7 i tgmmmmmmmfmmmm • f- I iiz '^mmjmB, MO»TKEAL, THURSDAY, NOV. 9. A RASH CRITIC. Principal Grant, of Queen's univeraity, hEB once again stepped outside the pale of thcee functions for which he is al- mirably fitted, and which he so efficient- ly discbarges, to air his views upon pub- lic aflairs and to indicate the reforms in our administrative system he deems ne- cessary to the promotion of the best in- terests of the country. The first proposi- tion he lays down is that "a government that really desires the interest of Canada must first, last, and all the time, stick to the line of husbanding instead of wast- ing our money," a statement so obvious- ly true and so generally recognized that its recital appears to be a matter of mere rhetorical redundancy. It is when the worthy Principal undertakes to support with practical illustrations the insinua- tion that the Government has been wast- ing the public money that the crudeness of his notions and the Inac- curacy of his information be- come so manifest as to pro- duce a conviction that impulse and impression, rather than research and study, have guided his criticisms. As a case in point we may take his allusions to the postal service of the Dominion. " The mother country," he says, " derives a clear revenue of millions sterling " from the post oflBce. Our post office " costs us a million and a half of dollars " above the revenue. It has for years *' been in a chronic state of what might " be termed departmental insolvency." Now in considering a statement of that character two questions at once arise: (1) Is the comparison with the mother country fair, and (2) does the existence ot a deficit iu the working of the Dominion postal service imply either a waste of money or.a disadvantage to the commun- ity ? The comparison instituted by Principal Grant is not fair. He himself destroys the whole force of his argument and arraignment when he admits that " of course, Canada is not so densely " populated as Britain," and he might with equal truth have added that the area of Canada is nearly twenty-nine times as large as the wholo of the United Kingdom. What do these dis- tinctions imply? Manifestly a cost of service vastly out of proportion to the revenue derived in the less thickly popu- lated and more widely extended country. Suppose, for example, that the cost of carrying a mail bag by any mode of transportation is the same per mile in Britain as in Canada, it is clear that the expense of conveying letters from Hali- fax to Victoria will be many times greater than from London to Edinburgh ; and in that single fact lies the whole ex- planation of the deficit in the Dominion postal revenue, which Principal Grant regards as palpable evidence of the wast- ing of public money. If that gentleman tad really desired a fair comparison he would have found a better analogy in the United States, although even there to oflT-set a wide area of country is to be found a population twelve times as great as our own. Yet in the United States, in the fiscal year ended June 30th last, the post office revenue fell short of the expenditure by no leas than $5,177,171. Let us enquire, however, whether the deficit in the Canadian post office is really a n.iIlion and a half annually as the Principal has stated. In 1892, the revenue from this source was $3,542,611, and the expenditure $4,205,985, leaving a deficiency of $663,374, or a good deal less than half the sum mentioned by him. Surely, one would thmk. « !lCZ " ^?"!!*^ man like Principal Grant undertook to discuss the subject of governmental ad- xuihistration and the condition of public aflairs, he ought to take the trouble to in- form himself of facts easily ascertain- able, instead of basing a tirade of ia- vective upon pure assumption or mere hearsay. As far back as 1879 the deficit in our pcstal revenue was $632,902. There was not, at that time, a single mile of railway in operation in Manitoba, the Northwest, or British Columbia. In the year 1893, the deficit in the postal revenue was $647,745, or practically the same as fourteen years ago. Although in the in- terval the number of post offices has been iDcreased by more than 2,700, and the number of miles ot post route has been doubled. In Manitoba, the Northwest and British Columbia there are more than 800 post offices scattered over an immense territory, nearly all of ■which have been established since 1879. The cost of serving the people resident in these provinces is infinitely greater, re- latively to population and income, than the cost of serving the people of Ontario, Will Principal Grant propose seriously to deprive Canadians resident in Manitoba, the Northwest, or British Columbia of postal facilities, because the deficit may thereby be wiped out ? And if he will not subscribe to so monstrously unjust a proposal, how does he suggest that the deficit of $600,000 can be overcome. By two means only, or by a combination of both, can the cost and the income from the post office be equalized. The revenue can be enlarged by increasing the rf te of postage ; does the Principal advocate that course ? If he does, we venture to say that his scheme will find few supporters in this country, where public opinion, so far as expression has been given to it, has Tented itself in a demand for cheaper xates. But, perhaps, Principa Grant's panacea for a wholly imaginary griev ance, is to reduce expenses. That can be done. Country post offices may bo closed up. Mail routes may be abandoned. Districts now served with daily mails may be made content with a bi-weekly aervice, and districts enjoying a bi-week- ly service may be reduced to a weekly one. In the cities the system of free delivery by carriers may be abandoned and the system of collection through let- ter boxes abolished. Does the Principal desire to proceed upon these lines? Does he even believe lor one moment that such a process of bringing about an equilibrium between revenue and expen- diture would either be tolerated, or, if tolerated, would conduce to the interest jiEd advantage of the community ? It is scarcely necessary to say that the quffition of the deficit in the postoffioe is not a matter of party politics in any Eecee. These shortages have existed in every year since Confederation, and must continue to exist lor some time to come unless the rates are increased, or the facilities given the public arecontracted. But they are on a descending scale, the deficiency having grown smaller every year since 1884. As population increases, as education becomes difTueed, as com- merce extends, the revenue from the ' poet office will mount up at a more rapid pace than the expenditure, until the two meet. So far as concerns the e^peudilure upon the sex vice, it may be stated that the great bulk of it arises out of transportation, made by contract wherever feasible, the lowest ten- der being in every case acceptel* As respects the payments to postmasters, in the vast majority of instances they are based upon a fixed and uniform percent - ege of the receipts ot the office, and when the percentage comes to exceed a reason- able sum, the postmaster is placed upon a salary that cannot be deemed exces- sive. While, as for the officials employ- ed in the inside service at Ottawa, we assert with confidence that neither in number or salary, nor efficiency are they open to the reproach Principal Grant in his haste has cast upon them. There may be opportunities for criticism and reform in connection with the public af- fairs of Canada; we know of no country or system of which the same might not be said ; but we are quite sure that upon reflection Principal Grant will conclude that the postal service, as a whole, does not wax rant his railing, more especially when the ground-work of his invective is proved to be an assumption barren of fact. M' '•q MONTREAL, TUESDAY, NOV. 14. TRADE WITH BRITAIN. Principal Grant is of the opinion that a leading feature of the commercial policy of Canada should be the encouragement of trade with Britain, a view which ex- actly coincides with the policy steadily pursued by the Dominion Government since 1S78. With the means which com- mend themselves to Dr. Grant as calcul- ated to rapidly attain this end there will, however, be wanting a ready assent In general terms his scheme is that two tariffs ought to be established, one by sea and one by land; that the land tariff ehould be much higher than tiie sea tariff, dnd that the object of the latter should be the development of trade wltli Great Britain. His argument is that "the policy advocated is in our own power, and reciprocity with the States ia not ;" that " it is sound policy to buy as much as possible where we sell " ; and that " by this policy our ' steamers would secure return