines in Manitoba to a considerable extent, and says that all these, except sixty -five miles, were built with the Company's money. But the fact is that a great propor- tion of this mileage was built with the proceeds of large land grants from the Dominion Government, assisted by the Govern- ment of Manitoba to the extent of $6,400 per mile in provincial debentures and the sale of their own oonds. In point of fact, a large profit accrued to the promoters out of the building alone of t : m — 10 - these branches, which are in themselves remunerative. These things are well-known here, and it is idle for Sir George to claim that Manitoba should hb satisfied with monopoly out of gratitude for the building of branch lines. FREIGHT RATES. Your President claims that the Company has made its rates, both for freight and passengers, on a scale far below the rates of any of the railways of the United States similarly situated. What ho means by the words "similarly situated" it is hard to say, but below will be found some comparison of rates with the railways supplying the States of Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa, immediately south of the Province of Manitoba, with which the farmers of this Pronnce have to compete in the production of grain, and the Province for immigrants. Comparing first the all-rail rates for carloads, the rate fi-om Winnipeg to Montreal by the Canadian Pacific, a distance of 1,423 miles, is 46 cents per 100 pounds at the recently reduced rate. From St. Paul to New York, a distance of from ] ,420 to 1,500 miles, according tu the rail route taken, the rate is 32| cents; from Council Bluffs, la., to New York, 1.440 miles, 2.5 cents per 100 pounds. That is to say, the Manitoba settler shipping from Winnipeg gets lOi cents per 100 pounds or eight cents per bushel less for hin wheat, in coiiseqv.ence of the higher raiWoad rate, titan the Minnesota or Dakota settler, shipping from St. Paul : and SI cents per 100 pounds or 13 cents per bushel lessthaiL the Iowa settler shipping from Council Bluffs. The through rail-and-boat rates for carloads hit him quite as hard. The rate per 100 pounds from Winnipeg to Fort William is 24 cents, and from there to Montreal by Canadian Pacific boats 15 cents, or 39 cents in all. On the other hand the rate from St. Paul to Chicago by rail is 7i cents, and the rate from Chicago to Montreal or New York 10 cents, the through rate being thus 17 cents, or less than half that imposed on the Manitoba settler. The through rate from Minneapolis to Liverpool, via Duluth, including harbor dues, etc., is 29 cents per 100 pounds The through rate from Winnipeg to Liverpool, via Port Arthur and Montreal is 51 cents. So that the Canadian settler is handi- capped in the Liverpool market to the extent of 22 cents per 100 pounds, or l?>h cents per bushel. It must be , borne in mind, however, that this does not represent the full extent of his disability. He is much further from Winnipeg as a rule, than the Minnesota or Dakota settler is from St. Paul •MiMMaw^BMitf. % — 11 — or Minneapolis ; and as his local wheat rate is much higher than that in force on the American side of the line, he loses heavily at that end of the shipment. The following table, compiled from the Canadian Pacific tariff, No. 61, which went into effect ou April 25 last, and from the St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba tariff No. 67, which took effect on August 26 last, will show the difficulty under which the Canadian settler labors as regards local wheat rates in carloads : G. P. R. frma M.