• .Yv 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 
 IIM 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.25 
 
 U III 1.6 
 
 vQ 
 
 <^ 
 
 /}. 
 
 o 
 
 e). 
 
 <?. 
 
 <r2 
 
 ^ ,> ^ 
 
 ■V 
 
 >>- 
 
 7 
 
 z!^ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
/<'\% 
 
 i/x 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHIVI/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6X6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquds ci-dessous. 
 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 □ 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommagde 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur6e et/ou pelliculde 
 
 I I Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g6ographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relid avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge int^rieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 filmdes. 
 
 n 
 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d^colordes, tachet^es ou piqu^es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages d6tach6es 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 Quality indgale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement cu partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t^ filmdes d nouveau de fa^on d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl6mentaires; 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Library of the Public 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grflce A la 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 La bibiiothdque des Archives 
 publiques du Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 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 y (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 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 images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at 
 de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimie sont filmds en commen^ant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 derniire page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impressioii ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont fiimds en commen^ant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la derniire page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaUra sur la 
 derniire image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols — »■ signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc, peuvent dtre 
 filmis d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir 
 de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent ia mdthode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 4 5 6 
 
Y 
 
 < 
 
 ■■' ^ 
 
r 
 
 PLATFORM 
 
 OF 
 
 THE LIBERAL PARTY 
 
 OF 
 
 CANADA. 
 
 Exemplified by Quotations, Tables and Arguments 
 Based on Census and Trade Returns. 
 
 {i 
 
 ^ 
 
 r 
 
 CHARLOTTETOWN, P. K. 1>LAND: 
 GE|^ V. GARDINER, STE.\M PRINTER, QUEEN S TREET. 
 
 18G6. 
 
 
 /• 
 
 S 
 
LIBERAL PLATFORM 
 
 —ADOPTED BY THE— 
 
 1. 
 
 OTTAWA, 
 JTJIsrE, 1893. 
 
 We, the Liberal Party of Canada, in coriventiou assembled declare 
 
 l.-FREER TRADE-REDUCED TAXATION. 
 
 That the customs tariff of the Dominion should be based, not as 
 it is now, upon the protective principle, but upon the requirements 
 of the public service ; 
 
 That the existing tariff , founded upon an unsound principle, and 
 used, as it has been by the Government, as a corrupting agency where- 
 with to keep themselves in office has developed monopolies, trusts and 
 combinations ; 
 
 It has decreased the value of farm and other landed property • 
 
 It has oppressed the masses to the enrichment of a few; 
 
 It has checked immigration ; 
 
 It has caub^ed great loss of population ; 
 
 It has impeded commercel; 
 
 It has discriminated against Great Britain ; 
 
 In these and in many other ways it has occasioned great public and 
 private injury, all of which evils must continue to grow in intensity 
 as long as the present tariff system remains in force. 
 
 
That the highest interests of Canada demand a removal of this 
 obstacle to our country's progress by the adoption of a sound fiscal 
 policy, which, while not doing injustice to any class, will promote 
 domestic «nd foreign trade, and hasten the return of prosperity to our 
 people. 
 
 That to that end. the tariff should be reduced to the needs of honest, 
 economical and efficient government; 
 
 That it should be so adjusted as to make free, or to bear as lightly 
 as possible upon, the necessaries of life, and should be so arranged as 
 to promote freer trade with the whole world, more particularly with 
 Great Britain and the Ignited States. 
 
 We believe that the results of *he protective system have griev- 
 ously disappointed thousands ot persons who honestly supported it, 
 and that the country, in the light of experience, is now prepared to 
 declare for a sound fiscal policy. 
 
 The issue between the two political parties on this question is no\r 
 clearly defined. 
 
 The Government themselves admit the failure of their fiscal policy 
 and now profess their willingness to make some changes ; but they 
 say that such changes must be based only on the principle of pro- 
 tection. 
 
 We denounce the principle of protection as radically unsound and 
 unjust to the masses of the people, and we declare our conviction 
 that any tariff changes based on that principle must fail to aflford any 
 substantial relief from the burdens unuer which the country labors. 
 
 This issue we unhesitatingly accept, and upon it we await with 
 the fullest confidence the verdict of the electors of Canada. 
 
 2.— ENLARGED MARKETS -RECIPROCITY. 
 
 That having regard to the prosperity of Canada and the United 
 States as adjoining countries, with many mutual interests, It is de- 
 sirable that there should be the most friendly relations, and broad 
 and liberal trade intercourse between them ; 
 
 That the interests alike of the Dominion and of the Empire would 
 be materially advanced by the establishing of such relations ; 
 
 That the period of the old reciprocity treaty was one of marked 
 prosperity to the British North American colonies ; 
 
 That the pretext under which the Government appealed to the 
 country in 1891 respecting negotiation for a treaty with the United 
 States was misleading and dishonest, and intended to deceive the 
 electorate ; 
 
 That no sincere effort has been made by them to obtain a treaty, 
 but that, on the contrary, it is manifest that the present Government, 
 controlled as they are by monopolies and combines, are not desirous 
 of securing such a treaty ; 
 
 That the first step towards obtaining the end in view, is to place 
 a party in power who are sincerely desirous of promoting a treaty on 
 terms honorable to both countries ; 
 
\ 
 
 That a fair and liberal recipntclty treaty would develop the great 
 natural resources of Canada, would enormously increase the trade and 
 commerce between the two countries, would tend to encourage friendly 
 relations between the two peoples, would remove many causes whicn 
 have in the past provoked irritation and trouble to the Governments of 
 both countries, and would promote those kindly relations between the 
 Empire and the liepublic which att'ord the best guarantee for peace 
 and prosperity. 
 
 That th^ Liberal party is prepared to enter into nearotiations with 
 a view to obtaining such a treaty, including a well considered list of 
 manufactured articles, and we are satisfied that any treaty so ar- 
 ranged will receive the assent of Her Majesty's Government, without 
 whose approval no treaty can be made. 
 
 3.-PURITY OF ADMINISTRATION-CONDEMN CORRUPTION. 
 
 That the Convention deplores the gross corruption in the manage- 
 ment and expenditure of public moneys which for years past has ex- 
 isted under the rule of the Conservative party, and the revelati )n8 of 
 which by the diflferent parliamentary committees of inquiry have 
 brought disgrace upon the fair name of Canada. 
 
 The (Government which profited politically by these expenditures 
 of public moneys of which the people have been defrauded, and which, 
 nevertheless, have never punished the guilty parties, must be held 
 responsible for the wrongdoing. We arraign tne Government for re- 
 taining in office a Minister of the Crown proved to have accepted very 
 large contributions of money for election purposes from the funds of a 
 railway company, which, while paying tne political contributions to 
 him, a member of the Government with one hand, was receiving Gov- 
 ernment subsidies with the other 
 
 The conduct of the Minister and the approval of his colleagues, 
 after the proof became known to them, are calculated to degrade 
 Canada in the estimation of the world, and deserve the severe con- 
 demnation of the people. 
 
 ^ould 
 
 vrked 
 
 the 
 Inited 
 le the 
 
 4.-DEMAND STRICTEST ECONOMY.-DECREASED EXPENDITURE. 
 
 We cannot but view with alarm the large increase of the public 
 debt and of the controllable annual expenditure of the Dominion and 
 the consequent undue taxation of the people under the Governments 
 that have been continuously in power since 1878, and we demand the 
 strictest economy in the administration of the government of the 
 country. 
 
 lent, 
 iirous 
 
 1 place 
 ity on 
 
 .'5— FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT— INDEPENDENCE OF 
 
 PARLIAMENT. 
 
 That the Convention regrets that by the action of Ministers and 
 their supporters in Parliament, in one case in which serious charges 
 were made against a Minister of the Crown, investigation was alto- 
 
Vl 
 
 f^ether refused, while in another case the char(?es preferred were 
 altered and then referred to a commission appointed upon the advice 
 of the Ministry, contrary to the well settled practice of Parliament ; 
 and this Convention affirm : 
 
 That it is the ancient and undoubted right of the House of Ck>m- 
 mons to inquire into all matters of public expenditure, and into all 
 charges of misconduct in office agaiudt Ministers of the Crown, and 
 the reference of such matters to royal commission created upon the 
 advice of the accused is at variance with the due responsibility of Min- 
 isters to the House of Commons, and tends to weaken the authority 
 of the House over the Executive Government, and thiB convention 
 affirms that the powers of the people's representatives in this regard 
 should on all fitting occasions oe upheld. 
 
 6— THE LAND FOR THE SETTLER-NOT FOR THE 
 
 SPECULATOR. 
 
 That in the opinion of this Convention the sales of public lands of 
 the Dominion should be to actual setileisonly, and not to speculators, 
 upon reasonable terms of settlement, and in such areas as can be 
 reasonably occupied and cultivated by the settler. 
 
 7.-0PP0SE THE DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT-FAVOR THE 
 
 PROVINCIAL FRANCHISE. 
 
 That the Franchise Act since its introduction has cost the Do- 
 minion Treasury over a million dollars, besides entailing a heavy ex- 
 penditure to both political parties. 
 
 That each revision involves an additional expenditure of a further 
 quarter of a million ; 
 
 That this expenditure has prevented an annual revision, as origin- 
 ally intended, in the absence of which young voters entitled to the 
 franchise have, in numerous instances, been prevented from exercis- 
 ing their natural rights. 
 
 That it has failed to secure uniformity, which was the pr-'icipal 
 reason assigned for its introduction ; 
 
 That it has produced gross abuses by partizab revising barristers 
 appointed by the Government of the day; 
 
 That its provisions are less liberal than those already existing in 
 many Provinces of the Dominion, and that in the opinion of this Con- 
 vention the Act should be repealed, and we should revert to the 
 Provincial Franchise. 
 
 8.-AGAINST 
 
 THE GERRYMANDER-COUNTY 
 SHOULD BE PRESERVED 
 
 BOUNDARIES 
 
 That by the Gerrymander Acts, the electoral divisions for the re- 
 turn of members to tne House of Commons have been so made as to 
 prevent a fair expression of the opinion ot the country at the general 
 elections, and to secure to the party now in power a strength out of 
 all proportion greater than the number of electors supporting them 
 
 ; 
 
were 
 idvicse 
 nent ; 
 
 CJom- 
 ito all 
 , and 
 an the 
 )f Min- 
 ihority 
 ention 
 regard 
 
 IE 
 
 ands of 
 
 iilators, 
 
 can be 
 
 R THE 
 
 the Do- 
 Bavy ex- 
 further 
 
 is origin- 
 d to the 
 exerois- 
 
 kr''iGipal 
 
 larristers 
 
 fisting in 
 this Con- 
 H to the 
 
 )AR1ES 
 
 would warrant. To put an end to this abuse, to make the House of 
 Commors a fair exponent of publio opinion, and lo preserve the his- 
 torio continuity of counties, it is desirable that in the formation of 
 electoral divisions, county boundaries be preserved, and that in no 
 case parts of different counties should be put in one electoral division. 
 
 9-THE SENATE DEFECTIVE— AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 The present constitution of the Senate is inconsistent with the 
 Federal principal in our system of government, and is in other respects 
 defective, as it makes the Senate independent of the people and un- 
 controlled by the public opinion of the country, and should be 
 so amended as to bring it into harmony with thefprinciples of popular 
 government. 
 
 10-QUESTION OF PROHIBITION-A DOMINION PLEBISCITE. 
 
 That whereas public attention is at present much directed to the 
 consideration of the admittedly great evils of intemperance, it is de- 
 sirable that the mind of the people should be clearly ascertained on 
 the question of Prohibition by means of a Dominion Plebiscite. 
 
 Ir the re- 
 side as to 
 general 
 A out of 
 Ing them 
 
s 
 
 A PRIMER OF TARIFF REFORM. 
 
 iini)08ed on commodities imported from 
 
 Q. What is a tariff? 
 
 A. A tariff \h a tax 
 foreign countries. 
 
 Q. What is a tax? 
 
 A. A tax is the portionof property or product whichjthe Govern- 
 ment takes (by compulsion) from every citizen— not a pauper— for 
 public purposes. 
 
 Q. vVhat are public purposes, in the sense of this definition? 
 
 A. A definition given by the Supreme Court was as follows : 
 "For the puri^ose of carrying on the Government in all its machinery 
 and operations." 
 
 Q. What is free trade?* 
 
 A. Free trade is the right of every man to freely exchange the 
 products of his labor and services in' such a way as seems to him 
 most advantageous, subject only to such restrictions as the State may 
 find necessary to make for the purposes of revenue or for sanitary or 
 moral considerations. Converselv, it is the denial of the right of a 
 free government to arbitrarily take from any person any portion of 
 the product of his labor for the benefit of some other man who has not 
 earned or paid for it. 
 
 * The following detlnitlons of free trade and protection appeared in tlie 
 Ptiiladelphia Ameriran, of August 7th, 1884, a representative pro^^ectlonlst 
 paper : 
 
 " The term Free Trade, although much discussc.i, is Eeldom rightly defined. 
 It does not mean the abolition of custom houses. Nor does it mean the substitu- 
 tion of direct for indirect taxation, as a few American disciples of the school 
 have supposed. It means such an adjustment of taxes on imports as 'will 
 cause no diversion of capital from any channel into which it would otherwise 
 flow, into any channel opened or favored by the legislation which enacts the 
 customs. A country may collect its entire revenue by duties on imports, and 
 yet be an entirely Free Trade country, sn long as it does not lay those duties in 
 such a way as t<i lead anyone to undertake any employment or make any investment 
 he would avoid in the absence of such duties. Thus, the customs duties levied by 
 England — with a \ ery few exceptions— are not inconsistent with her profession 
 of being a country that believes in Free Trade. They either are duties on 
 articles not produced in England, or they are exactly e(|uivalent to the excise 
 duties levied on the same articles if made at home. They do not lead anyone 
 to put his money Into the home production of an article, because they do not 
 discriminate in favor of the home producer. It is therefore no concession to 
 the protective principle when the Democratic platform says that ' since the 
 foundation of the government custom house duties have furnished its main 
 source of revenue,' and that ' this system must continue.' 
 
 "A protective duty, on the other hand, has for its object to effect the 
 diversion of a part of the capital and labor of the people out of the channels in 
 which it would run otherwise, into channels favored or created by law." 
 
9 
 
 m. 
 
 i from 
 
 ^overn- 
 per— for 
 
 m? 
 
 follows : 
 ichinery 
 
 mge the 
 3 to him 
 bate may 
 litary or 
 ight of a 
 jrtion of 
 [) has not 
 
 red In the 
 |c*ectlonl9t 
 
 ly iletlDed. 
 [e Bubstltu- 
 the school 
 •ts as -wUl 
 otherwise 
 jenacts the 
 jporls, and 
 [se dntien in 
 investment 
 s levied by 
 profession 
 'b duties on 
 the excise 
 lad anyone 
 [hey do not 
 tcesslon to 
 ' since the 
 5d Its main 
 
 ettect the 
 khannelB in 
 Iw." 
 
 
 Q. What is prelection ? 
 
 A. Protection, on the ground of advantages accruing direotly or 
 incidentally, advocates and defends the imposition of taxett on imports 
 for other puruoses than those of revenue. The i)rotective system is 
 opposed to tno revenue system because the (ioverimient collects 
 revenue on what comes in, while protection is secured only to the 
 extent to which commodities are kept out. 
 
 y. What is the idea underlying each? 
 • A. Free trade assumes that a peoph* like those of ('auada might 
 be left t.> themselves to decide what is to their own advantage; 
 Protection assumes that Piirliament vm\ better decide what business 
 the v^eople shall do than the people themselves. 
 Q. What is a taritf for revenue only? 
 