cargoes, " and our producers would be no longer " handicapped by having to pay in effect " double freights. Business would be " increased, and more steamers would be " drawn steadily to our St. Lawrence " and ocean ports, instead of having to "depend on ' sea tramps.' " The pro- poeal thus outlined is assuredly a cour- ageous one, more brilhant, we fear, in theory than beneficial in practice. For what does it involve ? First of all, we are to cut aloof from the American mar- ket by making a discriminating tariff against that country. True, Principal Grant feebly attempts to argue that there would be no discrirainatioa in the literal sense, because, as he putg it, "American goods that can be shipped by Bea niigbt compete freely with Euro- pean," but the ethical niceties by which the ftincipal discovers a parity of treat- ment towards the United States and Great Britain under the double-tariff sya- tena Would hardly be approved by him in the domain of moral questions where he is wont to roam. Far preferable is it to at once proclaim the purpose to frame our fiscal policy in favor of trade ' with Britain, and against trade with our neighbors until su^h time as they take down their high tariff wall, and to run the risk of American retaliation at all points, if such a course can be commend- ed from the standpoint of Canadian in- terests, than to vainly seek to impose upon the Americans the pretence that a high tariff by land and a low taritf by Eea is not intended to discriminate against their country. Let us. however, examine for a moment Principal Grant's axioms. " It is sound policy to buy as much as pds- Bible where we sell." Granted, but equal- ly true is th,e cpny^rse of the proposi- tion, namely, to selt as much as possible wnere we ouy. jrtow, in i»y:i, we bought from the United States goods to the value of $53,000,000, and according to Principal Grant's reasoning the tariff should be so adjusted as to lead to the importation of the bulk of these goods from Great Brit- tain. Has the worthy Principal examin- ed the details of this trade? Doss he know that more than one-half of it con- sists of raw materials already free under the Canadian tariff, some of which can- not be produced in Britain at all, and others of which can be obtained there only at higher prices than Canadians are now required to pay ? Take, for in- stance, such items as gutta percha, raw cotton, leaf tobacco, hides, coai and agri- cultural products generally, of which we purchased from the United States to the value of more than $27,000,000 in 1892. Obviously no tariff arrangement can di- vert this trade to British sources except at a positive loss to the Canadian people, and that being so, it folio W3 that we should sell where we must buy, and, therefore, should discard the proposal of a discriminating tariff against the United States. But we-'! have a better market than aither Great. Britain or the neighboring country, which it is the duty of the Government to encourage and develop. The home market is infinitely more valuable to all classes of producers than any foreign one, or than all foreign markets put to- gether. Is it the interest of the farmer that is to be of the first concern ? Ninety per cent of the agricultural products of the Dominion are consumed within the country, and, adhering closely to the axiom that it is sound policy to buy as much as possible where W9 sell, does it not follow as an irresistible conclusion that the buying ought also to be done in the home market? Our domestic commerce demands the primal care of public men. It is bet- ter from every point of view to foster ex- chari^s, to promote barter within the country than to strive to cultivate trade •with remote peoples. That gen<^ral rule is, of course, like all other rules, subject to an exception, the exception being that the means adopted, for the development of domestic exchange shall not run to the extreme of involving a hardship to the producing and consuming masses. If the tariff is found to be onerous in appll- cation, if it inflicts an iindae taxation, or creates oppreasive combinations, then ZDOdiiications should be made ; but the legitimate purpose of a fiscal system is not to raise the revenue required for the needs of the public service, but to con- serve, extend and improve the beat mar- ket for all classes, namely, the homo market. We take it for granted that no respons- ible public man who has krowledge of the intimate trade and tranapartation re- lations between Canada and hei neigh- bor will seriously contemplate taking tho ' risk of a commercial defiance of the United Btates. There remains, then, for ftll practical purposes, only two alterna- tives — the maintenance of the existing fiscal policy, modified from time to time as occasion requires, or the adop- tion of a tariff for revenue only. Principal Grant inclines to the latter, apparently under the impres- sion that its operations would help trade with Britain. Let us enquire what ex perience teaches on that paint. In 1873-8 Canada had a tariff for revenue only, \\ hen, speaking roughly, the maximum rate of duty was 17-1 per ce:it. In 1873 we imported from Great Bntdin to the value of $68,500,000, from the United States to the vahie of S17,700,- CCO. Six years later, namely in 1879, our purchases from Britain amount- ed to only $31,000,000, while those from the neighboring country were $43.- 700,000. That is to say, under the rev- enue tarifr system, trade with the mother land declined 55 per cent, whereas our trade with the United States fell off by the fraction of less than 9 per cent Re- store the revenue tariff, and is there any reason to believe that the results would differ from those to which we have al- luded? It is hardly an exaggeration of fact to say that the protective tariff saved Canada during the past summer from being drawn into the vortex of commer- cial disaster Avhich swept over the United Btates, and under a low tariff system the inevitable consequence must be to draw closer the inter-dependence of the tWL couijktries. Principal Grant is right when, alluding to the National policy, he says that " much of the charm of the cry that was raised sixteen years ago was in its name. Our people felt that they could stand in their own boots, and a policy that was called national, and did not leave them at the mercy of the great fluctuations of trade in the United States, appealed to their self-respect" The same sentiment animates the majority of the Canadian people to-day. and it will scarcely be weakened by the promul- gation of a policy of tariff for revenue only which will injure the home market all along the line, without, as experience has proved, bringing us nearer the goal of Principal Grant's ambition, a close com- mercial alliance with Britain. Letter from Principal Grant of^ KinostoD. REFORMS WANTED. The 1-osses on the Inter- colonial. THE POSTOFFICE DEFICIT. Too Marxy Ministers and a Use- less Senate. THK QALOI'S CUASNKL SCANDAL — A OALI. KOB »ttE COMl'LKTK KUADICATIOM OF SUCK£R3. Ispocittl Corresponiicnce of The Globe.) You have askod m« for my views a« to tlie best policy for Canada, and, as il do uot ilKc to be silent wlien prop^jrly chal- Unged to spoak on what coicerna the public welfare, I nubralt them without UoellAlion for what they are worth. Tho ■ubject, however, Ib large, and as anyone ^•hu Biv«s o»4nli>u» without. *t le4iat.,hlntT l^/AX h!l!f.r«A.>«)ns Is ap,t, tojie ruisjudjfea, you will panion me if— Instead o^ .tiylng « dblidenjie »iHduly-I tft*« the llbej'ty 6f (Striding you ti*-(J o^ thro cohnrmnieailonn. Bhoald th*re be njp«tltion, It UlAeoause truth cannot bfr impi«»»ei.i on tJie public in any »/th«r way. Every editor under- ■tands that, and therefore he plays pretty iBuch on the same tuno fpr more than threa hundt^d days \h the yeiar, Cf the thre* hunar«d grant me tl^re*. Vtnii a aovarmnent that really desires tha Interest of Canada rauat. first, last and al! the time, stick to the line of husband- ing Instead of wasting our money. Mon^v represents God's world, and he who wastss this w»rld will have a poor chatioe of the next. Both parties would willingly put my first planU in their platform, if they were absolved from tha necessity of being specmc, but general professions of retrenchment and reform are worth- less. Here is the cold fact, as the Geocrftl (Manager of the Bank of Montreal puts It, " We have been spending too much money." National expenditure has In- creased steadily since Confederation, out of all proportion to our Increase In popu- lation, or available wealth, and there is abundant proof that a great deal of the money has been worse than wasted. It Is bad to throw good money away ; but when money is used— directly or Indirectly— to corrupt the people from whom It Is taken, It is infinitely worse. 'Let me illustrate. 1 shall take my illustrations, not from the awful disclosures made at Ottawa in 1891, but from others equally suggestive, and open also to the most careless readers of newspapers. There Is no need for burrowing into blue books or census returns or year books, though these are mines that would well pay ex- ploration. THE INTEKCOLONIAL. I take the Intercolonial, as the first case In point. That railway has been run at an annual loss of from half a million to three quarters of a million of dollars, with monotonous regularity. At last the people began to kick. They were anxious to get such a white elephant off their hands ; and felt that, if the company which gives a good service along our national highway for thousands of miles, at no charge to the public chest, would do the same for the remaining hundred.v. comlnK under bonds at the same time not to increase the rates, it would be a good thing. To talk about this being a pre- HMlt t« the company is to show Ignorance of the meaning of language. I might ab well talk of making a present of my debts to a friend. if n,nyone considers thai. that would be a gift, he can have it any day by writing mo a postal-card, and "" Sttuld be consider my action proof of my B«n* Tosity of nature, i shall not object. 'i''ti.e suBftctted method of relief was found Uj be 4 ix>littoQl Impossibility, but It wuii also Impossible to continue tJie w<(sU!, ami Instructions were given tiuil in muHt bo stopped. Presto ! the t))lnB was done as If by magic. A man who know llttlfr or nothing of rallwayn was able to stop it at once, and newspapers now imply that Mr. Hagijart must be a n-gular "Napo- leon" 01* rallwios. in fact, another Mr. Van Home. Vv'h.Tt dots this ustonlshin : BUCCr:*B8 prove ? KIthcr that the prcvinj deficits wera unneoersary, or that the p' «>- sent showing has been attained by let- ting the road run down or by forcing a balance. The second and third alterna- I tlves would be di.BPrc.litable to the pre- : itent Minister, and the first to his pre- ' decessors and all former Governments, j yet we are forced to adopt one of the | three. It is geni'r&Uy assumed that the llrst Is the correct explanation. Wfing so, | i( mean.-i that not only have m'llloas of : our money been wasted but worse tlian ; wasted. Corruption at headtiuarters Is a ' poison that slowly but surely fliid.s it.s way ' throughout tha whole organism. It is absurd to think that you can make the people rI(jhteou3 by preaching and pray- ing, while that l:lnd of work is tolerated. You might as welt try to train your chil- dren righteously by making- them .-jay their prayers mornin;; ninl evenlnir, and allow them companion with tliieves an! blasphemers througitoul tlio day. Tha startling lilustrution of ;fn.,,,j the mo3t uaelesa ieoond chamber (/; the world, and con- fijuently the p'.oj ic are now prepared to bolish it and see how they can grot along with one House. The experiment may Very safely be tried, until at any rate we have as many Provinces as the United State had at the close of their Revolution- Ar.v V\*ar. It Is clear that under modern Conditions no House will have real power tiile.ss constituted on a democratic basis. Xow, to appoint a sec'hen there are two ; and imdf-r our Par- liamentary rulnH It is Impossible to rush lll-advlswl leni>''atlon, and that Ktves a n.-ally free pri;<-: plefiiy of time in wlilih to Mourid an alarm. The ^reat objection to our Senate la, that it if aimply an addition to the bribery fund at the dlapo.^al of the Premier, It oonluln.s a few of the bist men In Canada, and they must feel the degradation of aittiuK with men appolntel for life simply because they have been faithful party backs, and of knowing that almost every vacancy Is dandled for months and years before the eyes of men , whose fealty to the party Is uncertain. (iCt them lead the a«ltatlon for abolition. Onto the Senate is aboliuhed, Quebec and Nova SootIa will for very ahame pension off their so-called "Upper" Houses. KUADIOATK TIPF. SUCKt-RS. I have given a few lllustrationa to show that the flr.^t outstanding feature of a true national policy should be not only the cutting uway of mouldering branvh'^s and the viRorouB pruning of others, but still more the complete eradi- cation of puckers of all klnda. Su'kor.'^ are a thousand times more fatal to the health of a tree than any dead or mould- erluR branch, j\ist because they are not dead and have no intention of dying. The luxuriant growth of sticliors aroimd the tree of our national life is enough to put to shame the husbandmeri who have been charged with the care of the Canadian maple. Oh : there is a fine field at Ottawa for a capable and strong statesman, with an enlightened and patient public opinion at his back, and representing a consti- tuency that will trust him and not waste his time begging for patronage, nor eat- ing up his little Income or indemnity by pillaging him, on the degrading plea that subscriptions for churches and chapels secure votes. If we cannot raise such a man and surround him with a band of tried supporters, things mtist become worse before they can be better. I never despair. 1 do not believe that the long lane w^Ul have no turning, for the Cana- dian people come of too gootl a stock not to have a worthy fiiture. They have been humbugged, and they like a little hum- bugging as a relief from the general seriousness of their Uvea, but they have no Intention of letting the thing go too far, and they are feeling just now not quite In the mood for Joking. They have made mistakes from Ignorance and not from deliberate Intention. The public rnan who would win from confldeuoe must try and look at things from their standpoint and not from the serene attitude of an Ice- i berg on which he himself may stand. I There is no work so difficult as that of governing a free people, but there Is none So worthy of a man filled with the high- est spirit. In my next communication I shall Indi- i cate some other lines of the nattona) policy t)iat .should be adopted If Canada Ig to prof»[ji>r and to be more than ever worthy of the devotion of her children O. M, GRANT. Kingston, Oct. 81, m REDUCE THE TARIFF. A Fiscal System That Dis- courages Industry. FAVORITES FATTENED. The Policy of Neither Party Satisfactory. The Second Plank of Principal | ' Grant's Policy. DNRKSTKICTED RECIPROCITy OR COMMERCIAL UNION OPPOSED— NO SYMPATHY WITH TALK OF SEPARATION. (Sp«clftl Corrospondenoe ot The Olobe.) I have pointed out that- the flr.st plank of a true national policy l.s to stop wa.stlng good money. What Is the second great plank ? To give the people of Canada freedom to make the most of thpmselve.s, their country and its resources. They are deprived of that freedom, on the pleas that it is necessary to raise a revenue and to foster certain native Industries. Of course a revenue must be raised, tliough, as I have a wn, not quite so large a one as we have been spending. Lines alo)ig which there might be ejected a saving of a few millions a year have been indi- cated, while something much more Im- portant than money would be saved at the same time. But there are two wayn of raising a revenue, as .lohn Bright once, by means of a very happy illustration, pointed out. "You may olap a load of a hundred pounds weight on a soldier's baclt. and he marches along without feelltiK It very much. IJut If you hang live or six pounds round each of hlH ankles, his knees, his arms, his hards, his cars, and an extra ounce or two from his lips, his nose and his eyelashes, you will get very poor marching or ll.ijhtlng ironi hiui. .Mr. Bright congratulated the then Chancellor of the Kxchequor, Mr. fUadstone, on hav- ing adjusteil the taxpayer's load on his back, but hu complained that the load was left as big as it was before. That was unavoidable, because Britons have to pay interest on a national debt gradually accumulated in building up an empire and defending the liberties of the world, and on an army and navy that, in tha eyes of the grand old Quaker, was sim- ply "a gigantic systeni of out-door relief for the aristocracy." but that seems to ordinary people rather necessary in exist- ing circumstances. Our load Is not (lulte so big proportionately to cur numbers, but It Is badl'v adjusted, and it galls, wor- ries, impedes and impoverishes us to au altogether unnecessar.v extent, and none Hie less when we are tcld that that is all a delusion, and that we would not know of the existence of custom houses if thuy wore not occasionally pointed out to us. I have before me two volumes at the pre- sent moment, and they give suggestive ob- ject lessons. The first is the "States- man's Record for Canada." In "Appendix A" is to be found a list of the articles- most of them