 A. A '• tariff for revenue only " is one so framed that all the 
 taxes which the people pay, the Government shall recrive. 
 
 il. What is meant by n tariff for revenue with "incidental 
 protection?" 
 
 A. The adjustment of a tarilf for revenue* in such a way as to 
 afford what is twrnied ''incidental protection" is based on the sup- 
 position that by arranging a scale of dutie-. so moderate as only to 
 restrict and not prevent imi)ortations, it is possible to secure sutticient 
 revenue for the State, and at the same time stimulate domestic 
 manufactures by increasing the price of competitive foreign products. 
 
 Q. Is this double object capable of attaimnent V 
 A . Undoubtedly ; but it is al^o one of the most costly of all 
 methods of raising revenue. For while revenue to the State accrues 
 only from the tax levied on what is imported, another tax, arising 
 from an increase of price, is also paid by the nation upon all domestic 
 products that are sold and consumed in competition with the foreign 
 article. A tariff for revenue so adjusted as to afford incidental pro- 
 tection, is therefore a system which re(iuires the consumers, who are 
 the people, to pay much in order that the State may receive little. 
 
 PROTECTION INVOLVES THE PRINCIPLE OF SLAVERY. 
 
 Q. What is the highest right of property ? 
 
 A. The right to freely exchange it for other property. 
 
 Q. How do you prove this ? 
 
 A. If all exchange of property were forbidden, each individual 
 would be like Robinson Crusoe (jn his uninhabited island. He would 
 have to live on what he individually produced or collected, and would 
 be deprived of all benefits of co-o})erati()n with his fellow-men, and 
 of all the advantages of production that come from diversity of skill 
 or diversity of natural circumstances. In the absence of all freedom 
 o1: exchange between man and man, civilization W(mld be impossible; 
 and to the degree in which we impede or obstruct the freedom of ex- 
 change -i, e., commercial intercourse,— to that same degree we oppose 
 the development of civilization. 
 
 Q. Is it the intent and result of a "protective" taritf to restrict 
 exchanges ? 
 
 A. It invariably amounts to the same thing, whether we make 
 the interohange of commodities costly and difficult by interposing 
 
nMMii 
 
 10 
 
 deserts, warn ps, unbridged streams, bad -roads or bands of robbers 
 between producers and consumers, or whether, for the benefit of some 
 private irti^rests, that have done nothing to merit it, we impose a toll 
 on the commodities transported, and call it a tariff In both cases 
 there is a greater effort and an increased cost required to produce a 
 given result, and a diminution of the abundance of the things which 
 minister to everybody's necessities, comfort and happiness. A twenty 
 per cent duty is like a bad road; a fifty per cent., like a broad, deep 
 and rapid river, without any proper facilities for crossing, a seventy- 
 five per cent., like a swamp flanking such a river on both sides; while 
 a bundled ner cent- duty, such as is levied upon kerosene oil, is as a 
 band of robbers, who strip the merchant of nearly all he possesses, 
 and make him not a little grateful that he escapes with his life. 
 
 Q. How does a tariff, enacted for so-called "protection," involve 
 the principle of slavery ? 
 
 A. Any system of law which denies to an individual the right 
 freely to exchange the products of his labor, by declaring that A, a 
 citizen, may trade on equal terms with B, another citizen, but shall 
 not under equally favorable circumstances trade with C, who lives in 
 another country, reaffirms in effect the principle of slavery. For both 
 slavery and the artificial restriction of exchanges deny to the mdi- 
 vidual the right to use the products of his labor according to his own 
 pleasure, or what may seem to him the best advantage. In other 
 words, the practical working of both the system of human slavery 
 and the system of protection is t ) deprive the individual of a portion 
 of the fruits of his labor, without making in return any direct com- 
 pensation. 
 
 Q. What is the argument generally put forth by protectionists 
 iio justity the restriction of freedom of exchanges? 
 
 A. That any present loss or injury resulting from such restric- 
 tion to the individual will be more than compensated to him 
 INDIRECTLY, as a citizeu of the State. 
 
 Q. Was not this essentially the argument used to justify 
 slavery ? 
 
 A. Yes. The plea for slavery j^sserted that the system was 
 really for the good of the slaves, and that any deprivation endured by 
 them for the good of society— meaning the masters— would be fully 
 compensated to them, through moral discipline, if not in this world., 
 certainly in the world to come. It made the slaveowners, who 
 enacted the laws, the sole judges of the question. 
 
 Q. Have not the same arguments employed for the restriction of 
 exchanges— i. e, indirect or future individual or social benefit as a 
 justification i^y present personal restriction or injury— been always 
 used to justify every encroachment by despotic governments on the 
 freedom of the individual? 
 
 A. Yes; and especially in warrant of State persecution for heresy 
 or unbelief; of enforced conformity with State religions; of abridging 
 the liberty of speech and of the press and of restricting the right of 
 suffrage. In short, the restriction of freedom of exchange for the 
 purpose of subservitig private interests, is one of those acts on the 
 part of the State which are utterly antagonistic to the the principles 
 of free government; and which, if fully carried out, would be 
 absolutely destructive of it. 
 
11 
 
 jbbers 
 E some 
 3 a toll 
 1 cases 
 iuce a 
 which 
 iwenty 
 i, deep 
 iventy- 
 while 
 is as a 
 jsesses, 
 
 involve 
 
 e right 
 lat A, a 
 
 at shall 
 lives in 
 or both 
 le indi- 
 lis own 
 n other 
 slavery 
 portion 
 3t com- 
 
 tionists 
 
 restric- 
 ;o him 
 
 ustify 
 
 ra was 
 ured by 
 36 fully 
 world, 
 
 •s, who 
 
 ction of 
 
 tit as a 
 
 always 
 
 on the 
 
 heresy 
 ridging 
 ight of 
 for the 
 
 on the 
 inciples 
 )uld be 
 
 THE TWO POLICIES. 
 
 What are the broad distinctions dividing the two great political 
 ymrties in Canada ? 
 
 FnEE TuADB as against Prote<tion, Reciprocity as against 
 Restriction, and Jfouest Kroiiomicdl Government as against the 
 hxtrai'n(/((nce, Misnuinuifement and Corrujyfion which has charac- 
 terized Canada's Government for years past! 
 
 Other important issues relating to Thf^ Sen(iU\ Prohibition and 
 other matters also divide the parties, but at present the great Trade 
 Qut'stion over -rides all else. 
 
 The policy known as the N. P., which has been in force since 
 1878, is sought to be still longer retained by the Conservatives. 
 
 Its basic principle is the imposition of duties so high that foreign 
 manufactures will oe excluded, and their manufacture in Canada 
 encouraged and promoted, ar^d the argument used is that domestic 
 competition will be sufficient to keep prices down and prevent the 
 consumer being fleeced. 
 
 The Liberals object to this policy as being unjust to the State, 
 unjust to the coneumer, and calculated to promote extravagance and 
 to diminish instead of enlarge our commerce 
 
 They contend that the experience of the sixteen years past has 
 confirmed their predictions, and that in the words of the Ottawa 
 platform the N. P. has 
 
 1. Decreased the value of farm and other landed projierty. 
 
 2. Oppressed the masses to the enrichment of a few. 
 
 3. Checked immigration. 
 
 4. Caused great loss of population. 
 
 5. Impeded commerce. 
 
 G. Discriminated against Great Britain. 
 
 The taxes collected under the N. P. and paid direct to the 
 Treasury have since the year 1878 amounted to nearly ONE 
 HUNDRED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS more than would have 
 been taken out of the people had the McKenzie revenue tariff been 
 maintained instead of the N. P. tariff. 
 
 Notwithstanding this enormous increase of taxation there was a 
 
 JDE PIOIT 
 
 last year of S1,000,00() odd, and this year it is very much greater. The 
 DEFICIT, as the returns up to end of January, 1895, show, will retch 
 at the end of the fiscal year,;Fivc Millions of Dollars. 
 
12 
 
 But che excessive tnyation laid upon the people and jmid into the 
 Treasury is only a small proportion of the rcul tcuation^ the greater 
 part of which the people are compelled to p^^y to the protected 
 industries. 
 
 The best authories place this at 02 for every SI paid to the 
 Treasury, 
 
 Even if it were only equal to that paid into the Treasury it would 
 be enormous. 
 
 The (luestion arises right on the threshold of the argument, why 
 should a law be passed enabling one man or several men formed into 
 a company, to compel people to pay him or them a much larger sum 
 for the goods they buy than they "would be obliged to pay in the open 
 market. 
 
 If any particular man, sa\ John Smith, was able to get a law 
 passed at Ottawa saying that he should have a monopoly in Canada 
 of the sale of any particular article, whether rupe, cotton, iron, 
 woolens, oil, rice, sugar or any other article, and should have the 
 right to chaige what ])rice he pleased uj) to a cei'tain fixed price far 
 beyond that for which it could be purchased abroad, every elector 
 would at onee say: Why, that's an immoral and unjust and an unfair 
 law. 
 
 And yet the N. P. tariff is just such a law and has just such an 
 effect, the only diflference bemg that its favorites are as a rule 
 COMPANIES and not individuals. 
 
 THE N. P. MONOPOLY. 
 
 Experience has shown tkat when foreign goods are excluded 
 and the Canadian market kept close for Canadian manufactures, 
 unrestrained by foreign competition, the result is the formation 
 of COMBINES AND MONOPOLIES, which control the market, 
 buy up all Canadian competition and charge the consumer for 
 his goods the utmost limit the hnu { N. P.) alloivs. 
 
 Such today is t!ie case with Cordage, Cottoxs, Woolens, 
 Si(;aj{, Etc., Etc, Er<\ 
 
 For a few years internal competition had the effect of keep- 
 ing down the prices, but as the Canadian market was a limited 
 one, the fa(*tories soon cut each othcj's throats, and now either 
 by a MONoroLV, such as exists iu the cotton and cordage trade, 
 or by a monopoly as in the iron trade, competition does not exist, 
 the ordinary laws regulating prices are ignored, and these pet 
 industries are enable to ileece the consumer at their own sweet 
 will, and all by virtue of a law passed by the people fleeced. 
 
 THE LIBERAL POLICY. 
 
 The policy of the Liberal party is in the first place: 
 1. To reduce the annual expenditure to the lowest sum 
 compatible with honest economical government. 
 
18 
 
 keep- 
 iuiited 
 either 
 trade, 
 
 exist, 
 ie pet 
 
 sweet 
 
 sum 
 
 2. To abolish all unnecessary expenditures and curtail and 
 reduce those which, though necessary, are extravagant, 
 
 3. To raise by taxation only just so muck money as is 
 absolutely necessary to carry on the government. 
 
 4. To so adjust the customs tariff that ALL THE TAXES 
 PAID THROUGH IT SHALL (JO INTO THE TREASURY 
 AND NOT INTO THE COFFERS OF A FEW FAVORED 
 INDUSTRIES. 
 
 The present Government say they cannot " run the 
 machinery" for less than the present expenditure, and that the 
 present customs tarilF (which collects $20,000,000 for the 
 Treasury and more than $20,000,000 besides for the combines, 
 trusts and other protected industries) is the best they can devise. 
 
 Mr. Foster, in his Budget speech of J 804, expressly and 
 deliberatelv stated THAT THE MAIN OBJECT IN FRAMING 
 A TARIFF OU(JHT NOT TO BE TO RAISE REV^ENUE 
 FOR THE COUNTRY, BUT TO DEVELOP THE INDUS- 
 TRIES OF THE COUNTRY. 
 
 His exact words were : "So far as the revenue aspect is 
 "concerned, it is OF INFINITELY LESS IMPORTANCE than 
 " the etlect and details of the tariif upon the trade and develop- 
 " ment of a country.'' 
 
 As opposed to all this 
 
 The Liberal party says that several millions may he lopped 
 off the present expenditure without injuring the public service. 
 (Hon. D. ]\Iills estimates the possible saving at $4,000,000.) 
 
 The Liberals further say that while all citizens according to 
 their means should be taxed for the support of the national 
 government, t6 tax them for the support of private enterprises, 
 and under cover of law to take money from one citizen's purse 
 to enrich another, is a ,i;ross injustice and "legalized robbery." 
 
 Now in order properly to understand the working of the 
 N. P. we ought to consider carefully how we s^o.jJ jinancially in 
 iS;-S, how we stand nnancially to-dav, and how our present 
 DEBT, TAXATION AND EXPENDITURE compares with that 
 of the revenue tariif period of Mr. McKeuzie, and how that great 
 test of national wealth and progress, viz.: the population of the 
 country stands and compares with foimer periods. 
 
 At the end of the financial year 1878, when Mr. McKenzie 
 went out of power, the nett debt of the Dominion was 
 $140,362,069.9L 
 
14 
 
 DEBT AND EXPENDITURE LARGELY INCREASED. 
 
 The Conservative Governmeut has increased this debt since 
 then nearly $110,000,000, until, as shown by the Canada 
 Gazette of February 7, it stood, M January, 1895, at close upon 
 $250,000,000. equal tOy'^SO for every man, woman and child in 
 the Dominion. 
 
 Now it may well be asked by any man in the Maritime Provinces 
 How much of this -til 0,000,000 increased public debt has been 
 spent in the Maritime Provinces? Of course a large sum went to 
 pay for the Canadian Pacific Kailway and other large sums in 
 building new canals and deepening others, but after making 
 every reasonable allowance for important and neceBsary public 
 WOBKS, it is evident that there must have been GROSS AND 
 UNBOUNDED EXTRAVAGANCE, while in many cases the 
 country was DEFRAUDED AND ROBBED. 
 
 Taking each ten years and starting at Confederation we find 
 the nettdebt as follows: (See Public Accounts, 1894, p. xxx.) 
 
 1867 $ 75,728,041.37 
 
 1877 132,235,309.00 
 
 1887 227,314,775.44 
 
 1S94 240,183,029.48 
 
 1895, Jan. 31 249,407,462.55 
 
 Now look at our nett taxes paid to the Government during 
 same periods. The.se taxes consist of customs and excise duties 
 alone. • 
 
 In 1867 we paid in taxes, - * 11,700,681.08 
 
 17,697,924.00 
 28,687,000.00 
 
 
 a 
 
 1877 
 
 • 
 
 (( 
 
 u 
 
 1887 
 
 u 
 
 H 
 
 (< 
 
 1«QA 
 
 u 
 
 It 
 
 o« 
 
 9,203.00 
 
 (See Public Accounts, 1894, p. xxxii.) 
 
 In the intervening years of 1889, 1890 and 1891 we paid 
 respectively $30,613,522, !!<31 ,587,071, and $30,314,151. 
 
 Now while the public debt and the taxes have increased as 
 shown, how has the annual expenditure been maintained? 
 
 We give the figures taken from the Public Accounts as 
 follows: 
 
 TOTAL EXPENDITURE. 
 
 . . .8 $ 13,486,092.00 
 
 *r-8 23,503,158.25 
 
 1887-8 36,718,494.79 
 
 1893-4 37,685,026.62 
 
15 
 
 INCREASED THE TAXES. 
 