taxed at various rates- mentioned In our tariff. The list extends over 77 solid pages, and as one reads his marvel is stirred at the completeness with which It covers the field of Industry. We cease to wonder that the ordinary official concludes that nobody and no thing should be allowed entry into Canada free, wheth- er Chinaman or Chinawoman, Scotch heather, or an old book. The second vol- ume is '^Whltaker'B Almanac," and it gives the customs tariff of Great Britain. The list extends over less than half a page, and Includes chiefly tobacco and drinks, such as beor, wine, spirits, cocoa, coffees and tea. Exchanj^c; in everything else is free to the world, y^t Britain ral.ses a revenue of over two hundred and twenty millions of dollars from customS and ex- cise. I do not say that we could reduce our list to the'^scanty proportions that the mother country rejoices in, but certainly It could be vastly reduced to the profit and comfort of the Canadian people. There is scarcely a page of our 77 from which il- lustrations could not be drawn to show that nVH TAKtFF OIMCOnnAfJKfl INnirSTBY, r that It \H nonstruc'ted not so much in he gtfiieral interest as In that of some articular person or company that has amiK^^d to (ret the ear of the Finance InlBter. If, for Instance, there Is one liul of vessel the building of which we ught to encourufjp more than another, la the barKe or fllilp constructed of ood, for u Kreat pari of Canada Is still overed with forest, and to convert that w material Into Instruments of trade ught to be considered by everyone com- on-sense policy ; but, stran^'e to say, If e propose to build a steel vessel we are Howed to Import all the materials free, hereas If we build a wooden one all the on that goes Into her has to pay a heavy uty, amounting, experts say, to 50 per nt., when everythlnj? Is taken Into con- deration. Surely some perverse deity pre- ded over such provlfilons. Is It wonder- 1 that the building of wooden walls has been going on very merrily of late ? ere Is a provision for getting part of e duty returned as drawback, but it ounts to so little and there is so much 'ouble to get It that vessel builders de- iare It to be not worth considering. In nnection with tlie tariff on iron, a curl- 8 Instance of care for a special interest ay be cited. The list says that plate iron and steel is to be taxed 30 per cent, hen it says that plate of iron or steel ot less than 30 inches wide, etc., pays only 1-2 per cent. One of our captains of in- ustrj' imported plate 24 Inches wide and ad to pay the 30 per cent. He called at- ntion to the undeniable fact that the istinclion in the tariff is founded on no rinclijle, and is purely arbitrary, but In ain. No doubt the 30-inch Interest had lobbied for Wself, and his only hope lay n lobbying. He would not lobby, and herefore had to pay. Such legislation raises a good many questions with think- ing men. )3ad faith need not be suspect- ed on the part of the Government. The fact is that there are few persons in Can- ada who understand llnanee. I^lttle tliought I'j, therefore, given, in constructing ti.t.- tariff, to what should be the great question «^"How will this tax, or system of taxa- tion, affect tht general prosperity of tiie people ? " The tariff is constructed on the rule of thumb principle. One interest pleads Its peculiar case and it gets a tax put on in Its favor. That hurts another interest dlrectlv, and perhaps a million of people indirectly. The interest tli;it has been directly affected goes to Ottawa and demands relief by some counterbalanc- ing tax. Of course it gets it, for there is no one to speak for the silent multitude on whose back the ever-accumulating bur- den Is rolled. In Britain there are states- men and writers who have studied finance down to the ground. Mr. Gladstone is unequalled in this reapect among slates- men, not only for knowledge, but for un- rivalled powers of exposition. Mr. Goo- chen, on the front bench of the Oppo.'^l- tion. Is his equal so fai- as knowledge la concerned. Then, there are men like Mr. Giffen, at the Board of Trade, whose con- clualonB are accepted as oracles. Whom have we in our Houaen to us, and al- ways hungry, whose trade policy is stea.ly, and in the prosperity of whose people we aro mo.qt Interested, because they are oin- fellow-subjects, and ready to stand shoul- der to shoulder with us in those supreme crises which at tim-.-s all nations are call- ed on to face. This policy is in our im- mediate and our ultimate interest. It ndght be put on commercial grounds sole- ly. But it is surely none the less attrac- tive becaut^e a pixjper sentiment for Brit- ain is gratified at the same time. When it is seen to be bound up with our nation- al aims and development It becomes im- perative. There are, however, some people in Can- ada who are more American than the Am- ericans, and, whensoever a British or a Canadian policy is propounded, they as- sume that the proposer is ho.stile to the States. I consider it expedient, ther(?fore, to turn aside at this point fruni thi' spe- cial question of the tariff to the general question of the right attitude of Candida to the United Kingdom and the United States. FOR IMPERIAL UNITV. Canada has been part of the British Empire since 17U3. We have evolved grad- ually from lower to higher stages of po- litical life, until our self-government is well nigh complete. eW have worked out a oonstltution better tluui that of th^e mother country or the States, and I see no reason why the evolution should not go on to our still greater advantage without any breach of Imperial unity. Separation would be all loss and no gain to both the mother country and to Canada. The Brit- ish Empire is the greatest instrument on earth fo»' the promotion of peace, justice and commercial freedom, and I have no use, politically, for the man who would ' lessen the weight or dull the edge of that Instrument ; while, so far as Canada is I concerned, only through union with thr , mother country can its national life be } freely developed. The treatment of coun- tries like Mexico, Han iJoiningo and Chill by the States shows that ; not to refer to little unpleaaantnesaes that wc ourselves have had or been threatened with at dif- ferent times, and which, In the interest of good neighborhood, we desire to forget. This being my position, you can see that I can hav« no sympathy with statesmen who talk of separation as likely to take place twenty, fifty or a hundred years hence. We shall be stronger then, but not relatively stronger, if the United States, China and Russia keep united. The British Empire is likely to be as much needed then ati now. To say " we are loyal to the empire because at present we T^eed it, but as soon as v.'e can dispense with it we shall do so," is not a policy that will bear to be stated. Be- sides, Is it wise to suggest revolutionary changes ? Chanr^e along the line of our historical evolution is constantly being called for and is silently taking place all tho time. No wise man will venture to pi edict the exact form or the extent it may take. But secession is not such a change. Speculations by politicians about what may be our duty in the 21st century can do no good and may do harm. Such spec- ulations are wholly unnecessary and may safely be left to j'oung men's debating ^so- cieties. To say that a public man or a imblic oflicial has tlio right to ad\ ocate the breaking up of the empire to v.-hicii b« belongs, or even to advocate that C-iuada should throw Us constitution into the Are and blot itself from the map of the world l^eoause he has the right to advocate a closer union ':>f the different parts of that empire, is to manifest a lack of political instinct and almost a lack of common sense. So much for our attitude towards Great Britain. To^vards the States our attitude cannot possibly be tho same, simply be- cause the relationship is different, it is a great country, endowed I\v (Jod with every conceivable kind of resource, and, as regards the people, it is enough to say that they are substantially of the same stock as ourselves. Respect them, admire them, imitate them, like them, look for- wai-d to a reunion in the future of the English-speaking race— that is all right. But, just as tliey are not going to break up their own union in order to bring about any theoretic i ounion, so neither aro \to. To break up our own empire in order to demonstrate our affection for another, or in order to gain some fancied com- mercial advantage, may be wisdom to par- ish politicians, but it is not the kind of wisdom that a self-respecting people will ever endorse. All right-thinking Cana- dians desire tie closest possible relation- ships of commerce and fiiendshlp with the great republic, and it is enough to say that if these now are not v/hal they should be the fault is not ours. We are willing to trade with them, but they will neither trade freely with us in natural products nor with our mother country in manufactured protlucts. Every overture for closer relationship has come from us and every overture has been repulsed, as de- cidedly when .Mr. Mackenzie was Premier as when Sir John Alacdonald was Premier of Canada. We have made too many overutres. We have shown too gre.it anxi- ety. We have thereby defeated our own object, for we have led them to wrong conclusions with regard to our necessities i arm to our spirit. No one respects a man who does not respect himself, and a man who has dealings with a riclier neighbor has to be the more careful of tlie two m this regard. <.'Rnadlans must preserve their self-respect Jealously, just because their neighbors — on noeount of their own bigness— are wonderfully ignorant of (.'an- ada and just a little apt to regard it as the ricli are ai)t to regard the poor. Fur- ther overtures from us are a waste of time, energy, dignity and money, and they simply delay the coming of an era of impi'oved commercial relations. That will come only with the .sure growth of free trade sentiment In the Uiiited States. I look forward to a happy reunion of our race with as much longing as Dr. Ooldwin ■Smith, but to begin it with a second dis- ruption is out of the question, and i)rema- ture attempts from our side "will defeat or delay the object we have at heart. Jn the meantime we hrive our own problems to solve and they have theirs. Let each country attend to its own work and it will be all the better for both of ua. So far as tariffs are concerned, let both countries regard their own interewts. Protestations of spe- cial affection when we are doing business excite only laughter or contempt. Our commercial policy then i? to en- courage tr.Hde with Britain, the only coun- try whose markets are open to us, and to buy as cheaply as possible from other countries whatsoever we must got from them. What this means in detad and what wculd be the advantages and prob- able results of the policy shall be the sub- ject of my next communication. Kingston, Nov. 2. G. AI. GR-V:NT. Rev. Dr. Grant's Third Political Paper. A RIGHT POLICY, That Established Popula- tion Vv^ill Follow. THE RAIl-WAY POWER. Importance of the Question of Transportation. THE BRITISH SYSTB.M OP TAXATTOK IS RIGHT AND BEST— ABOUSH SPSOl- ilO DUTIKS. ** (Special Corre»pondano« of Tlia Glubo.) ]n my second communication I took the pcfcitloii that one great feature of our commercial polit-y should be to encoura^ge trade with Britain. 1 have studied this V,cslliou, and have heard the strongest urguments that opponentH could use against It, and It still seems to me so en- tirely the right policy that I cannot re- train from urj;ins- it upon our people. U'he party that adopts It will be on the right track. L.et me hint at some reasons lor m> faith, looking at the matter Bolely trorn ihe commercial point of view. Free trade with a free-trade country means a certain loss to the revenue at fli-?.t, but it beneftts consumers and In- croaiifes trade and yeaeral revenue-produc- ing power enormously; while tarllt for revenue gives more revenue than protec- tion and at the same time cheapens goods to the consumer, in free-trade countries monopnlies are impossible, and ho are combines, because competitors from other countries can come In and cut under; on the other hand, on account of tlie liiph tind rigid protection system in the Ignited Bti*te.s, which lias I'cstored powerful mon- opolies, and the :ierl'c;ctlon to which they have broUiTht combines, reciprocity with them would mean the adoption of their protection system and iui >-evenue. it j would al30 hurt our own maniifacturera, I uit reason, and he will tell you thiM he gels j discounts to offset the duty. The buyer, of course, pays tlie duty, but it fjoes into the Treasury. If the duty w?re taken off he would not get his churn one cent cheaper. Th3 manufacturer will not sell 111 Canada for less than he tjets at home, unless suffering frorli competition which he cannot control, or to clear his ware- house, or because he is pressed for funds. 60 wltli haniwaro. Any dealer will tell you that he can sell almost any article In American hardware lines at .-Vmerlean prices. The Canadian manufacturer, on the other hand, by means of specific du- ties, keeps out British articles and 'sizes up" to the American protection price. As long then as the States do not go in for free trade. If we would liave a tariff alon^ the land line to bring In revenue and at the same time not add to the burdens of consumers. It must be arranged by ex- perts. 1 do not propose ai present to do the work of the Finance -Minister, but it la elear tljat our land tariff must of ne- cessity be rather complicated. At present I am content with laying down principles and taking- cognizance of the fact that we have A very big neighbor alon^ our fron- tier for thousahds of miles, and that his anxiety for money is not as great as his anxiety to set the better of every one ■With whom lie trades. The business in- stinct Is stronger in lilm than anything else, and It Is not su'.flciently cultivated yet to make him oee that, in the long run, a trade which i)roIlts both parties is the '. \ only pernianeni and yrolitable trade. RKOU'ROUITV WITH HRITAIS. Again, the nollcv advocated is in our own power and reciprocity with the States ts not. That ougiit to be argument enough. It does not lequire treaties with, Of requests for treaties from, an.\- otlier country. We cannot get reasonable reci- procity from the States, no matter how often we go down on our knees for it, and 1, for one, am side of tiie hat-in-hand and knee-bowing business; but we can have reciprocity with Britain at once if we choos«. If we io not choose, what can be thought of our sincerity, or our consistency, or our sense of fair play ? (W'hy not give to Britain what we have offered a doien times to the States ? If we are willing to reciprocate with a for- eign nation, much more should we with our own, or else, at any rate, let us cease talking "loyalty." That sort of language has meaning only when backed Toy reality. Again, it is sound policy to buy as much as possible where we sell, for the essence of all trade Is exchanse. We now sell far more to Britain than we buy from her. and far leas to the States than we buy from iheni Let us redress this ine'iualiiy as far as it is within our power, especial- ly when by so doing we shall get cheaper Bcods.that Is, get more for our money than WQ ni:)\v get. B.v this policy, too, our steani- er.** would secure return carpoes, and our producers would be no longer handicapped bv having to pay in effect double frelj^hts. Business would be increased, and more Bteanic-rs would be drawn steadily to our St. Lawrence and ocean ports, instead of having to depend on "sea tramps." The great advantage that New York haf» al- ways had against ^fontroal would De les- sened, and in time the i-ates from the two isreat competing ports migiit be kept pret- ty neaily equal. In other wordd, we would Import from the country to which we ex- Bcru a-ud ooautu>;t-8^t)tSd B^yjt tliat that must be the ri^ht nolivy. Tlic nioie im- ports, too, the bott'.'i-. in this matter, it is tlie same with a Jiation as with an in- dividual. If I buy little, it must be because I am poor or mean. If I buy much. It must be because I am able to buy. The more our people buy, the more they must have gotten for what tliey had to sell. UUlmateiy, our producers receive for the stuff they raise only the price that it brings in the markets of the world, minus the cost of transportation. Cheap trans- portation to our mai-kets, that is to Brit- ain, thus becomes a big factor in the whole business. It me.ins increased prices, more money at the point where the farmer sells, and more goods for his money in the mar- kets to which the stuff goes. He will sell in a dearer and buy in a cheaper market than now. This is, surely, of immense importance, at a time when the price of whtat makes it a mystery to me why men continue to raise it, even in aianitoba. where land costs them little or nothing, and when the prices of all the farm stufi: art; sc low, and :he margin of profits so small, that the least unnecessairy burden wipes out profit altogether. Any policy that does not help men to make a living, and a feood living, too, out of the soli, and that does not attract population to our vacant lands, must be bad. THIS QUKSTION Ol!' TBANrfi'OKTATIO.