 It will thus be seen that while the Conservatives have 
 INCREASED the people's taxes ACTUALLY PAID INTO THE 
 TREASUKY by over *1(),()00,0()0 each year since they came into 
 power in 1878, they have also increased the annual expenditure 
 over that incurred in Mr. McKenzie's time over $14,000,000 
 yearly, and at the same time have added to the public nett debt 
 $110,000,000. The following figures show the comparison be- 
 tween 1878 and 1894. 
 
 1878. 
 
 181)4. 
 
 Customs taxation, 
 Total taxation, 
 Expenditure, - 
 Nett debt, - - 
 
 $ 12,782,824 $ 19,198,114 
 
 17,841,938 27,579,20;{ 
 
 23,508,158 37,585,025 
 
 140,362,069 249,407,462 
 
 These enormo'^' ims can hardly be fully appreciated by an 
 average man. F jmparisous with other countries may assist 
 in enabling oneao grasp their meaning. 
 
 ^reat Britain has for more than a century past been 
 engaged in costly wars by land and sea and in all parts of the 
 world. She has had necessarily to pile up an enormous public 
 debt. Yet to day the annual charge for the PUBLIC DEBT OP 
 GREAT BRITAIN is only 31 per cent, of its revenue, while 
 that of Canada is not less than 41 per cent. In other words. 
 Great Britain has, out of every $100 of rev^enue collected by 
 customs and excise taxes, to put by 831 to defray the annual 
 charges of it public debt; while out of every !!<100 Canada collects 
 by customs and excise taxes she has to put by •*41 to defray the 
 annual charges of h6r debt. These charges embrace the interest 
 on the debt and the sinking fund which we are obliged by law 
 to keep up. 
 
 Now look at the UNITED STATES. Their debt practically 
 speaking is paid off. It is now only $12 per head of the 
 population and it only takes $7 out of every i^lOO they collect by 
 customs and excise taxes to pay the interest and charges upon it. 
 
 So that while CANADA has to take $41 out of every $100 
 she collects by customs and excise taxes to pay the interest and 
 charges on her debt, GREAT BRITAIN only has to take |31 for 
 a similar purpose, and the UNITED STATES only $7. 
 
16 
 
 
 But the Tory orator says under the McKeu/.ie Goveniuicut 
 you had nothing but 
 
 DEFICITS, 
 
 while the Conservative Government has had a series of sur- 
 plusses. This statement is far from accurate. The Public Ac- 
 counts shows, p. xxxiii., that there were surpluses in lHTA-74 of 
 
 i*S88,77r).7!)— JS74-7r> of A!K{r),()t4.(K). 
 
 It is true that in the three following years there wer(j 
 delicits as follows: 1875-70— $J ,1>00,7S5— 1870-77 1,460,027— 
 1877-78—1,128,140. 
 
 Hut it must never be forgotten that these deficits were not 
 incurred by any extravagance or increase in the expenditure 
 but because the taxation of the people was reduced. As a matter 
 of fact nearly $o, 000, 000 less taxes were raised in, each of the 
 years 1876-77 and 1877-78 than were raised in 187.'{-74 or 1874-7a 
 and of coui'se many millions less than the Tory Government 
 has since raised. 
 
 The reduction was mainly caused by the cheapness of goods 
 imported, the customs duties being levied by an ad valorem rate 
 or so much per hundred upon the cost, it is manifest therefor 
 that if and when the cost of the goods imported is reduced say 
 one-third, the tax paid by the people to the Governmeijt is 
 greatly reduced, so it was in the three years referred to owing 
 to the world wide depression then existing and thus it was that 
 deficits occurred. 
 
 Governments are as a rule only blanieable for deficits when 
 they are guilty of EXTKAVAGANT OK INJUSTIFIABLE 
 EXPPjNDITURE and not simply because the amount of taxation 
 they raise from the people is small. 
 
 But what is the record of the Tory Government since 1878 in 
 this point. 
 
 DEFICITS. 
 
 In 1878-9 the deficit was - - !?1,037,090 
 
 1,543,227 
 
 2,240,058 ■ 
 5,834,571 
 810,081 
 1,210,332 
 
 Foi' the present year 1805 the returns are of course not com- 
 plete but we have the official returns for the seven months end- 
 ing January 31st, published in Canada Gazette and they show 
 that while there was a deficit of $1,210,332 for the whole year 
 
 
 1879-80 
 
 
 
 
 1884-5 
 
 
 
 
 1885-6 
 
 
 
 
 1887-8 
 
 
 
 
 1893-4 
 
 
 
goods 
 ti rate 
 erefor 
 id say 
 eijt is 
 wing 
 that 
 
 ;78 in 
 
 com- 
 
 eud- 
 
 show 
 
 year 
 
 17 
 
 1893-4 the REVENUE for the seven months ending January 1895 
 was $2,159,720 less than for the corresponding period in 1893-4 
 while the- expenditure was !?738,310 greater. We are therefore 
 almost THREE MILLION DOLLARS worse off on the 3l8t 
 January 1895, tkau on 31st January 1894, and THE DEFICIT 
 when the fiscal year ends on 1st July, CANNOT WELL BE 
 LESS THAN FIVE MILLIONS and may considerably exceed it. 
 With our financial condition thus DARK, with huge deficits 
 a«d a rapidly falling revenue, with our taxes increased to the 
 limit of the people's endurnce, the Government, instead of cur- 
 tailing expenditure, have largely increased it; while our debt 
 has reached figtres which almost force thoughtful men to doubt 
 our fature. 
 
 GREAT LOSS OF POPULATION. 
 
 The CENSUS RETURNS show tha^ excluding altogether the 
 886,000 immigrants who camei to Canada during the ten years, 
 1881 to 1891, there should have been au increase of population 
 by NATURAL INCREASE ALONE (calculated at 2 p.c. a year) 
 of not less than 900,000. The actual increase was in round 
 figures 500,000. The LOSS IN NATIVE BORN POPULATION 
 WAS THEREFORE IN THE TEN YEARS 400,000. If to this 
 however be added the 886,000 immigrants who according to the 
 statistics of the department of agriculture were brought into 
 tl^is country during these ten years at a cost of according to the 
 Public Accounts, p. iiv. about $3,000,000, the actual exodus from 
 Canada during the ten years 1881 to 1891 amounted to OVER 
 1,200,000 PERSONS or 120,000 EACH YEAR. The United 
 States census agrees with ours in this regard and shows that of 
 every male born in Canada, between the ages of twenty and 
 fifty years, one in three 13 found in the United States. 
 
 The following Table is compiled from the census returns by 
 the Dominion Statistician Johnson and published in the 
 Statistical Year Book for 1893, p. 119. 
 
 POPULATION OF CANADA, 1871, 1881 AND 1891. 
 
 PROVINCE8. 
 
 1871 
 
 1881 
 
 Iricre.'iM;, 
 :Fer Cunt. 
 
 Ontario, - 
 Quebec, - 
 Nova Scotia, 
 New Brunswick, 
 Manitoba, 
 British Columbia, 
 Prince Ed. Island, 
 The Territories, 
 
 1,620,851 
 
 1,191,516 
 
 387,800 
 
 285,594 
 
 18,995 
 
 36,247 
 
 94,021 
 
 1 ,926,9221 
 
 1,359,027! 
 
 440,572j 
 
 321,233! 
 
 62,260 
 
 40,459 
 
 108,891 
 
 56,446 
 
 18.6 
 14.0 
 13.6 
 12.4 
 247.2 
 36.4 
 15.8 
 
 1891 
 
 j Intrta^c, 
 (Per Cent. 
 
 2,114,321 
 
 1,488,535 
 
 450,396 
 
 321,263 
 
 152,506 
 
 98,173 
 
 109,078 
 
 98,967 
 
 9.73 
 9.53 
 2.23 
 
 NONE 
 
 144.95 
 
 98.49 
 
 0.17 
 
 75.33 
 
18 
 
 These official figures show that the Maritime Provinces have 
 suft'ered in the matter of the exodus worse than any of the others, 
 having lost during the ten years between 1881 and 1891 allowing 
 for natural increase of the population 165,000 PERSONS. 
 
 The increase of population in the Maritime Provinces between 
 1871 and 1881 was lo3,281 allowing for natural increase at 2 per 
 cent, a year it should have been 163,480. 
 
 The Exodus therefore during that period reached 50,000 or 
 5000 a year. 
 
 The increase between 1881 and 1891 was only 10,000. Allowing 
 for natural increase at 2 per cent, a year, it should have been 
 175,000. 
 
 The exodus therefore during that period was 165,000 or 16,500 
 each year. 
 
 During the revenue tariff period, therefore, which covered 
 nearly all the years 1871 to 1881 the prosperity of the Maritime 
 Provinces, as evidenced by increase of population, if not all that 
 could be desired, was at least respectable. 
 
 During the ten years of a protective policy that prosperity, 
 as similarly evidenced, was altogether wanting. An exodus of 
 165,000 persons in ten years from a population of 870,696, 
 inhabiting such a rich and highly favored part of the world as 
 Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P. E. Island, is APPALLING. 
 
 But, say the Protectionists, people have gone to Manitoba 
 and the Northwest and British Columbia. 
 
 Would that it were so. The inexorable facts recorded in the 
 census returns absolutely disprove any such theory. They show 
 that the total number of Maritime Province people to be found in 
 1891 in Miinitobn, Northwest Territories and British Columbia 
 was 4,280. What became of the other 160,000? Every one 
 knows THEY WENT TO THE UNITED STATES. 
 
es have 
 ! others, 
 ,1 lowing 
 i. 
 
 between 
 at 2 per 
 
 0,000 or 
 
 Lllowing 
 ,ve been 
 
 )r 16,500 
 
 covered 
 laritime 
 all that 
 
 (sperity, 
 :odus of 
 870,690, 
 irorld as 
 LLING. 
 
 [anitoba 
 
 in the 
 3y show 
 
 md in 
 )Iumbia 
 
 fcry one 
 
 10 
 
 NEW BRUNSWICK UNDER THE N. P. 
 
 That the Province of New Brunswick has not prospered 
 under the N. P. is very apparent. A simple statement of facts 
 speaks eloquently against a protective tariff. Despite its vast 
 forest wealth, agricultural resources and valuable fisheries, it 
 presents arrested development. Note this contrast :— 
 
 Increased population from 1871 to 1881 
 Increased population from 1881 to 1891 only 
 
 35,639 
 30 
 
 The city of Moncton, through its favorable situation as a 
 railway centre has, through special causes, grown rapidly in both 
 decades; and deducting the increase in the city of Moncton the 
 statistics for the entire province outside the city is rather start- 
 ling. Note the contrast : — 
 
 Provincial Increase (less Moncton) from 1871 to 1881 - 32,207 
 Provincial DECREASE (less Moncton) from 1881 to 1891 3,703 
 
 This is the province, one of whose representatives, Sir 
 Leonard Tilley, as finance minister advised the merchants to 
 clap on full sail for twenty years of prosperity. 
 
 But again the Protectionist argues the tendency has been of 
 late years for the rural population to migrate to the cities. 
 
 Has that been the case in the Maritime Provinces? Unfor- 
 tunately, no! The people have left us altogether. 
 
 Look at the following tables compiled from the census 
 reports and to be found on pages 123 and 121 of the Government 
 Statistical Abstract for 1894: 
 
POPULATION OF CANADA BY ELECTORAL PISTRICTS, 1891 ani 1881. 
 
 Nova Scotia. 
 
 ij 
 
 :l! 
 
 Electoral Districtn. 
 
 Annapolis 
 
 Anti^unish 
 
 Cape Breton .... 
 
 Colchester 
 
 Cumberliind .... 
 
 i^'s^y •• •• 
 
 Gny.*b(>rouKh. . . . 
 Halifax (City)... 
 IT.ilifox (Ccunty) 
 
 H.uit-^ 
 
 Inverness 
 
 Kind's 
 
 Lunenburg 
 
 Pictou 
 
 Queen's 
 
 Richmond 
 
 Shelburne 
 
 Victoria 
 
 Yarmouth 
 
 Ih8l. 
 
 1S91. 
 
 20..598 
 
 IcS.OGO 
 
 3l,25S 
 
 •20.720 
 
 27,368 
 
 li>,881 
 
 17,808 
 
 30,100 
 
 31,817 
 
 23,3o9 
 
 2.5.6.51 
 
 2.S,409 
 
 28,583 
 
 35,535 
 
 10,.577 
 
 1.5.121 
 
 14,913 
 
 12,470 
 
 21,284 
 
 19,:{50 
 
 16,114 
 
 34,244 
 
 27.100 
 
 34.529 
 
 1 9.897 
 
 17,195 
 
 38,495 
 
 32863 
 
 22,052 
 
 25,779 
 
 22,489 
 
 31.075 
 
 34,541 
 
 10,610 
 
 14,399 
 
 14,956 
 
 12,432 
 
 22,216 
 
 Increase '"'DecrensH 
 Number. Per Cent. 
 
 — 1,248 
 
 — 1,946 
 2,986 
 
 440 
 7.161 
 
 — ()13 
 2,395 
 1,0461 
 
 —1,307 
 1281 
 
 — 980' 
 2,492 
 
 — 994 
 
 o o I 
 
 o.i| 
 
 — 722 
 
 43 
 
 — 38 
 932 
 
 . 60 
 
 ■107 
 
 90 
 
 16 
 
 201 
 
 - 3 4 
 0-8 
 33 
 
 - 50 
 05 
 
 - 40 
 8-7 
 
 - 2 7 
 03 
 
 - 47 
 03 
 
 - 0-3 
 
 Bkunswick. 
 
 Albert 
 
 Carleton 
 
 Charlotte 
 
 Gloucester 
 
 Kent 
 
 King's 
 
 Northumberland 
 
 Queen's 
 
 Restigouche 
 
 St. John (City) . 
 
 St. John (County) 
 
 Sunbury 
 
 Victoria 
 
 Westmorland . . 
 York 
 
 Island. 
 
i« 1881. 
 
 )ecr»"«sH 
 'er Cent. 
 
 - 6 
 ■107 
 
 90 
 
 10 
 
 261 
 
 . 3 4 
 08 
 3 3 
 
 - 50 
 Oo 
 
 - 40 
 8-7 
 
 - 2 7 
 03 
 
 - 4-7 
 03 
 
 - 0-3 
 4-3 
 
 -110 
 
 - 36 
 
 - 8-9 
 15-2 
 
 5 4 
 
 - 9-8 
 24 
 
 -13-3 
 17-7 
 
 - 7-4 
 
 - 5.4 
 -13-3 
 
 161 
 9-9 
 1-9 
 
 
 07 
 
 6-2 
 
 --4-4 
 
 II 
 
 Now here we nave the alarming fact that Heventeen counties 
 in the Maritime Provinces, eight in Nova Bootia, eight in New 
 Brunswick and one in P. E. Island, havk not only lost all 
 
 THEIR NATURAL INCREASE OF POPTLATION, BUT HAVE 
 
 ACTUALLY^ FEWER PEOPLE THAN THEY HAD TEN 
 YEARS AGO. 
 
 If the process continues it will take only a few years to de- 
 populate them altogether. 
 
 But how about the Maritime Cities ! ! 
 
 Unfortunately their plight is if anything worse. 
 
 Turn again to the record. The census returns show the fol- 
 lowing as the result of the census in cities in the Maritime 
 Provinces of 5,000 inhabitants in 1881 and 1891; 
 
 Now supposing the natural increase of population in these 
 cities had been retained, how would their population have 
 respectively stood in 1891 : 
 
 
 1881. 
 