^ Is of Immense Importance, also. In vievv of the fact that we haNt; spent so much to open the Northwest, and that the results so far are not up to the most moderate an- ticipations. Our methods of attracting peo- ple would do If they were unable to read or to get information from their friends. ( liut people nowadays are no*, qviite so I helpless. It is useless, it is almost im- i moiul, to hire ageiiLs to coax people away i from their own country. The agents get, as a rule, the weak, the credulous, the un- fcrtunate and the dead-beat.g. E-stablish a right policy, and the right kind of men will come of their own \s ill. The rush in- to Oklahoma, and the rush this year into the Indian Territory, were not worked up by imm-gration agents. Xo agents were needed. Those rushes are most signifi- cant, as showing wliat a iand-hun;',or there Is in tiio United Stats.=5, .a hunger that will get more clamant every year, and also how little available free land tliere is there to gratify it. The goneral elec- tions of 1S90 and 1892, and the rise of the j I'opuiist party, also .show that a good many farmers in the States have found I out that protection does not protect them, j or that tile price they have to pay for it is I loo high. L.et it be Itnown, not only that I we have millions of acres of good land, but j that we have adopted the policy of " liot ] another acre for -.'o/porations, but free land for settler.s, sonieihing as near free trade as possible, witii their markets and cheap transportation," and we shall at- tract a steady strea-n of the most de.^lr- able emigrants in the world— men who will i become good Canadians very f;oon, because I they would see the superiority of our in- j stiiutions. Unless we can get population into the Northwest we have no future, , We did rightly in spending enormously to build the Canadian PacLflc Railway, if population can be attracted to those van* plains. If not, it was a gigantic mistake on our part. Population there would also quickly solve the question of revenue ne- cessities. When we have tv/o or tiiree millions of well-to-do people west of the Ked River, instead of oiir poor quarter of a million, we shall get more revenue, by far, from ncminal than we now get from heavy duties, i'.ven at present there would be a large revenue from low duties on cottons, woollens, mitts, eartii, sione and iron ware, hardware and other neces.'iariea of life, almost all of which we import from Britain. 'I'Jie (tucstion of tranbportation, ilitn, is a most important one. It i.s so as regards waterways and railways. It is entitled to twc or three letters, but a far better au- thority than 1 has written a pamphlat on th« subject, and you could not do better than call attention to his positions, backed up as they are by long experience and many years spent on both aldea of the line, i refer to " For Canada, Transportation the Problem, by a Grain .Dealer." Ho far the only Canadian newspaper of Importance that has dealt thoughtfully with one of the main con- tentions of this vigorously written pamph- let is La Presse, in its issue of the 6th of October. It mentions that the writer is Air. James B. Campbell of Montreal, and summarizes clearly his argument that since Duluth and Port Arthur are now be- coming the great grain distributlng/^.entres on account of the gradual extension to the north of wheat-producing land, THE ST. LAWRKNOE EODTE must displace the Krie Canal, at any rate as soon as we have fourteen feet of w ater from Kingston to 'Montreal. We shall have that depth in three or four years. ' We would have had it now had a proper policy been kept in view, a little fore- I sight been, used and no public money been spent on rival enterprises, or wildcat or I constituency-buying schemes. What Is | the use of talKing about the Trent Valley ' Canal and spending rioney on it, or the Hurontarlo Ship 'Canal, or the Hudson Bay route till we have the one water-way on which we have been working for 30 or -W years put into pi'oper shape ? When that has been done, the whole country will feel the impulse and reap the benefit, and then we may have time to talk about other routes. Whalebacks then will take everything the country caonraise.if.ll along the line from Lake Superior, and carry it for a nominal sum to Montreal without bretiiing bulk. If Imports are encouraged, these win get return cargoes of package goods for the United States and Canadian ports. The better the return trade the lower will be the rates. We need not wait for three or four years. Propellei-s now use our nine feet of water, but our pre- sent policy restricts importations. When, however, the St. Lawrence canals are deepened and we have a national policy worthy the name, then indcoa, as Mr. Campbell says, " si.\ feet of water in the Erie Canal and two transfers of freight can no more compete with fourteen feet of water through Canadian canals and no transfer than a whoolbarrow can compete with an express train." This grand water-way completed, though to have it perfect the Welland should have been made twenty feet deep when we went at it last, the only thing lackinguifor our farmers would be reasonable railway rates. These must be secured where they do not exist now. The two interests that would prolit most by the policy which has been indicated, but which will probably oppose it because selfishness is shortsight- ed. ar« th« maaufacturing and the ralN ' way intorc.-ds. They arc earning lairly well now, and they believe that " a bird In the hand is worth two In the bush." I have not a word to say against th<*m. Every one knows that a country cannot be called civllizod nowadays If it is with- out railways and manufactures. We knew that, and have therefore sacrlflced much to introduce and foster both, and we occasionally point with pride to what we have done. But we never Intended that these interests, or the managers of them, Bhould be supreme. They are excel- '"^lent servants, but very bad masters. If they insl.st on using the whip, or even cracking it too loudly, ways* iriust be found to bring them to their senses or to I their knees. Recent illustrations have I opened our eyes to the necessity of watch- ■'.' ing them and checking abuses. It is not 'l pleasant to hear agents of manufacturers boast that the Cljvernment exists to re- gister their decrees. 'With regard to ■vnv. r.AiLWAY powKx:, the last general election was ail eye-open- ei'. No matter how inucli we ai-e inter- ested, we are not permitted to sentl a poor friend to the polling booth, but afailway can pay for thousands and ^eiid thewi hun- dieds of miles on the plea that anyone can use lii.-; own conveyance. To clasa railways, that the country contributed millions to Ijuild and to which the coun- try has given franchises worth mlilions more, with a private conveyance, is (:o preposterous that the man who u.^es such an argument must be either a " Rip Van Winkle " or think that he is talking to a fool. Fortunately, at the last election our two great railways took opposite sides. But they can combine and they will do so whenever it is their interest, and in that event, we can no longer be called a self-governing people. All "solid" votes are dangerous, and a vote that is solid on mercenary gromids is worse than one that is determined by sentimental considerations. It is more ! vulgar and more unscrupulous. There are only three arguments used I against the policy that has been indicated. Tlie first is, tliat a lower tariff on neces- saries means a deflcit in revenue. It might for a year or two if we did not re- duce expenditure, and therefore It was shown at the outset that expenditure can be reduced. There is, however, no cause for alarm. A low tariff means Increased Imports an well us stoady and normal trade, and in all probability there would ba no deficit. The second is, that it would hurt our manufacturers. It would hurt some and help others, and any change has always similar effects. There are cer- tain lines of manufactures for which Can- ada Js fitted, and these woukl be bene- fited. We have given all others plenty of time to get on their fett, and those that are still unable to stand had better stiuid from under. iJesides, no one proposes in- stantaneous free tr.ide with Britain. The abolition of specific duties and a sharp c"t on our ad valorem rates would do In the meantime. Tlie third is that discrimina- tion again.st the States would annoy Am- ericans and that they might abolish the bonding privilege. I see no necessity at present for dlscrrmlnation. We havi» the right to make a tariff in our own t' 'rests, and we require low duties on Jie sea- board to encourage our transportation er- vlce. American goods that can " '.i o- ped by sea might compete freely w -f- opean. Britain has gre-itly Incrc.tf trade by subsidies to lu'-ean steamc"!' . \e would be simply offering a subsidy under another form, and a rose by ••my other name would smell as sweet. W\' have al- ready done something in the s.ime way with regard to te i. On tlie general to prote<'Mon, when v are needed for a .ime to encourafe particular kind of industry. They c interfere with trade, an! they l-^t ua kirrw exactly what we pay for the object we have in view, .