 Natural iniiease 
 
 Population as it 
 
 Actual loss or gain in 
 
 
 Population 
 
 2 percl. per year 
 
 shoukl have 
 'increaseil. 
 
 Popul.ition. 
 
 St. John, 
 
 41,353 
 
 8.270 
 
 49,623 
 
 —10,444 
 
 Halifax, 
 
 36,100 
 
 7,220 
 
 43,320 
 
 — 4764 
 
 Charlottetown, 
 
 11.485 
 
 2.297 
 
 13,782 
 
 — 2,308 
 
 Moncton, 
 
 5,032 
 
 1,006 
 
 0,03» 
 
 -f 2,727 
 
 Fredericton, 
 
 6,218 
 
 1,243 
 
 7,401 
 
 — 959 
 
 Yarmouth 
 
 3,485 
 
 697 
 
 4,182 
 
 -f- 1.907 
 
 Truro, 
 
 3,461 
 
 692 
 
 4,153 
 
 + 947 
 
 Total, 107,134 21,425 128,559 12,992 
 
 Total population of the above seven cities as they would 
 
 have been in 1891 if they had retained their natural 
 
 increase 
 
 Total population as shown by census returns, 1891, 
 Aotual loss in 10 years, 
 
 128,559 
 115,567 
 
 12,992 
 
22 
 
 A SAMPLE NEW BRUNSWICK COUNTY. 
 
 Albert County, New Hrnnswick, is a striking? illustration of 
 the baneful cflfec'ts of the National Policy. Jt in a county with 
 a lar^e «ea board, rich agricultural rcHourceH, fine Ntoue quarries, 
 unrivalled depositH of plaster, and whip-owners' investments. 
 Here is the county's record until the two fiscal policies: 
 
 From 1S71 to 1881 Albert County INCRKASED under a low 
 rev<»nue tariff, 1,057. 
 
 From 1881 to 18r,l Albert County DKCKKA8EI) under a high 
 protective tariff, J, .'{58. 
 
 Tn the past ten years the county has lost within 300 of its 
 total ^Min ol the ten years pieced ing. 
 
 SHIPPING. 
 
 One of the great industries of the Maritime Provinces was its 
 shipping. The following tables indicate its KISE, progress, and 
 decadence. 
 
 Statement of the shipping of the Maritime Provinces for the 
 years 187.'{, 1878 and 181).'{, as shown by the Marine and Fisheries 
 Keport, 1804, page cvi.: 
 
 Nova Scotia. 
 Tonnajre. 
 
 1873 440,701 
 
 1878 553,368 
 
 1803 ;!.. 300,203 
 
 New Brunswick. 
 Tonnage. 
 277,850 
 335,965 
 150,080 
 
 P.E.Island. 
 Tonnage. 
 
 .38,018 
 
 54,250 
 
 20,970 
 
 It , 
 
 From the foregoing table it appears that while the registered 
 tonnage of the three Provinces in 1873 was as follows : 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Nova Scotia 449,701 
 
 New Brunswick 227,840 
 
 P. E.Island 38,918 
 
 Total, 
 
 716,469 tons. 
 
a.tiou of 
 ity with 
 uarrieH, 
 itiiiouts. 
 
 Br a low 
 sr a high 
 
 [) of its 
 
 ; was its 
 
 ess, and 
 
 for the 
 ishei'ies 
 
 Island, 
 nna^e. 
 ,918 
 
 8 
 
 l.,250 
 
 [0,970 
 
 ristered 
 
 23 
 
 It had increased in the yesir 1 878 to the foUowinjj; figures: 
 
 Nova Scotia r>r>.'{,;U)8 
 
 New IJiMinswick ;{.*{"> ^jMir* 
 
 P. E. island 54,250 
 
 Total 94a, 783 tons. 
 
 or an increase of 237, 114 tons which, at the average value per ton 
 estimated by the Afarine l>ci)artinent of *.'{0, mai<e AN IN- 
 CREA8E in the value of the registered tonnage of $7,113,42o 
 between the years lS73and 1878. 
 
 The National Policy was introduced in 1879, and has con- 
 tinued in force ever since. The registered tonnage in 1893 was 
 
 Nova Scotia 39(),2«8 
 
 New Brunswick 15(),080 
 
 P. E. Island 20,970 
 
 Total, 573,319 tons, 
 
 or a DECREASE OR LOSS of 370,204 tons, and at the same esti- 
 mate of *30 per ton of $11,108,220. 
 
 It is contended that this deplorable decrease is not charge- 
 able to the National Policy and certainly there were other 
 causes which contributed to bring it about. 
 
 But while credit is taken to that Policy for every increase 
 in the industries of the people,since it was introduced, it is well 
 to call attention to the fact, that one of the chief industries and 
 modes of investing their money of the people of the Maritime 
 Provinces HAS ALARiMINGLY DECREASED UNDER IT. 
 
 The money formerly invested in ships has been withdrawn 
 or lost, and to a considerable extent that portion withdrawn has 
 been invested in those FACTORIES or INDUSTRIES such as 
 the SUGAR and COTTON FACTORIES which are not indigenous 
 to the country but have been called into being and are main- 
 tained by the NATIONAL POLICY. 
 
 If instead of protecting by heavy taxation on the people the 
 sugar and cotton industries, and so inducing capitalists to with- 
 draw th*ir capital frora the natural industries of the country 
 and invest it in these exotic manufactures, our people had been 
 encouraged and induced in all legitimate ways, to change their 
 wooden ships for iron and steel ships, as was done in Great 
 Britain, we would not have had the deplorable record as shown 
 above staring us in the face. 
 
24 
 
 In the foregoiug figures no reference has been ni;;(l^ to sbi*^- 
 building. , 
 
 The facts are as follows : 
 
 NOVA SC;OTIA BlILT. 
 
 No. of Vessels. Tonnajre. 
 
 1874 17r, 84,480 V-iluo fit $40 per ton »M;^7!>,200 
 
 1878 167 4!),784 " " 1,!)9 1,360 
 
 181)3 111 15,08!) '■■ " 603 360 
 
 
 NEAV miUNSWICK JUJILT 
 
 No. of Vessels. Tonnage. 
 
 42,027 Value at 
 
 27,3^8 
 2,81!) 
 
 1874 
 
 90 
 
 1878 
 
 56 
 
 1893 
 
 119 
 
 per ton, $1,681,080 
 
 1,094,720 
 
 112,760 
 
 PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IJUILT. 
 No of V^essels. Tonnage. 
 1874 88 24,634 Value at $40 per ton, 
 
 1878 28 10,348 
 
 1893 3 634 
 
 The industry is practically extinct. 
 
 SEA-GOING SHIPPING. 
 
 (I 
 
 % 985,360 
 
 415,280 
 
 25,360 
 
 Pardonable pride is exhibited by Canadians from time to 
 time in pointing to the fact that Canada is the Fifth mercantile 
 power in the world. 
 
 Statistics show however that the National Policy or high 
 taxation is ''getting in its work" in this direction as well as in 
 others. * 
 
 " Protection " as Sir Charles Tui)per once observed before 
 he became a pervert from Free Trade principles, "has swept the 
 American Flag from the sea." Let us in Canada beware lest our 
 continuance in maintaining the odious system may produce the 
 same results. 
 
 To day of the ocean borne freight to and from Canada, only 
 about 20 is carried in Canadian bottoms, while 80 is carried in 
 British and Foreign ships. 
 
 Below we give a table from Trade and navigation returns for 
 1894 p. 576, showing the SEAGOING VESSELS inwards and 
 outwards during the year ending June 30, 1893. 
 
o '■■^iv 
 
 :^7!>,200 
 !)9 1,360 
 603 360 
 
 ,G.S1,0S0 
 
 ,094,720 
 
 112,760 
 
 9N5,360 
 
 415,280 
 
 25,360 
 
 binic to 
 cautile 
 
 V high 
 11 as in 
 
 before 
 3pt the 
 est our 
 
 ce the 
 
 I, only 
 ried in 
 
 rns for 
 U and 
 
 25 
 
 TOTAL SE\-GOING VESSELS, Inwards and Outwards, 1893. 
 
 British, 
 
 Canadian, 
 
 Foreign, 
 
 Tons Register. 
 3,780,915 
 2,189,725 
 4,637,771 
 
 10,608,611 
 
 Quantity of Freight. 
 Tons weight. 
 
 1.698,734 
 
 805,741 
 
 1,086,056 
 
 3,590,531 
 
 Crew, Number 
 106,861 
 109,952 
 200,822 
 
 417,625 
 
 This shows that of 10,608,611 tons shipping employed in 
 carrying the 3,590,531 tons weight of freight to and from Canada 
 only about one-fifth is Canadian. Of the 11 7,635 menelnployed only 
 109,952 are employed in Canadian ships. 
 
 Nearly 80 p. c. of the profits of Canada's seagoing carrying trade 
 goes to Foreigners and others outside of Canada. If we rejoice 
 that Canada's exports have increased our joy must be tempered 
 with the knowledge, that we employ Foreign bottoms to carry 
 theui away and that foreigners enjoy the profits of the carriage. 
 
 In 1878, matters were not so bad. The statistical abstract 
 p. 625, shows that in that year, the seagoing shipping entered and 
 cleared at Canadian Ports with cargo and in Ballast was as 
 follows : 
 
 1878 
 
 ERITISH. 
 Tons Register. 
 
 2,294,688 
 
 CANADIAN. 
 Tons Register. 
 
 1,928,531 
 
 FOREIGN. 
 Tons Register. 
 
 2,461,165 
 
 Total Tonnage 
 6,684,384 
 
 This shows that in 1878 of the total tonnage engaged about 
 29 p. c. was Canadian. Instead ofincreasing,our relative proportion 
 in 1893 was reduced to 20 p. c. 
 
 The number of crews employed that year is not given in the 
 "Statistical Eeport." 
 
 Compare the foregoing tables and facts with similar tables 
 as regards British shipping. 
 
 The Registered tonnage of Great Britain (see Statesman '.s 
 year Book) was in 1850, 3,096,000; 1860, 1,325,000; 1880,6,236,- 
 000 ; 1092, 8,644,754. u .j ^ , ^ 
 
 The greatest part of the entire international tradejof^the 
 world is conducted in British bottoms. 
 
 HALIFAX AS A WINTER PORT. 
 
 The Tories wish to make the Haligonians believe they have 
 built up Halifax as the winter port in Canada and diverted traffic 
 from American ports. But this is not true. In 1893 the ocean 
 borne tonnage over the 1. C. R. to and from Halifax was only 
 19,714 tons as against 18,354 tons in 1878, a year of depression. 
 Six years ago (in 1888) the ocean borne tonnage was nearly three 
 
26 
 
 times as lar^e as in 1893. and iu 1888 (ten years before) it was 
 32,786 tons as jip;iiiust i9,7i4 tons in 18<K{. What do these statis- 
 tics show ? Tliat the N. P. has dwarfed the natural j^rowth of 
 Halifax as a wint(!r port and crippled the earning ability of the 
 Intercolonial Railway. 
 
 COTTON MILLS AND SUGAR REFINERIES. 
 
 Now as to these COTTON AND SUGAR MILLS and the 
 monies invested in them, let us look at the census returns. 
 
 Now Tirnnswick had in 1891 five mills, viz., .St*. Croix, 
 Courfenay Uay, Parks, Moncton. and Marysville. 
 
 The capital invested in them in Land, Buildings, Machinery 
 and working capital, i!<2, 733,000. 
 
 They employed 025 men, 853 women, 147 boys under 16, 127 
 girls. Total hands, 1752. 
 
 They paid out in wages !*49S,000 oi- !?284 each employee. 
 Nova Scotia ha<l in 1891 two mills, one in Halifax and one in 
 Windsor had a total capital in land, *21,114, buildings, .^111,883, 
 machinery, !?283,988, working capital, $158,800, making in all 
 
 ^575,7 
 
 85. 
 
 They employed 184 men, 190 women, 56 boys, 33 girls, total 
 463. To whom were paid !?90,753, wages yearly or $196 per 
 head. 
 
 What returns were made on the capital. The Marysville 
 Cotton Factory is a private enterprise owned and run under very 
 exceplional circumstances by a man of indomitable energy, Mr. 
 ALEX. GIBSON. He pays NO TAXES, PAYS nothing for.fuel, 
 using the refuse of his saw mills therefor and manages himself. 
 
 Such a inill ought to pay a return and would no doubt do 
 so under any Government Policy. When unrestricted re- 
 cei>rocity was being discussed, Mr. Gibson felt so sure of his 
 ability to compete with the American manufacturer that he is 
 reported to have expressed himself as willing to abandon Pro- 
 tection if he could gain access for his wares to the American 
 market 
 
 The history of the other mills is pretty much the same. The 
 mills were bonded to raise money to carry on their business. 
 
 K<\stiicte<l to a small market in Canada fiercely competing 
 in that market with each other and the many other Canadian 
 mills, the ])ro(l notion far exceeded the demand, the prices fell, 
 the mills closed down, the mortgagees foreclosed, the mills were 
 sold and the result was that the oi'iginal capitalists lost the 
 mills and EVERY DOLLAR OF THEIR CAPITAL INVESTED 
 IN THEM and went for years without any dividend or return. 
 
)) it was 
 se statis- 
 lowtli of 
 
 by of the 
 
 ES. 
 
 and the 
 lis. 
 t*. Croix, 
 
 :achinery 
 
 jr 16, 127 
 
 iiiployee. 
 [1 one in 
 $111,883, 
 3g in all 
 
 iris, total 
 ^196 per 
 
 [arysville 
 
 Lder very 
 
 !rgy, Mr. 
 
 for^fuel, 
 
 himself. 
 
 tloubt do 
 
 cted re- 
 
 ■e of his 
 
 lat he is 
 
 Ion Pro- 
 
 merican 
 
 le. The 
 less. 
 
 peting 
 ;!anadian 
 jces fell, 
 Ills were 
 lost the 
 ESTED 
 leturn. 
 
 ■i 
 
 27 
 
 In the case of the Moncton Mills the original sliareholders 
 got back some 17 or 20 cents on the dollar of their investment. 
 
 To-day they are all (excepting Gibsons) in a HTdE COM- 
 BINE, governed by a central committee at Montioal, sometimes 
 shut down, other times running on part time, and entirely 
 managed in the interests of the monopolists. 
 
 The Protective Tariff permits and enables this combine, sill 
 competition being done away with and foreign competition 
 prohibited by the Tariff, to charge just snch prices as the 
 monopolists plc^ase, limited only by the prices charged lor 
 foreign goods after paying the duties. 
 
 SUGAR. 
 
 Great credit is claimed by the Protectionists loi- having 
 taken off the duties upon sugar some years ago, and as th(!v say 
 'reduced the TAXATION OF THE PEOPLE SOME TIIRKE 
 AND A HALF MILLIONS OF DOLL APS YEA PLY. 
 
 Mr. Foster in his Budget speech last year said : — 
 
 "The duties on glass have been reduced ; the duties on salt 
 " have been reduced one half and niort; than all, three years ago 
 *'the duty on raw sugar was completely taken olf, lilCMlTTIN(J 
 ''TAXATION to the amount that had I'urmerly been eoilected." 
 
 This claim explicitly adiuits that the duties they exacted on 
 sugar for YEARS WERE TAXES PAID BY THE PlOOPLi:. 
 This was formerly denied. Its atlmission is most important not 
 only as regards sugar but all other articles taxed by duties. 
 
 It must not be forgot reii that these sugar taxes were only 
 removed when the Government was forced to do so by the action 
 of the (Inited States (iovernnient in reducing the sugar duties 
 there. 
 
 All sugar duties however are not removed, sixty-four one- 
 hundredths, or practically % of a cent per lb. is still exacted on 
 Refimed Sugar. 
 
 This gives a substantial protection to the sugar relineis, 
 who importing the raw sugar FJih^E, refine it, sell it to the con- 
 sumer and make him pay TO THEM, in IXCREASED PKICi:, 
 the duty of jf of a cent, per lb. which he would have paid into 
 the Treasury, if he imported his sugar. la this way the con- 
 sumer pays an enormou'" tax upon sugar. What it amouurs ta 
 cannot be estimated with matheiuatical ainairacy, because it is 
 uot known whether the reliuer charges the consumei" with the 
 full protection of sixty-four onehundredths oi' % of a cent per 
 lb. on every pound consumed. If he does the tax the sugar 
 consumer paid would amount to over *1, 500, 000, But if he 
 only paid % of that protective tax, it would reach the respec- 
 
28 
 
 table sum of over one million dollars. All of which goes into 
 the pockets of the sugar refiners. 
 
 In 1893 WB IMPORTED 1,651,670 LBS. REFINED SUGAR 
 and the duty of eight-tenths of a cent, per lb. gave the revenue 
 about $9,000. In the same year WE IMPORTED 245 MILLION 
 POUNDS OP RAW SUGAR. 
 
 Being FREE the revenue got NOTHING. On its manu- 
 factured product there then was a duty of eight-tenths of a cent, 
 now sixty-four-one-hundredths When this 245 million pounds 
 raw sugar were manufactured into refined sugar and 
 sold to thf consumer, does the reader imagine the 
 refiner made him a PRESj^NT OF THE AMOUNT OF HIS 
 PROTECTION. The idea is absurd. Sugar refiners are like all 
 other men. They will charge all they can get and when they 
 have a protection of 'i of a cent, a lb. they charge that to the 
 consumer or just so much short of it as enables them to under- 
 sell foreign sugars, and whether that is ^, § or ^ of this pro- 
 tection the result is very large. Now the estimate of the quantity 
 of refined sugai- consumed in Canada yearly is from 250 to 300 
 millions pounds, -^n the basis of 250 millions pounds of consump- 
 tion the rj cent. i)er lb. duty, would leave the snug sum of 
 ftl ,600,000 as paid by the consumer of sugar to the refiner. 
 Whileonly $9,000 was paid into the Treasury. 
 
 But the N. P. man points to tne price of sugar in New York 
 as beiug higher than sugar in Montreal. 
 
 Why ? Because the America Tariff exacts a tax of 40 p.c. on 
 the cost alike of RAW and REFINED SUGAR.— This is equal to 
 nearly a cent a lb. The Treasury gets the benefit of all this tax 
 and has an additional tax of J cent, per lb. on refined sugar as 
 protection to the refiners, e(iual to 12^ cents per 100 lbs. 
 
 Our tariff admits raw sugar free and imposa<* a tax of 64 
 cents, per 100 lbs. on refined. 
 
 Thus the Canadian refiner has 5iJ cents per 100 lbs greater 
 protection tlian the American. 
 
 The New York refiner pays including the duty for his raw 
 sugar 3 cents and sells granulated for 3'^ per lb. 
 
 The Canadian gets his raw sugar free and charges 3 3-8 for 
 his granulated. 
 
 He therefoi' makes ^ cent*a lb. or $i..50 a barrel more for his 
 sugar than the American refiner for his. 
 
 The Canadian Treasury GETS NOTHING. If the refiner 
 says he does not charge the duty why keep it on. 
 
 The value of the products of these refineries by the census of 
 1891 was $17,000,000. 
 
foes into 
 
 SUGAR 
 I revenue 
 ILLION 
 
 s manu- 
 if a cent, 
 pounds 
 cir and 
 ine the 
 OF HIS 
 i like all 
 len they 
 t to the 
 ) under- 
 his pro- 
 juantity 
 >0 to 300 
 )nsuinp- 
 sum of 
 refiner. 
 
 jw York 
 
 p.c. on 
 ?qual to 
 
 lis tax 
 igar as 
 
 of 64 
 
 greater 
 lis raw 
 13-8 for 
 |for bis 
 I'efiner 
 Isus of 
 
 29 
 
 If we were allowed to import our sugar free from England 
 we would save jnst ^ of that amount being the diflfereuce be- 
 tween the cost of sugar imported from England and that 
 bought in Canada. 
 
 That would mean $2,125,000. If the duty makes no differ- 
 ence in the price charged by the refiner, we say take it off and 
 give the people a present of $2,000,000. 
 
 THE RICE QUESTION. 
 
 By a similar legerdemain the people are compelled to pay 
 about $300,000 yearly in the "shape of taxes upon rice while only 
 about $50,000 finds its way into the Treasury. 
 
 The feat is worked in this way: — 
 
 Cleaned rice pays a duty of 1} cents per lb; uncloaned pays 
 about :]r of a cent, pei- lb. Then; is consequently a protection 
 of 1 cent a lb. given to those who import the paddy or uucleancd 
 rice, and hull and clean it. 
 
 The Trade and Nav. Returns for i894 p. lO show that in the 
 year 1 893-4 there was imported over 3t. millions lbs of cleaned 
 rice , which paid a duty to the treasury of about $44,ooo. While 
 of uncleaned rice there was imported dose on 23, 000,000 lbs 
 which only paid about $53, 000 to the treasury. This 23, 000, 000 
 lbs of uncleaned rice made about 22,ooo,ooo lbs when cleaned 
 ready for sale. 
 
 The cleaner being protected one cent a lb would of course 
 charge that or nearly all to the consumer to whom he sold the 
 rice. 
 
 The consumer therefore paid the tax of 1 j cents for each lb. of 
 rice he consumed, but he paid jcent each lb. or in all $.53, 000 to 
 the treasury while he paid i cent pei- lb, or$22o,oooto the cleaner. 
 
 In this way out of every $5 of taxes the consumer paid, the 
 treasury got $1 and the manufacturer $4. 
 
 Last session Mr. P'oster tried to remedy this gross injustice 
 and when he introduced his new tariff, he pro[»osed to reduce the 
 duty on cleaned rice and raise it on unhulled. so that the 
 treasury might receive more of the taxes paid by the rice con- 
 sumers. 
 
 The rice cleaners however sent a deputation to the capital, 
 took the Finance Minister by the throat and made him abandon 
 his reform, and leave the consumer at the mercy of the cleaner of 
 rice. It was discovered that the pioposed refoiin was a "clerical 
 error" and the tariff was restored to what it had originally 
 been. 
 
30 
 
 THE CORDAGE COMBINE. 
 
 The customs tax is 1^ per lb., and 10 per cent, equal to 
 about 2^ cents a pound. This to a maritime people is one of the 
 most odious impositions of th(^ National Policy, and works the 
 most grievous injustice. 
 
 The monopoly of Canada enjoyed by "The Consumers' 
 Cordage Company " is almost complete. 
 
 Canada has been handed over to the tender mercies of this soul- 
 less corporation, bound hand and foot, and pays it tribute yearly 
 IN HUNDKEDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. All foreign 
 cornage is pracc^'cally excluded by a duty of a shade over 2 1-6 
 cents a pound. 
 
 The smaller rope factories were bought up by the large com- 
 bine, their doors closed, their workmen turned adrift, and their 
 proprietors paid THOUSANDS A YEAR to walk about and 
 enjoy themselves. 
 
 The rope factories in St. John and Quebec are cases in point. 
 
 Having silenced in this way Cenadian competition, and had 
 foreign competition excluded by the tariff, the Consumers Cordage 
 Co., with INIr. John F. Stairs, M. P. for Halifax, as its President, 
 (and it need hardly be said an out-and out supporter of the N. 
 P.) proceeds to recoup its expenditure in buying up its rivals, 
 and to build up collossal fortunes for those enjoying its 
 monopolies by fleecing* the Canadian Consumer. 
 
 The 2 1 () cents duty per pound, payable upon foreign cordage 
 imported, is not paid into the Treasury by those who use rope, 
 because practically foreign rope is excluded. 
 
 The consumer is bound to buy the Canadian rope. 
 
 He pays the tax of 2 1-6 cents a pound, op nearly that, all 
 rig-ht, but he pays it to Mr. John F. Stairs, M. P., and his co- 
 monopolists, and not to the Treasury. 
 
 So complete is the monopoly that the Attorney-General of 
 Nova Scotia publicly stated that he would be willing to pay its 
 "weight in solid silver for every inch of rope that was not 
 bought, or compelled to be bought, from this single combine, in 
 the Dominion of Canada." 
 
 But this combine, when it sells its rope in Newfoundland or 
 St. Pi :irt\ iiiu. io sell it in competition with rope manufactured 
 el .r.'L.ere, au(i actually sells it, from 1 1-2 to 2 cents less per 
 \,\;\ra . than it sells the same article to Canadians in Canada. 
 
 TUib is an intolerable outrage sanctioned, encouraged aud 
 maintained h^ the National Policy. 
 
 Some kinds of cordage, not manufactured by the com- 
 bine is imported still, and the revenue leceived in 1892, about 
 $14,000 in duty on it. Bat rope is monopolized. 
 
/ 
 
 31 
 
 KEROSEPIE OIL. 
 
 No duty is more unjuHt, unfair or discriminating than that 
 charged upon kerosene oil. 
 
 Its history is, that somewhere about the year 1868 a customs 
 duty of 15 cents a gallon and an excise duty were levied on 
 kerosene oil. 
 
 In 1877 the excise duty was removed, and the customs duty 
 reduced to (> cents per wine gallon. 
 
 When the imperial gallon was adopted this duty was 
 increased to 7 1-5 cents and so remained until 1894, when after a 
 very vigorous fight the Liberals in Parliament, headed by Mr. 
 Davies, succeeded in forcing a slight reduction of 1 1-5 cents, 
 making the present duty G cents per imperial gallon. 
 
 But the iniquity of this tax can be properly appreciated only 
 b}^ remembering that when the duty was left at 6 cents a wine 
 gallon in 1877, the price of American oil of the same quality as 
 that now imported, was 20 cents per gallon, which made the then 
 duty about 30 per cent. Of late years the price has fallen to 3^ 
 cents per wine gallon, while the duty remains the same at 6 cents 
 — equivalent to nearly 1.50 per cent. 
 
 Many invoices of imported oil were read in Parliament last 
 session. / 
 
 One importation to St. John, N. B., March, 1894: Two tanks 
 oil, invoice 1396; Quantity, 10,908 gallons; Duty paid, $785, 
 almost 200 Per Cent. 
 
 Another invoice about same date: Quantity, 9,643 gallons; 
 invoice cost, $405; Duty paid, $694. 
 
 Last November (1894) the Eastern Oil Co. produced an in- 
 voice of oil imported into St. John under the present tariff: 
 Invoice cost, 721; duty, $1,029— equal to nearly 150 per cent. 
 
 The trade and Navigation Returns for 1894 show that in that 
 year there was imported into Canada, 5,958.368 gallons, value 
 $436,476, on which duty was paid to the amount of $430,564.77, 
 or almost 100 Per Cent. 
 
 But lliut iliis is uiijustlv levied om be st'cii hoin t,hi> following 
 table: 
 
 
 Quantity, Galls. 
 
 \'alue. 
 
 Duly. 
 
 I'er Cenlage 
 
 Odtario, 
 
 2,064,o7.S 
 
 i?l 53 707 
 
 !?148,G52 
 
 9G-6 
 
 Qarlit'C, 
 
 7.S3,So<s 
 
 .')2,Goo 
 
 5 0.437 
 
 1071 
 
 NovM Scot4)i. 
 
 l,024,(i22 
 
 50,583 
 
 73772 
 
 123 7 
 
 Ni'W Biunswick, 
 
 1,010,322 
 
 55,984 
 
 72.743 
 
 130-3 
 
 P. E. Islnn.l, - 
 
 2o.5,00G 
 
 11,544 
 
 1S,3G0 
 
 JoS 2 
 
 Miilitob;i, 
 
 397,113 
 
 20 2G3 
 
 28.600 
 
 1411 
 
 P>r!ti-!i Ci>hiniiaa, 
 
 442,203 
 
 83,416 
 
 31,818 
 
 381 
 
 Noi-cluvrst Ti r, 
 
 2.481 
 
 450 
 
 178 
 
 39-5 
 
 5.980,183 $437,692 $430,564 98'3 
 
\ 
 
 32 
 
 Now this unjust duty is maintained ostensibly to protect an 
 Ontario Industry which jjjives employment a j shown by the censws 
 returns vol. 3 p. 231 to 270 persons. 
 
 The statistical abstract for 18!)4, p. 379 shows the quantity of 
 CANADIAN OIL consumed in Canada in 1893 to have been 
 10,083,800 gallons, as against 0,249,946 gallons of American 
 oil. 
 
 On this latter duties were paid into the Treasury amounting 
 to about $430,000. An amount equivalent to that duty or more 
 must have been paid the Canadiail oil refiner. 
 
 The result was that the Canadian consumer paid into the 
 Treasury in taxes on the Canadian oil he consumed $430,000 and 
 on the 10^ million gallons of CANADIAN OIL he paid the 
 Canadian manufacturer $760,000 or nearly $2 for every $1 paid 
 paid into the Treasury. 
 
 Supposing the Canadian manufacturer let the consumer off one- 
 half the tax, he would still have paid in taxes on oil not $1 of which 
 went to the Treasury, nearly $400,000. 
 
 All this to give employment to 260 men. 
 
 GOODS CHEAP AS EVER ! ! 
 
 But the argument is advanced by Tory speakers that GOODS 
 ARE AS CHEAP IN CANADA AS EVER THEY WERE. 
 
 Even if this statement was correct it is entirely beside the 
 question. 
 
 That question simply is are goods as cheap as they ought to be 
 and as they would be if the protective duties were removed ? 
 
 What are the facts. They are that owing to improved 
 machinery, cheap raw products, cheap food, etc. Goods are now 
 and have been for some years manufactured and sold in England 
 cheaper than ever before. 
 
 Remember the farmer does not now receive anything like as 
 much for his products as he used to. Look at the figures. 
 
 
 1884 
 
 1894 
 
 Wheat, per bushel. 
 
 80 cts. 
 
 55 Qis 
 
 Barley, 
 
 53 " 
 
 38 " 
 
 Oats, 
 
 33 " 
 
 28 " 
 
 Hay, per ton. 
 
 - $9.50 
 
 $7.50 
 
 It is manifest; therefore, if the farmer gets so much less for his 
 produce and has to pay the old prices for the goods he requires to 
 buy, he must be so much the worse off. 
 
3S 
 
 Now the following table, reproduced from the Coniinerciiil 
 Bulletin, shows the exports and selling values of the great staple 
 goods in England in 1874, 1884, and 1894: 
 
 EXPORTS FROM GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 ~» * 
 
 I'erceiuage 
 of intrcase 
 or ilecrea&e. 
 
 -+18-6 
 —12-8 
 
 Cotton Yarns (lbs.) 
 
 1874 220,599,074 
 
 1884 271,077,000 
 1894 2.S6,1 98,500 
 
 Cotton Fabrics (yds). 
 
 1874 3.603.348,527 
 
 1884 4,417,481,000 h.22-6 
 
 1894 5,312,753,900 -h20-2 
 
 Linens (yds.) 
 