^s it abolishing ih" Ijond- ing privilege, our nei-jhrors are far loo sensible to lut off their 'lOse to spite ihelr face, though they may try a llitle bluff of that kind ; but better 'h,it they should do their worst than that we should be afraid of anyhing that nnulier n$ition may do by vv;iy of rui'iishing us for 'j^er- cising our rig.its. A RoUnd can easily be suggested for such nn Oliver. Though no discrimination is prji.^soil, it is just as well to sav that (tven "int would he perfectly legirl(nx.e. We !)ave been say- ing with perhaps unneoessa-y I'retiuency of late years that v.-han British and Can- adian Interests conflict it Is our duty to support the Canadian. Discrimination against Britain has be-?n proposed by re- sponsible politicians; why, then, should v/e hesitate to give the same medicine to a riv- al nation, should it be considered neces- sary to further our interests? France has a maximum and minimum tariff, and why should Canada not have the .same should it be considered necessary ? The policj- proposed seems to me the one that will benefit the mass of our people at once, and also bring us soonest to free trade. No one can predict how long it will be before the United States reaches that goal. My own opinion always has been that it will be a long time. We can- not afford to wait for them, hut we can ally ourselves at once with the country that has the sound policy, and thus lead Instead of humbly following our big neigh- bor. Much of the charm of the cry that was raised sixteen years ago was In Its name. Our people felt that they could stand in their own boots, and a policy that was called national, and did not leavf them .at the mercy of the great lluctuatlons of trade In the United States, appealed to their self-respect. They have now found out that Canada cannot Isolate herself. We must pet Into the British or the Am- erican nyslem. At present we are copy- ing the United States, and. without intend- Intj it, discriminiUing against our best cu.stomer.s. liel up take the other tack no> < ■ The Britinii system In right. I^ot U3 h*lp thone who are in tlie right, and so help ourselves, and he a valual:>le object >t\f- 'fin to those who are in the wrong. jqm: lant as is the t.ari!)! question, thtre r 0/ still more important plank, regarding- ! AFtfch a few words should be said. In fact it is most unfortunate, and a sign that the times are evil In any country, when its great t^artleg .ire divided by such a question. But 1 must reserve for an- j other communioaiinp my remarks on what j.peems to me the greaf 'political duty of J ttie Canadian people a» ,ne present time. LjiCipg&Lcn, Nov. (j. G. M. GRANT, f iSTB) 1101!. Principal Grant Replies to the Ministers, THE PGSTOFFICE DEFICIT. The Saving on the Inter- colonial. WASTE IN THE PAST. A Criticisin of Sir Adolphe Caron's Statetnezits. THE EXPENDITURE ON THE GALOPS CHAN- 1 NEL— THE RIGHTS OF A A ^. * SUBJECT. (Spooiftl Correspondenco of '1'he Globe ) k , My first communication dealt with the necessity of a most rig d j^>d only when ihcy Ofn taken one by one. If a department, which in almost ewry civlli:;ed couniry is revenue-producing, lius an average <-ie- ficlt for the past seven years of tliree- nilUion, what else is that Insolveaicy ? Does .Sir Adolphe call it solven'jy ? In 1S92 we ara tokl that it v.'iis " only '' two-tlilrds oi a million, that Is a nieie ttei**bite. Mr. Ali- cawber could not talk more airily of such a sum. Surely, too, it Is inantfest that, to get at the truth, we must take thvi average of a number of j-ears continuoua- ly. l''or instance, iu 18S2 and ISSU the de- licit came down to $4a7.00O and $41!i,0''iJ. from tiJ3S,i)00 in 1880 ; but in 188« it Went up again with a bound to $311,000. Wt; ara toid that the «^;! of Canada and tha spaise populatiuii explain everything. I made lull allowance lur those causeg, • but in liitiS the deficit was only $l'8,u(JJ !, Since then we have added Manitoba, the Territories and British Columbia, but thej delSeit from all the.se is only $2£0,U0(), audi old Canada's increase of population ancj' wealth ought to more than balance that.; The real reasons for the dellcit were stat-; ed by me to have not b(>en alluded to by my critics, perhaps because they aivs not creditable. We .still maintain the abominable franking privilege, though wa have lopped off some of Its mouldering b::jnches. We send n>ore than 12,00l),0O(> oC nt^wspapers free. This, it was felt, would help to keep the pri3ss quiet, but it is aaj abuse so flagrant that it is not attempted' even In the ITnlted States, ' where admin-' istrative abuses flourish. It is indei'ensiblp from every point of view, and I urge our self-respecting newspaper.* to join in ai 'crusade against its ('ontlnuance. It is not even in their interests. The country 1.9 Infested with fake gift papers, becausa of the ease of advertising by means of free discharge from offices of publication, \\'e also appoint postmasters, mail car- riei-s and clerks by political influence instead of by merit. Investigation into irregularities Is made difficult trom tlui same cause ; and postofflces are multipli^,4| unnecessarily as political bribe* " NO SURPLUS. " " We get no surplus from the posta< service," Sir Adolphe Garon calmly says. Well, that is about as mild a way of s-tat- Ing that the averag'e deflcit for the pKisti seven years has been three-Quarters of a million as the imagination can conceive-.- We do not expect a large surplu.s, but we' have a right to expect that the deficit" shall "ftot be larger than in 1868, or thaf the department shall be managed with- out loss. Is it not clear that every d»-' „,, ,.„ ,., ,,,„. „„., tlclt has to be made up by eaaitloiml cus-' an argument. 1 hey know that ^K'' item dues, or in other way. tj^ btirden- other course of pmcedure is childish. But,;©,, cilpple tha trade af the ocruntt^)- ?■ according to Sir Adolphe Caron, "It is Si^h a policy must be scouted as im-' unbecoming In a gentleman »f Principal wWrthy by any man who gives a moment"* Ciranfs years and position to write flip- thought to the adjustment of the burden.-* Tlli; ro^TOFFICK DEFICIT. In taking an illustration from the Post- office Department, my principal authority was the .Statistical Record for Canada for liiOO, in which there is a table of the postal revenue and expenditure from 18I* to 18SU. Not having the volume for 1892, I depend- ed for that year on an article published in a (juarterly magazine, a month before, by Mr. A. T. Drummond of Montreal, and reprinted and sent to our leading news- papers, some of which reviewed It, while none noted in it any mistake. His general statement, that the Postoffice has for years "been In a chronic state of depart- mental solvency," was given within Quo- tation marks. Of course !• endorsed it, and still endorse it, because it expresses tlie the main point to be noted, because it is the steady burden that tells on individual or nation, and also that which is most apt to be insidiously increasing and never taken off. I accep'ied his statement also that the deflcit for 1S'D2 was a million and a half. I found, however, on examination that he had been misled on this point by the extraordinary way in which the ac= counts for that year are made up. The totals are as he stated them, namely, revenue $12,052,745, and expenditure $4,205,- 98j. There are, however, fifteen items of expenditure, amounting In all to $S89,O0J, which appear as deductions on the revenue side, and which are also sunimarlzed in two items and added to the expenditure Side, making the real deficit «G63.374. On this one point, which does not affect th^3 argument, the Postmaster-General basci hi.s defence. This is after the manner of a biographer who tells us " that Crom- well had a wart .m his face." and then goes into a dissertation on warts, inste...d of giving us a life of his hero. Second- class papers are always glad lo draw a red herring across the scent, but ttrst-clasa ' men and papers come to close grips with of thp people. ""r ^ ^.