 1874 190,409,712 
 
 1884 150,672,700 —20-8 
 
 1894 152,069,700 h- 093 
 
 Iron and Steel Manufactures. 
 
 1874 2,487,162 (tons) 
 
 1884 3,496,352 +40.6 
 
 1894 2,656,125 —24. 
 
 Value. 
 
 £14,516,093 stg. 
 13,811,767 
 9,289,078 
 
 £55,014,066 
 51,061,408 
 50,223,291 
 
 £6,173,255 
 4,149,830 
 3,273,448 
 
 £31,225,380 
 24,487.669 
 18,731,140 
 
 !'crLt:in,i«c 
 of iiiLrea-. 
 or (lecreaM!. 
 
 — 4-8 
 —32-7 
 
 — 718 
 
 — 16 
 
 —32.7 
 — 2li 
 
 — 21-0 
 — 23o 
 
 These figures in themselves speak volume.s. In cotton yarns 
 they show an increa.se in quantity produced in 1884 over 1 874 of 
 18% while the increased quantity was sold at 4% Zesvs. In 94, 12/,' 
 less in quantity was produced, but it sold for 32.7 p. c. or nearly 
 one-third less in price than in 1884. 
 
 In Cotton Fabrics, the year 1884 produced 226% more than 
 1874, yet the product sold for 7.18 per cent less price showing a 
 cheapening of nearly 30 per cent in ten years. 
 
 1894 showed astill further increase of 20 per cent in quan- 
 tity produced while it sold for 1 per cent less price. 
 
 The same story is told in Linens. 1884 produced 20 per 
 cent less in quantity than 1874, but sold for 32 per cent less price, 
 while 1894 producing nearly 1 per cent more sold for 21 per cent 
 less. 
 
 In Iron and Steel the results are more wonderful, the year 
 1884 produced 40 per cent more quantity than 1874 and England 
 
w^ 
 
 \ 
 
 84 
 
 sold it to litT customers 21 por cent less than she sold the smaller 
 producdun oj IS74. Tliu ytMir 1894 produced 24 per cent, less 
 quantity and Kngland sold it 28 per cent, less than she sold her 
 
 1^84 'prodact. 
 
 COTTON AND COTTON GOODS I I 
 
 But fi|)art, from the above tables let us look at the facts. 
 
 Mr. Edgar stated in the House of Commons and the correct- 
 noss of his Htai^oments has never been challenged, that the raw 
 cotton to!1 in cost between 1890 and 1(S98, 1 cent 6 mills a 
 pound. 'J'his, on the en.)rmous quantity imported of about 40 
 milli(ma of pontids, amounted alone to a profit of |660,000. The 
 wages of thi- operatives were not raised and the prices chargjed to 
 the consumer instead of beinfj lowered were raised from 10 to 25 
 per cent, during those three years. But the dividends and the 
 reserve funds set apart by the companies were raised. 
 
 Mr. E<lgar further stated that 13 million dollars worth of 
 cotton is manufactured by the Canadian Cotton Companies, and 
 that tin duty paid by the importers last year, on all cotton goods 
 broucht into the country was a trifle over 28 per cent. Supposing 
 there was no otlier profit on that S13,000,000 than the 28 per cent, 
 paid by the actunl importers, who, paid that in addition to the 
 freight and profits paid to the English manufacturer of cotton 
 goods.that would make a sum of $3,640,000 paid by the people to 
 the Combine', under the protection given by the Tariff. 
 
 In lather word?, on the S4,.500,GOO worth imported a tax of 
 i?l, 200,000 is paid, which goes into the treasury, and on the 
 $13,000,000 worth of ciittons manufactured, an equivalent tax of 
 $3,640,000 is paid, which goes into the coffers of the combines. 
 
 Take the history of these Combines to see how the people are 
 fleeced and the facts hidden from thorn. In 1892 the Dominion 
 Cotton Cc. one of the combines which controls 11 mills of the coun- 
 try, had a Capital of $1,. 500,000. They decided to double that Cap- 
 ital, Tlu'\- issnc^d (he new stock t<o themselves. They only paid 
 of the npw stick 10 per cent, or $150,000 and the balance of 
 $1.3.")0 000 was watered. On April 14th 1893 the annual report of 
 that Company was published. It state*! that the earnings for that 
 VQfiv wero alinnt 20 per cent on the capital of $3,000,000 but as on 
 the last $ 1.. 500,000 the shnreholders only paid 10 per cent, or 
 $ 1.50,000 while the Company paid a profit of 10 per cent on the 
 whole l.V millions, these gentlemen actually received 200 per cent 
 on all the money they paid in. 
 
85 
 
 INCREASED DUTIES ON DRY GOODS, 
 
 The National Policy has imposed very heavy duties on dry 
 goods. Careful examination by large importers has shown tliat the 
 average duty on dry goods is about 83 per cent, against \7h per 
 cent, under the Liberal Government. But many articles in comm-on 
 use by the middle and poorer classes pay very much high(>r dut'.ts. 
 Cloth, of which the clothing of working people is largely made, has 
 been taxed 40, 50, and oven 00 per cent. The consniiuM- has to pay 
 not only the increased duty, but a good deal more, as will i»e seen 
 by the following calculation : 
 
 Comparison of cost — $100 worth of Dry Goods. 
 
 UNDER LIBERAL TARIFF. 
 Cost of goods in England, SlOO.OO 
 
 Importation, Freight, Insurance, etc., 8 p. c, cS.OO 
 Duty, 17i p. c, 17.50 
 
 Cost to importer. 
 Wholesaler's profit, 15 p. c. 
 
 Cost to retailer. 
 Retailer's profit, 25 p. c, 
 
 $12550 
 
 18.S2 
 
 $144.32 
 
 36.0S 
 
 Cost to consumer, $180.40 
 
 Thus even under the Liberal tariff it cast $80 to place $100 
 worth of goods from England in the hands of the consumer. Now 
 let us make a similar calculation under the National Policy, with 
 average duty on dry goods 33 per cent. 
 
 UNDER TORY TARIFF. 
 
 Cost of dry goods in England • $100.00 
 
 Cost of importation ,S.OO 
 
 Duty, 33 p. c. 33.00 
 
 Cost to importer, 
 Wholesaler's profit 15 p. c. 
 
 Cost to retailer, 
 Retailer's profit, 25 p. c. 
 
 Cost to consumer, 
 
 $141.00 
 21.15 
 
 $162.15 
 40.51 
 
 $202.05 
 
 Cost of $100 worth of goods under Liberal tariff, $ 180.40 
 
 Cost of $100 worth of goods under National Policy, 202.05 
 
 Increased cost to consumer, $ 22^25 
 
\ 
 
 16 
 
 A similar calculation applied to a parcel of cloth used for cloth- 
 ing, and paying (JO per cent, duty, would be as follows : 
 
 CoHt of ^roods, S 100.00 
 
 Cost of importation, 'fi.OO 
 
 Duty GO per cent., 60.00 
 
 C'oMt to importer, 
 Wholesaler's profit, 15 p. c. 
 
 Cost to retailer, 
 Retailer's profit, 26 p. c. 
 
 Cost to consumer. 
 
 Cost of 8100 worth of goods -mder Lihonil tariff, $ 180.40 
 Cost of $100 worth of goods under National Policy, 241. r)0 
 
 S 108.00 
 25.20 
 
 !J 1!)3.20 
 48.80 
 
 S 241.50 
 
 Increased cost to consumer, 
 
 $ Gl.lO 
 
 Under the system of an ad valorem and specific duties there 
 are many eases in which articles of dry good are taxed as high as 
 00 per cent. 
 
 THE IRON DUTIES. 
 
 The positive harmfulnesa of protection is well illustrated by 
 the history of Canada's desperate efforts to tax her iron industry 
 into greatness. Ail she has succeeded in doing has been to tax her- 
 self very nearly to death. In the low tariff period from 1807 to 
 1879 pii,' iron was free while a 5 per cent, duty only, was imposed 
 upon bar and rod iron. Coal was free too. Coal and iron are raw 
 materials of every manufacture and by making them as cheap as 
 possible the low tariff governments gave encouragement to the 
 9stablishraent of manufactures. Agricultural implement factories 
 in particular sprang up here and there, and foundries and rolling 
 mills began to make their appearance. Unfortunately for Canada 
 a Protectionist Government came into power in 1878, and in over- 
 hauling the tariff, duties of $2 per ton were placed on pig iron, I7i^ 
 per cent on bar iron, and in proportion, on other forms of iron, or 
 manufactures of it. But it is the fate of a protective duty to go on 
 enlarging itself until it bursts. In 1883 the duty was reinforced 
 by a bounty of SI. 50 per tor. As the development of the iron 
 industry still failed to satisfy the Government, Sir Charles Tupper, 
 in 1887 resolved on drastic measures, and brought down to the 
 
 « # 
 
87 
 
 houso a new Iron schetlulo. Uy it pig was taxed S4 per ton, (or 
 S4.oO piT per long ton in whicli t'onn pi.j iron is bought); puiMli'iI 
 luirs $'.) pur ton; har ironSl.'i pt'r ton; pluto iron $l.S per ton; cast 
 iron pipi! #12 per ton; hoop iron SLS per ton, and everything else 
 in proportion. At the siiine time the bounty was reducotl to Ul , 
 per ton. 
 
 TUPPER'S PROMISES. 
 
 This new tariff, Sir Charles Tuppor assured the House, was going 
 to do the trick- Me predicted that the iron industry which would 
 si)riiig lip in consequence would furnish ein|)loyment to "an army of 
 nun, numbering at lea;-it twenty tht)usand, increasing our iK)pulatinn 
 from 80,(KKt to UK),(KM) souls, and affording the means of supporting 
 them in comfort and juosperiiy." lie declared that were we to manu- 
 facture all the iron and steel articles imported, "and there is uo 
 reason why \vv should not steadily progress to that point, the popula- 
 lation 1 have mentioned of 1(K),()00 souls, would be uc less than 
 trebled." lie prophesied that blast furnaces would be called in o ex- 
 istence in Carleton (N. H.), British Columbia, Manitoba, Cobourg, 
 Kingston and VVeller's Bay. All this was to be done without the cost 
 of iron and steel being increased to the consumer. 
 
 How different was the realization ! The first effect of the tariff 
 was to very nearly double the price of every piece of hardware, from 
 a ten-penny nail up. It in the course of a year or s > all but wiped 
 out the imnortant iron and hardware importing business of the 
 country. Tliis prejudically affected the shipi)ing interests, and the 
 profits of the steamship lines l)egan to decrease until they disappeared 
 altogether. One of the chief lines of steamers is now in liquidation 
 largely as th(^ result of this attera|)t to force these blast furnaces into 
 existence. By atfcctinu" the shipping interests it added to the cost of 
 tr.insv)ortation of wheat to (4reat iiritain and thus reduced the 
 farmers' profits on grain. Thus this iron schedule can account these 
 amount its aecomi)lishments: ft /nfn increasid to the Cduddian con- 
 sinner the prire of eri ri/ iii'ti<'h; in the nuini(f<(cture of mhich iron 
 enters, from 50 to iOOper cent., thus aililing not less than three or fo^ir 
 nuffion dollars 2>er year to the taxation, f/orne hi/ the Canadian people; 
 it has ruined the iron and hardware importing houses, it has burdened 
 the manufacturers who use iron, it has seriously 
 
 INJURED CANADA'S SHIPPING INTERESTS, 
 
 and it has lessened the price of every bushel of Canadian wheat ex- 
 ported. 
 
 And unfortunately for the protectionist apologist, he cannot say 
 in reply: " But, is not all this more than compensated for by the blast 
 furnaces which nightly crimson the sky at Carleton County, Welle 's 
 Bav. <'obourg, Kingston, Manitoba and British (>)lumbia, by the 
 100,000 souls maintained in 'comfort and prosperity?' If all that Sir 
 Charles predicted in the way of development had come to pass the 
 game would still have been too dear for the candle. But not even one 
 of George Johnson's lynx-eyed enumerators could discover the 
 
38 
 
 100,000 people or the blast furnaces. They never materialized and Sir 
 Charles' prediction was put on the shelf along side of his other 
 famous prophesy made in 1879, that in fifteen years the Canadian 
 Northwest would be exporting 640,000,000 bushels of wheat annually. 
 
 \ 
 
 THE IRONMASTERS' MONOPOLY- 
 
 The iron duties worked to the enrichment of one class— the home 
 makers of hardware. It did not greatly assist the production of pig 
 iron, which was nominally its object. For this there was a very good 
 reason. The protectionists who in selling want to have the people 
 obliged, unr^er penalty of fine, to buy from them at their own price, 
 are not in l>;'.ying ignorant of the virtues of Free Trade. The rolling 
 mill men, the nail combinesters, the makers of tubings, etc., saw 
 clearly enough that the effect of such a tariff as that proposed would 
 be to greatly increase the price of that xohich they had to sell; but 
 they saw with equal clearness that if the cost of their iron were in- 
 creased their position would not be improved. They therefore 
 journeyed to Ottawa, and as gratitude for past favors, as well as a 
 lively expectation of further favors to come, impelled the Govern- 
 ment to treat them with marked consideration, they got what they 
 wanted. 
 
 A clause was inserted in the schedule which while it in no degree 
 lessened the effect of the duties, deprived the producers of pig iron 
 of most of the benefits they anticipated. The duty on scrap iron was 
 left at 82 per ton. In consequence, the rolling mills in place of 
 Ksing iron made from. Canadian pig imported scrap from the ends 
 of the earth and used, it in preference. We have the authority of 
 Mr. Foster, the Finance Minister, for saying that in consequence 
 of this gross discritnination no har iron was made in Canada from 
 Ca»<idian puddled bars. The manufacturers of hardware bought 
 their raw material almost at free trade prices, and they sold their 
 07itput at the highest point thu i\dreme tariff ptrniittea. To make 
 sure that they should get every cent possible from this condition of 
 affairs, which they doubtless knew was too good to last, they 
 formed a series of combines to regulate prices, and bull-doze whole- 
 salers from any attempt at importation. These combines, as they 
 existed a year or so ago, were made up as follows: 
 
 FOSTERED COMBINES. 
 
 Wire nail combine; Pillow & Ilersey, Montreal; Peck, Benny & Co 
 Montreal; Montreal Rolling Mills Co.; Dominion Wire Manufactur 
 ing Company; the Ontario Tack Company, Hamilton; the Ontario 
 Lead Pipe and Barbed Wire Company, Toronto; the Ontario Bolt and 
 Forge Co , Swansea; Parmenter & Bullock, Gauanoque. 
 
 Canadian Tack Combine: Pillow & Ilersey, Montreal Rolling 
 Mills, Peck, Benny & Co , the Ontario Tack Company. 
 
 Horse shoe uombite: Pillow & Ilersey, Abbott & Co., Peck, 
 Benny & Co., Montreal Rolling Mills. 
 
 Pressed Wrought Spike Combine: Peck, Benny iL Co., Pillow & 
 Hersey, Abbott & Co., Montreal Rolling Mills, Abbott <* Co., the On- 
 tario Forge.& Bolt Co. 
 
\ 
 
 39 
 
 Bar Iron Combine: Pillow & Hersey Company, Abbott <fc Co., 
 Montreal Rolling Mills, Peck, Benny & Co. 
 
 The above list gives a very good idea of all those who profited by 
 the enormous addition to the public taxation made by Sir Charles 
 Tupper while laboring under the excitement of a prophetic spell. 
 
 ENORMOUS PROTECTION. 
 
 So outrageous was this schedule that the Government was obliged 
 at the session of 1894 to amend it By the new taiiff then adopted, 
 pig iron secured a duty of $i and a bounty of S2 per ton, making the 
 total protection 86 on the net ton; the duty on scrap was raised to |3 
 per ton, for the remainder of 1894, and to $4 per toB begii ning January 
 
 1st, 1895: the bar iron duty was reduced from $13 to 810 per ton; 
 puddled bars reduced from 89 to 85, and the other iron and steel duties 
 equalized- This is a much more symmetrical schedule than the one 
 it replaced, ft?<^ it will fail almost as lamentably in its attempt^ to give 
 employment iu the iron industry to 20,00() men. Iron was cheapened so 
 greatly during the last few years that despite the excessive protection^of 
 $Q per ton, Canadian iron cannot hold its own let alone supplant the 
 imported article. In Montreal Scotch iron is very largely used, though 
 American is beginning to get a strong footmg; but in Ontario 
 American iron is almost exclusively employed in manufactures. It 
 can be bouglU in Pennsylvania and laid down in, Toronto with all 
 charges paid iov less than would have to be paid there for the Cana- 
 dian article. Is it not therefore as clear as that two and two make 
 four that the effect of this duty is to handicap every Ontario manufac- 
 turer to the extent of |4.48— the amount of the duty— on every long 
 ton of iron he possesses. Tne American manufacturer gets his iron 
 from 84 to 85 a ton cheaper ; his coal costs him 60c. a ton less, and in 
 consequence he can manufacture much cheaper than can his Cana- 
 dian rival The latter finds it difficult to compete in the Canadian 
 markets notwithstanding the ex'-esmirf duties on manufactures of iron; 
 and when it comes to exporting he would not be in it for a single 
 second had the Government not granted him relief by a device which 
 illustrates the uselessness and costliness of Protection. By an Order- 
 in-Council ])assed last fall, the Canadian manufacturer can recover on 
 exported goods 99 per cent, of the duties paid for raw material. The 
 Government in making such a regulation destroyed completely its own 
 theory that the protective duty does not add to the cost of tne goods, 
 and they dealt a deadly blow as well at the native iron industry, the 
 encourageniene of which has been the ostensible object of the legisla- 
 tion of the past 16 years. Mr. Geo E. Dru-nmond, of Montreal, at the 
 last meeting of the Quebec Mining Association, said that the "way in 
 which this enactment la framed, and the manner in which it works 
 are most detrimental to the development of the Canadian iron industry 
 in its broadest sense." He said, furthermore, that it "simply serves 
 to nullify the protection and encouragement to the Canadian iron 
 industry, granted by the Dominion Governmeut itself at the last aos- 
 
/ 
 
 40 
 
 THE CONSUMER FLEECED. 
 
 While the manufacturer is thus handicapped, the consumer of 
 iron articles is being unmercifully fleeced. The duties collected on 
 iron and steel, and manufactures of same last year, 18U4, were only 
 about S100,00() short of .i?3,(KX),0()0. The consumer is therefore between 
 the upper and the nether millstone, the Customs tax grindingabove, the 
 manufacturer below. The sum of about 13,000,000 ground out of him 
 into the Treasury gives but a faint idea of what is squeezed out of hi m 
 by the iron combines and trusts The latter must amount at the low- 
 est figure to another $3,000,000 
 
 To sum up, we have been trying for sixteen years to develop the 
 Canadian iron industry by taxing foreign iron. Dunng the last eight 
 years of this period we have had excessively high duties on iron, and 
 manufactures of iron, with the further assistance of a bounty. The 
 only results have been to bleed the general consumer of millions of 
 dollars, to handicap the manufacturer, and to destroy our importing 
 and shipping interests, while the native pig iron industry is no further 
 ahead than it probably would have been under free trade conditions. 
 All this disturbance of normal trade conditions; all this destruction of 
 genuine industries, all this piling on of taxes has been for the bene- 
 fit of the congeries of combines which are in their own way useful to 
 the Government at election times, by supplying not only generous 
 donations to the campaign fund but a treasurer to administer it as well. 
 
 The iron duties are on the Liberal list- They will have to go. 
 
 THE COAL DUTY. 
 
 Conservatives have said much about the value of protection 
 to the coal trade. In nothing has the National Poticy been a 
 greater failure than in its effect on the coal trade. What the 
 Nova Scotia coal miners were led to expect in 1878 was the control 
 of the Canadian market, and the exclusion of imported coal, es- 
 pecially American. The great coal consuming province of On- 
 tario was the particular market that was to be given to the miners. 
 All these great expectations have been dissappointed. Excepting 
 a very small quantity carried by the railways for their own use, 
 in the eastern part of the Province, Nova Scotia has sent no coal 
 to Ontario. American coal instead of being shut out, has come 
 in more largely than ever. There has been an increase in the 
 Nova Scotia coal trade, but only such as would probably have 
 occurrv>d if there had been no duty. 
 
 The record of the Conservatives on the coal question has been 
 a very tortuous one. In 1878 one of their great cries was that 
 they wanted reciprocity in coal and would get it. In the National 
 Policy of 1879 t^^y included a standing offer of free coal to the 
 Americans. After a little while the mine managers of Nova 
 Scotia (nearly all Conservatives) began to preach a different 
 doctrine. They Bald they could not stand reciprocity in coal. 
 
/ 
 
 41 
 
 
 ^ U ^ 
 
 They declared that the adinissiou of American coal would ruin 
 them. Coal was taken out of the standing otfer. For years tb© 
 cry was that if coal was made free the Nova Scotia mines would 
 have to close. This was notably the cry at the general electioa 
 of March, 189L when botii the Tnppers, seuior and junior, made 
 speeches on these lines wliich had much influence in the mining 
 districts. Official records now show that at that very time, 
 while this cry was being raised in mining districts to influence 
 the votes of miners, there was on file at Washington a letter from 
 Sir John Macdonald oflering to make coal free if the Americans 
 would do the same. Here is a copy of the letter: 
 
 Lk8 Kochkks, 
 St. Patrick, 
 UiviERK DU Lour. 
 Private 
 
 .July 30, 1«»0. 
 My Dkak Sik, — 111 answer to your esteemed uote of this <!ay, I desire to say 
 that I am fully assured that the Parliament of Canada will be ready to take off 
 all Customs duty on coal, ores and lumber imported from the United States, 
 whenever Conjijross makes those articles free of duty. 
 
 The Canadian Government has already authorized Sir .Julian Pannceforte 
 to f tate to the American Government that they will bo prepared to take ofi the 
 export duty ou logs whenever Canadian lumber is admitted into the United 
 Slates intirkt;l at, a reiUicd rate of .Sl-"'0 per thousand, board measure. 
 
 You are at liberty to show this to such members of Congress or the Govern- 
 ment as ycu please. It should not, for obvious reasons, be published in the 
 press or quoted in Congress. 
 
 In the U. S. Tariff Act provision might be made for the making the 
 above-mentioned nrticles free whenever and so soon as they are made free by 
 the Canadian J'arliament. 
 
 I remain, my dear Sli', 
 
 Faithfully yours. 
 
 John A Macdonald. 
 S. J. KrrcniR, Ksc). 
 
 This letter, although marked ''Private," was an official offer 
 to the United States Government and was used as such. It be- 
 came public by being placed on the files of a committee of the 
 United States Congress, which had the tarilF question under 
 consideration. To tell the Xova Scotia iuiners that the Liberal 
 policy of reciprocity in coal would close the mines, and to carry 
 on negotiations at the same time to bring about just such a policy, 
 was a piece of political judggling which an honorable govern- 
 ment would hardly care to undertake. But the Ottawa Govern- 
 ment were quite equal to it. 
 
 Many of the Nova Scotia coal mines have been in the hands 
 of small companies who have been doing business in a small way 
 and have been afraid of competition of any kind. Things have 
 now taken a difterent shape. The Whitney Company, organized 
 by the Fielding GoT6rnment, is a large concern, chiefly Ate- 
 
\ 
 
 / 
 
 42 
 
 erican, but including also some leading Cana<lians. Ample 
 capital, improved maithinery and generally belt(!r business 
 methods will give the Nov;i Scotia coal trade a fair chance. 
 Instead of being afraid of American competition this company 
 has challenged it and would accept reciprocity in coal as a great 
 boon, although llie other companies have been for some years de- 
 claiming against it. This big company has been formed with the 
 full knowledge that the coal question is a mudi debated one and 
 that at no distant day coal must be made free. Knowing this 
 well the company have subscribed their capital and gone on with 
 their business. The abolition of the coal duty might create 
 some disturbance of trade arrangements at the beginning. But 
 there is little reason to doubt that in a short time the business 
 would get down to a solid basis and would prosper in common 
 with othei- industries. One gi cat advantage of the Liberal 
 policy to the coal trade is that by a reduction of the tariff, many 
 articles required by the companies for tht^ development of mining 
 operations would be made cheaper, and the workmen would 
 benefit by the cheapening of food, clothing and other things. 
 
 Has the N. P. Given Employment to the People ? 
 
 Tory speakers point with enultation to the census returns 
 as proving affirmatively this question. If an en«piirer is not 
 satisfied on this point by tho exodus during the decade '81 to '91, 
 let him return to rhe same census returns and analize them 
 
 The Statistical Abstract for 1881, page 180, which purports 
 to give tills analysis, states that there are in Caiiadvi 1,659, .'355 
 persons whose occupations are given by the census. They are 
 divided into classes as follows: 
 
 Agriculture 785,201 
 
 Fishing 27,079 
 
 Lumbering. 
 
 11,750 
 
 Mining 15,168 
 
 lotal. 
 
 '90,210 
 
 Trade and Transportation (including sailors 
 14,000, railway^ employees 23,000, ex- 
 pressmen and teamsters 17,000, retail 
 
 traders 40.000, etc 186,595 
 
 Manufacturing and Mechanical pursuits 320,001 
 
 Domestic and Personal Service 246,113 
 
 Professional Avocations 63.210 
 
 Non-productive Class 52,986 
 
 Total, 
 
 1,659,355 
 
\ 
 
 / 
 
 43 
 
 f 
 
 •lasses aie l)onofitte(l by the National 
 
 How many of these e 
 Policy ? 
 
 It is contended that those engaged in manufactupine- and 
 JNdtional Policy, but it must be remembered that a very great 
 
 rSfrli ,T'r'lr^"^' ^^''^ ^'^^" employment were tiourishing 
 Hidustres under the revenue tariff which prevailed up to 1878 
 
 'uJZ'^ "''''^"'' ^^ '' ^^'^^^ "^^^'^^^ to conclude that the 
 .UO 000 persons engaged in manufacturing and mechanical pur- 
 
 tr;i^''''n\T-^ ""Y ^^P^^d^^-^t »Po» the existence of a igh 
 rn. h; r\^^^''' contrary, it will be found that a very small pio 
 portion of them are so dependant. **'» piu 
 
 The same Statistical Abstrnct gives the most numerous of 
 the various employments of these 320,000 as follows, and Tt is 
 
 butTnd re.' If ' T. "'' f"'''"'^ "^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ National Poc;^^ 
 out indirectly and largely injured. 
 
 Carpenters and Joiners, 
 
 Dressmakers, Milliners and Seamstresses, 
 
 Blacksmiths, 
 
 Boot and Shoemakers, ' 
 
 Tailors and Tailorosses, 
 
 Saw and Planing Mill Operators, 
 
 Ma'^jons, 
 
 Painters and Gla/iors 
 
 Machinists, 
 
 Butchurs, 
 
 Compositors and Pressmen, 
 
 Ship and Boathuilder,-,, 
 
 Turners, 
 
 Millers, 
 
 Moulders, 
 
 Currioi-N and Tanners, 
 
 Harn.vss and Saddlny, 
 
 Bakers, 
 
 Brickinukcrs, 
 
 Cheese Factories and Creameries. 
 
 Coopers, 
 
 Marble and Stone Cutters, 
 
 Plasterers, 
 
 Plumbers, 
 
 Lumbermen, 
 
 Tinsmiths, 
 
 4.5,769 
 :W,494 
 18,,54r> 
 1G,11<» 
 l."),U94 
 
 10,312 
 10,202 
 !',r.72 
 7,23« 
 (i,")-)0 
 4,435 
 4,975 
 4,384 
 4,070 
 3,713 
 3,047 
 4,551 
 3,138 
 3,438 
 3,204 
 3,585 
 2.500 
 3,249 
 12,319 
 4,740 
 
 255,181 
 
\ / 
 
 44 
 
 ■^ 
 
 < 
 
 A careful examination of the census shows that out of the 
 above number of 320,000 persons, there is a very small propor. 
 tion who may reasonably be supposed to be benefitted by the 
 National Policy. The following table shows the chief ones : 
 
 Mill operatives (cotton) by vol. 2 of census 
 
 returns 6,053; by vol 3 6,953 
 
 Mill operatives ^ oUen) by vol 2 — 4,421; 
 
 by vol 3 6,139 
 
 Mill operatives (textile and not specified) 3,876 
 
 Manufacturers and officials of Manufacturing 
 
 Companies 6,169 
 
 Mineral and Soda Water Makers, (by vol. 2, 
 
 354, and by 3rr? vc: 643 
 
 Glass Blowers and W» rkeis, (by 2 vol. 581, 
 
 and by 3rd vol 689 
 
 Hat and Cap Makers, 368 
 
 Hosiery and Knitti.j«r Mill Oj^^vitives (by 2nd 
 
 vol. 946, ana by 3jd no' 1,803 
 
 Linen Mill operatives, (by /oil v., . 43. and 
 
 by 3rd vol 1 
 
 Oil Works employes^i^by ^vol.; 2— 167,1and 
 
 by 3rd volume 276 
 
 Organ Makers 368 
 
 Rope, Twine and Cordage factory o per ativ 38... 627 
 
 Sugar Makers and Refiners 1,927 
 
 Umbrellaand Parasols 97 
 
 Silk Mill operatives 294 
 
 30,239 
 
 These 30,000 represent the proportion of the 320*000 engaged 
 in those industries which may fairly be said to in any way owe 
 their existence or continuance in operation to the Protective 
 tariff. 
 
 It maybe said that the mining interest is protected and en- 
 couraged, and there is no doubt that this is so. The statistics 
 show that there is engaged in Canada : 
 
 Agriculture 735,207 
 
 Fishing 27,079 
 
 Lumbering 12,756 
 
 Mining and Quarrying 15,168 
 
 Total, 790,210 
 
 These 15,000 may be benefitted^ but it is at the expense of the 
 •tlitr 775,000. 
 
 ' 
 
\ 
 
 lie 
 r. 
 tie 
 
 45 
 
 In the Maritime Provinces the total number engaged in 
 
 mining is 
 
 In Nova Scotia 
 In New Rrntiswick, 
 In P. E. Island. 
 
 Total, 
 
 97 
 - IS 
 
 5,775 
 
 As no P.E. Island resident has ever discovered these eighteen 
 or know where they *' mine," some doubt may be cast upon these 
 figures. 
 