«T*,»»n<' " Whii-t country but Oreat Britain does fet a revenue from the i;o3tal seiVicd .'"' I I3 It poss-lble that the 'Postrnjaster-Citijierar makes such a statement — a pentl-lman' who gets $8,000 a year, wltli perquisites of franking, mileage, private caia, patronage, splendid offlcos and what »t)t, on the f!u im- position thajt he Knows sorhethlns about postal matters ? He has oiiiy to turn to| the lOncyolopedia Britannica to lind that' there i3 not a country in Surope, 3:vv» bankrupt Portugal and uneduratei Ituij-^iu, that does nut get a surplus from its [jotj.iil service ; and that the only other count, ie^?, of all included in the postal tmion of i.n,* that shared the ixonor of a detlcit v, i.r» •Canada were two South A.merir,an repjb- lics, also India, though only for a t.illiJiK amount, notwithstanding that not one in 50 of the people in that vast continent write letters ! That vvas In 18S2, a:;d ai». examination of the " Sitatesman'o Year; iBook " for any succeeding year will show, that matters remain sulistantialjy cs the;') were then. Even the United Ht-ates hac», handsome surpluses In 1SS2 and lSSi3„ aiuh they then reduced the letter rate to tv.'o cents. That measure, combined with lav-j Ish expenditures, the spoils syEtam (.in which we imitate them) and other abuicsi has landed the country in a deficit, oi:^ which, however, the people are far lrom\ being pi-oud. We have\ not the two-i:eiit rate, and we seem to think our huge du-', licit not worth conciideration. •My third illustration waj taken from , the Galops channel, and as 1 spoke "v\iili-i out the slightest knowledge," let us see,' whai the fads are according to the hish- 1 e.sc authority. Here are Mr. Haggart'.-s ■ statemenits : — (1) "The contract was! awarded in 1879 for making a new chan-| nel with seventeen feet depth of water,"' and he says in Xovember, 1833, tliat in cMa, place there are only Itf 1-2 feet, and in ■ orhcr places fioni twelve to thiireyn let i !l The contractors, he itays, have carried tiiel work "forward, close upon completion." 1 Now, let us turn to the annual report of< the Dci>artment of Railways and ranulsj for 1S30 and 1891. Tue following pas-saKe' is o!i page 132 : — "Galops rapid improvement, E. R. Gil.*, bert & Sons, conti-actors. Contract en- , tered InTo Gtli August, lb79, to bt- con^plet- | ed 1st June, 1881. This work, which' wjs completed in November, l^Hi, consisted in the formation by submarine excavatio'i of a s'lraight channel. * • » ♦ This, a.s ' stated by the late chief engineer in his re-, poi-t for 1SS9, has been compleieu, and it; is now 200 feet in width, straight and f;o:n( 16 1-2 to 17 feet In depth ; but pilots piefcrl putting up with all the disudvaiiLages ot\ the old, ci-ookcd, shallow line rather liiaii use a new one with whiica they aie uu- faniiliar." Here, then, is a public work that, ac- cording to contract, should have been, completed in ISSl, that was completed ini ISSti, that the chief engineer in his report' for 1^.-!H says has buen completed and i>5 from 111 i-2 to 17 feet in depth. Yet, In November, lsa',5, we are told that the depth Is 101-2 feet in one place and 12 or i;i In others ! No wonder pilots do not like it. What makes this all the more a.Jtoni;Ah!n:? Is that the report of 1830 and 1891 S.p.\'S : " Doubts having bei>n expres.=!ed by so:ne as to the accuracy of the abova report, tests were made with the result thai un-. least depth discovered was sixteen fe«t on what appeared to be some loose niiHscs of rock, which it is barely possible Cas as- serted by the contractor; had been swept I into the channel by the action of the Ice since its oompletlun in 188S." Here is miracle upon miracle. The work that was completed in 1S88 has, in November, I8VI, " been carried forward, clov.se upon compla-i tion." It had 16 1-2 feet in IKS^, 1? In l^A'i ■ because of loose massos of rock, and 10 1-3 in IS!);! because, as iMr. Hacgart says, j "only" 2,;i24 cubic yards of rock, rolid rock, remained to be removed. Who •,,lil' say thcit the age of nTlracles is pa'-t T (2) "The contract price has not been ex-, cceded, and as thf work has not been com-i plated the final L..;tlmate h -.r not been' paid." I turn to the Auditor-General'a re-' port for 1889 and find that not only was * the vMhole of the contract price paid, but l SftO.OOO additional for excavation below ^ Ifraae to ensure seventeen feet depth. iMore : Davis & Sons contracted to do the j work for »3O6,000, and the Auditor-General in 1889 reports $454,000 as paid. What is ; the explanation '.' Does Mr. Ilaggart's llnal estimate refer to SOMK 8200,000 OK KXTU.\S that we are told are being charged for this precious channel 'vhich our stupid pilots will not use? ilf so, no one would guess It from his language. Are we to pay three-ijuarters of a million instead of $.105,000 for what vesselmen call a fifth wheel to the coach'.' (3) "Mr. John Kennedy, the Chief Engi- neer of the Montreal Harbor Commission, was employed by the Government to make a thorough examination of the channel." Why, then, did not the 'Government give his report to the public at once and dis- charge the engineer of the work when it waa found that he had been sending in again and again Inaccurate reports? In 1891 the Government .-ngineer of the work reported that he had finished the examina- tion of the Galops and found no truth in the charges that the depth of water was less than seventeen feet. Mr. Kennedy then made an examination, and his report has been kept fronn the public until now. Js all this characteristic of what is usually called "a square deal"? (4) Mr. Haggart's strong point is that the deepening of the channel was for east- ern-bound traffic, and that the new and e.Kpensive lock he Is buihllng at the foot of the rapid is to let western-bound vessels into the canal. This is in imitation of the ci.iisiderate gentleman who had two holes in hla kennel, one for the big dog and the other for the little dog. There are only 4,0'W feet between the toot of the rapid at the now locK and the upper entrance to the canal. Why should there be an en- ormously expensive river channel for that dii: tance as well as an expensive and large canal, and lift-lock, unle.ss the latter ex- penditure Is to hide the former blunder ? If two waterways are neeed there, we thould have them at every rapid. But no one has proposed them, even at Sault Sle. Marie, where the tonnage is perhaps r,0 times as great as at the Galops. Even if it should come to be of some use at the Galops, is it worth such an enormous cost? I have written enough, however, on these three oases, though it would be easy to write at fur grea'.er length. 1 would not have referred to them at all had any one of less authority than (Cabinet Minis- ters challenged my first statements, and I shall now leave them to the Independent preas and to members of Parliament. It ia no pleasure to me to rip up sucn Bores; but 11 is humiliating to find that our chief Hervants do not think It their first duty to loll the people "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." with regard to the public works with which they have been entrusted. Had they been men o" the right stamp they would have wrlttfn me privately letters of thanks for tryln.r to stir up a public feeling that would assist them in doing their duty. I know that they have difflcultles to con- tend with, and that wherever public noney Is being spent foul creatures swarm. Public servants tharefore 'leed support. If they repel it, so much the worse for them. "When any of them seeks only to darken counsel by words without knowl- •dge, what can be .said to him but this, gi\e in an account of thy stewardship, for thou mayest be no longer steward? A newspaper, usually moderate In tone and fair to opponents, accuses me of step- ping outside the pale of my proper func- tions to air my views on public affairs. Perhaps a reason ought to be ^iven to it and to those who sympathize with Its position. "Who are you?" .said Queen Mary to .John Knox, "who presume to tell the sovereign and nobles of the realm their duty?",, "A subject, born within the same." was the respectful and all- sufficient answer. That was reason enough for any free man, for anyone who feels that public affairs belong to him as one of the public. I have always tried to act on that principle, and my course was strengthened by the revelations of 1891. These made me for the first time in my life ashamed of being a Canadian. Some of our people may have forgotten those terrible revelations. I can never forget them. We ourselves are responsible for them. Our party spirit, our selfishness, our localism, our inaction in public life, are at bottom tha causes. In those summer months, when every day unearthed some new villainy, I d«termined to try to be truer to my country thaii ever before, and to speak out my convictions, whenever fit opportunity was given me, calmly and strongly, no matter what the consequences might be. Should not every honest man join In this resolution? Let the issues of the past alone. Let the dead bury their dead, and with the inspiring thought of Canada first In our hearts i€t us go for- ward to make our good land one worth living for, or, if need be, dying for. Kingston, Nov. 15. G. M. GRANT. 1 1 .;