 Of the 700,000 farmers and their sons engaged in farming in 
 Canada, the census show that in Old Canada, that is New Bruns- 
 wick, Nova Scotia, P. E. Island, Ontario and Quebec, during the 
 ten years, 1881 to 1891, there was a decrease of 36,000, in the 
 Maritime Provinces — 
 
 New Brunswick lost 
 Nova Scotia 
 P. E. Island 
 
 8,605 Farmers 
 10,095 
 265 
 
 Total decrease of fanners iot Mr 'itime Provinces 18,965 
 
 ed 
 we 
 ve 
 
 n- 
 
 ics 
 
 he 
 
 Do Duties on Agricultural Products Protect 
 
 the Farmers ? 
 
 But the Tory orator contends the N. P., by the imposition of 
 duties upon Animals, Meats, Eggs. Butter Cheese, Apples, Beans, 
 Hay, Barley, Oats, Oatmeal, &Cm largely benefits the farmer. 
 
 As to most of these articles but little is said, as we are well 
 known to be large Exporters and not Importers of them, and the 
 argument that the imposition of duties on articles we don't im- 
 port protects the farmer or gives him a higher price is felt to be 
 absurd. 
 
 For instance, no reasonable man could successfully contend 
 that oats, barley, eggs, potatoes, hay, etc., of which we are enor- 
 mous exporters, are enhanced in price to the farmer, or that 
 mackerel, etc., could be enhanced in price to the fisherman by 
 any duty that could be put on. One hundred per cent, would 
 have the same effect as ten per cent., and neither would have any 
 eflfect, as we do not import, but export. 
 
46 
 
 \ 
 
 Rnt it is said this reply will not rover the case of hogs, pork, 
 or beef. J jet us see if this is so. 
 
 The following table taken from the Trade and Navigation 
 Returns for 1894 shews the quantity and value of imports of 
 animal products for home consumption, with the quantity and 
 value exported in l.SiKi. 
 
 fmports for home consumption. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Butter, $ 46,637! 
 
 ('heese. 20,964! 
 
 Lard (rendered) 12,620' 
 
 Meats, vi/: ' 
 
 liaron k Hams, I . .,0! 
 ,,, „ , ,, ,,• , 76.088 
 Sh Iders iV Sides ) ' ! 
 
 Heef salt'd in brls- 95.575; 
 
 Mutton, 149 
 
 l^ork (barrelled) 272.000 
 
 Poultry & Oame, 12,297 
 
 (banned Meat.^ 
 
 Other meats, fresh 
 
 and salted, 38,799 
 
 Exports of Oanadian Produce. 
 
 No. of lbs. 
 
 Value. 
 
 No. of lbs. 
 
 224,384 
 
 .$ 1,296.814 
 
 7,036.013 
 
 1 r 6, 1 06 
 
 13,407,470 
 
 133^946,365 
 
 146,885 
 
 66,7 73 
 
 709,624 
 
 670,155 
 
 1,970,318 
 
 18,504,347 
 
 2,316,588 
 
 21,279 
 
 356,106 
 
 2,132 
 
 7,671 
 
 89,957 
 
 3,862,546 
 
 8t,953 
 20,840 
 
 (,03,022 
 
 
 1,005,087 
 
 10,1 15,626 
 
 426,990 
 
 24,991 
 
 418,598 
 
 Total $575ii29, 7,765,78611)8. $17,903,396 ' 172,079.658 
 
 Of Agfricultural Produce we export and import as follows: 
 
 
 EXPORTS. 
 
 Imports for home 
 consumption. 
 
 
 No of Bushels. 
 
 No. of Bushels. 
 
 Barley, 
 
 2,040,648 
 
 2,138 
 
 Beans, 
 
 276,313 
 
 '3,752 
 
 liuck wheat, 
 
 594,604 
 
 10 
 
 Oats, 
 
 7,2 73>9o^' 
 
 44,264 
 
 Peas (whole) 
 
 3^255,810 
 
 1 1 1,032 
 
 Peas (split) 
 
 '58,536 
 
 Rye, 
 
 59, '21 
 
 ,302 
 
 Wheat, 
 
 9,271,855 
 
 9,069 
 
 Other Grain. 
 
 39.958 
 22,970,781 
 
 
 Total bushels, 
 
 80.567 
 
 " value. 
 
 $ 13,831,969 
 
 $ 167,500 
 
\ 
 
 .". 
 
 47 
 
 Potatoes and Hay. 
 
 Of potatoes Canjula exports 1,1 12,8.'3(T bushels of ii value of 
 $422,000 and impoits for home coiisuniption, only ;<7,r>71 bushels 
 of tiM? value of SSOOO. 
 
 Of hay she exports 151,851 tons of a value of 81,452,872 auil 
 imports for home cousumption 1101 tons of a value of .*! 1,000. 
 
 Mackerel. 
 
 Of maekerel Canada exports in fiesli, eanned iind pickled 
 5.%, 153 dollars worth and imports in fresh siud pickled only 1858 
 dollars worth. 
 
 These tables conclusively show that with respect to all these 
 Agricultural i)roducts and fish Canada is a g^reat exporting" coun- 
 try — and the imposition of duties on these articles with the idea 
 of protecting the farmer or fisherman is a blind and a humbug. 
 
 The i)riee the farmer or fisherman receives is governed by 
 the markets of the world to which we export. The* British 
 market fixes the price of our wheat, oats and peas, bacon and 
 ham, cheese and butter. The American market fixes tlie price of 
 our barley, beans, mackerel, wood, hay, potatoes, eggs, horses, 
 sheep, poultry, hides, pelts. 
 
 All the duties in the world imposed by us on these articles, 
 cannot in any way affect the price, because we don't import them 
 bub export. 
 
 A frantic effort is being made to induce the farmer to believe 
 that pork and beef are exceptions to this rule an<l that the duties 
 are a protection to the farmer and keep out American pork and 
 beef. There is nothing whatever in this argument. 
 
 While we import a much larger quantity of barrelled pork 
 than we export, we at the same time export nearly $2,000,000 
 worth of bacon and ham, and import of them piactically nothing 
 ($7B,000). Our ham and bacon exports are therefore twenty-five 
 times as much as our imports and oui total pork exportation in- 
 cluding hams, bacon, etc., besides barrelled pork is about six 
 times the value of the importation foi- home consumption. 
 
 The barrelled pork we import is used chiefly by the lumber- 
 men and does not enter into competition with such pork as P. E. 
 Island produces. 
 
 As a fact barrelled pork is often cheaper in Chicago than in 
 Toronto (the two great pork centres for TJ. S. and Canada) while 
 at the same time the farmer is getting more for his live hog in 
 Chicago than in Toronto. 
 
 The explanation of this seeming anomaly lies in the fact that 
 the Chicago packer utilizes the hog in packing better thau we do. 
 
\ 
 
 / 
 
 48 
 
 Everything including the blood, bristles and even the offal is 
 utilized and turned into something of money value, and the 
 Chicago rnan gets a higher price tor the hams and b^ly bacou 
 not put in the barrel. 
 
 If the duty was taken off pork to-morrow it would not in- 
 crease the price paid to the farmer in Canada for his hog in the 
 slightest. 
 
 The buyer and pork packer in P. E. Island reprulates the 
 price he pays the farmer by the prices ruling^ in Chicago. 
 
 If these prices go up he raises, if they go down he lowers. 
 The duty does not enter into his calculations at all, nor does the 
 Chicago i)ork come into serious competition with him. 
 
 The lumberman will buy the Chicago pork, and pay the duty. 
 It is preferred by the shanty man. 
 
 Canadian pork is used for home consumption and is preferred 
 to the American pork. 
 
 Reform of the Tariff! 
 
 Many people were led to believe from the statements made 
 by Ministers, and from the fact that they spent a year going over 
 Canada pretending to ascertain the workings of the National 
 Policy among the people, that it was their intention to reform the 
 the tariff. A great flourish of trumpets was made on this point, 
 and a new tariff* was actually introduced by Mr. Foster at. the 
 session of '94. His original resolutions proposed several hundreds 
 of chauges, all in the direction of lightening the burdens of 
 the people Among other things, specific duties as such were 
 to be abolished, but as time progressed and the different manu- 
 facturers were able to bring their influence to bear, the proposed 
 chauges and reductions were abandoned. Specific duties were 
 restored, and with the exception of a reduction made on agricul- 
 tural implements and binder twine, the tariff remains substanti- 
 ally as onerous as before. This can be proved beyond any doubt 
 by taking the monthly returns published in the Canada Gazette, 
 showing the quantity and value of goods entered for consumption 
 and the duty collected thereon in each month. 
 
 Take the month of December, 1894. The total value o^ 
 dutiable goods entered was $4,262,352 5 the duty paid was 
 $1,347,603, or about 31| per cent. 
 
 The average of the present tariff, therefore, is as nearly as 
 possible the same as the oldltariff. 
 
 By the last I'rade and Navigation i?eturu8, 1894, we are 
 enabled to show what the taxes exacted on each class of goods 
 w«r«. 
 
 I 
 
\ 
 
 / 
 
 49 
 
 The following is a list: 
 
 Ourriages, ' ' I' 
 
 Manufactures of Cotton, 
 
 Earthenware and China, 
 
 Manafac. of Flax, Hemp and Jute, 
 
 Fruits (dry and green) 
 
 Manufactures of Glass, 
 
 Hats, Caps, etc., 
 
 Manufactures of Iron and Steel, 
 
 Musical Instruments, 
 
 Oils of all kinds, Mineral, Animal, 
 Vegetable, etc., 
 
 Paper and manufactures of, includ- 
 ing Wall Paper, etc., 
 
 Provisions, - " 
 
 Soaps, 
 
 Champagne and Sparkling Wines, 
 
 (N.B.—WiNBs.— Compare with Kerosene 
 Oil, which pays about 160 per cent.) 
 
 Vegetables (melons, potatoes, toma- 
 toes, fresh corn and baked beans 
 
 VALUE. 
 
 I 408,787 
 
 4,0 57,402 
 
 709,737 
 
 1,618,983 
 
 1,817,450 
 
 1,219,543 
 
 1,320,000 
 
 10,113,177 
 
 375,421 
 
 DUTY PAID. 
 
 » 127.891 
 l,29.-),843 
 238,429 
 360.951 
 461.000 
 324,566 
 396,191 
 2,878,368 
 103,110 
 
 pnR 
 
 f'ENT. 
 
 313 
 28 4 
 336 
 223 
 25-3 
 26-6 
 300 
 28-4 
 27-5 
 
 1,297,421 681,256 525 
 
 1,187,236 
 734,481 
 176,959 
 166.785 
 
 401.715 33 8 
 
 204,311 27-8 
 
 64,680 36-6 
 
 91,311 54'8 
 
 in cans, . • - 
 
 220.631 
 
 53,408 
 
 242 
 
 Wood and manufactures of, - 
 
 1,087,128 
 
 298,564 
 
 27-4 
 
 Wool and manufactures of (blan- 
 
 
 
 
 kets, cloths, tweeds, flanuelK, 
 
 
 
 
 socks, shawls, cloaks, shirts, car- 
 
 
 
 
 pets, etc.) 
 
 10,946,244 
 
 3,309.389 
 
 30 2 
 
 Total dutiable goods, 
 
 $69,873,671 
 
 $21,161,710 
 
 30-8 
 
 Specific Duties. 
 
 Among the'many promises of the tarifif revision (in 1894) waa 
 the total or partial abolition of specific duties. These duties, 
 levied on the pound, the yard, the bushel, or the dozen, are un- 
 fairly heavy on consumers of cheaper grades of goods. To tax a 
 yard of cheap cloth the same amount as a yard of superior 
 quality is a manifest injustice to consumers of coarser lines. 
 This injustice pertains to all specific duties, and as in other 
 objectional features of the Canadian tariff the revision has left 
 matters little or no better than before. The injustice is in pro- 
 portion to the fluctuation and range of prices. As an instance, 
 the tax of two cents per lb. on raspberries, cherries, strawberries, 
 etc., is trifling when such small fruit are expensive laxuries' 
 
\ 
 
 / 
 
 50 
 
 But, when the pride falls and they become articles of common 
 use, it may be as high as fifty per cent. The Government has a 
 twofold object in retaining this class of duties. They lessen the 
 burden on wealthy consumers, who are able most effectually to 
 oppose the protective system, and obey keep the public in 
 ignorance of the extent to which they are taxed. An innocent- 
 looking tax of a few cents per pound or per yard may, and does, 
 conceal duties of more than 100 per cent. The following list 
 shows some of the unjust discriminations effected by specific 
 duties in the new Canadian tariff. It does not contain all the 
 discriminations, and the widest variations have not been pre- 
 sented : 
 
 Rate of Datjr. 
 Collars, per doz. . . . 24c per doz. and 35 p. ct. 
 
 I< l< U l< l< 
 
 .... 
 
 Cuffs " pairs. .4c.per pair and 25 p. c. 
 
 Shirts 
 
 It 
 
 (I 
 
 . $1 per doz. and 25 p. c. 
 
 Blankets, per lb 5c. per lb. and 25 p. c. 
 
 <( 
 
 Oilcloth per yard. . . "k 30 p. c. but not less than 
 " " . . . / 4c. per square yard. 
 
 Wall paper, borders per rolH i^c per roll and 
 
 ** " / 25 per cent. 
 
 Tweeds, per yard 
 (I 
 
 It 
 ii 
 it 
 
 Coatings 
 « 
 
 Overcoatings, " '. 
 
 <i i< 
 
 Castile soap, per lb 2c. per lb 
 
 <i «C (I 
 
 Canned fish ** . . . , i}4c, per can or p'lcge. 
 
 Upon an assumed 
 cost of 
 
 $0.72 
 
 1.44 
 
 96 
 
 1.92 
 
 4.00 
 
 20.00 
 
 40 
 
 65 
 8 
 
 75 
 9 
 
 75 
 
 25 
 2.00 
 
 1. 00 
 
 6.00 
 
 50 
 
 7.00 
 
 12 
 
 20> 
 ID 
 20 
 
 (This duty is levied on the can) 
 Boolcs 6c. per lb 
 
 Soap, common, per lb . . ic per lb 
 
 .t t( <( 
 
 Clothes wringers, each. . 25c. each and 20 p. c. 
 
 Ready-made clothing, per suit . 
 i< (i <i 
 
 cheap 
 dear 
 
 5 
 10 
 
 4.00 
 10.00 
 
 8.00 
 30.00 
 
 Rate per cent, 
 of duty. 
 
 581-3 
 41 2-3 
 
 75 
 
 50 
 
 50 
 
 30 
 
 37>^ 
 
 33 
 
 SO 
 
 30 
 
 41 2-3 
 
 27 
 
 65 
 
 30 
 
 35 
 26 3-3 
 
 % 
 
 16 2-3 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 7>^ 
 
 100 
 I 
 
 30 
 10 
 
 26X 
 
 42 
 
 33 
 
\ 
 
 / 
 
 51 
 
 Rftte of Duty. 
 
 Upon Mil KMunied lUtd mt otlit. 
 of duty. 
 
 Socks and stockings perdoz. pair^ioc per doz. 
 
 Dessicated Cocoa, per lb.. .5c per lb, 
 <i <i It 
 
 Rice, per lb i ^c. per lb . 
 
 it It .< 
 
 Raisins, per lb ic. per lb . 
 
 (I «i <i 
 
 Prunes, " ic. per lb . 
 
 4( (I t( 
 
 Currants, dried, per lb . . . ic. per lb . 
 i( it fi 
 
 Vinegar, per gal 1 5c. per gal . . 
 
 if ti It 
 
 Cornstarch, farina,etc.i^c. per lb., 
 
 and 35 p.c. 
 
 coct of 
 
 60 
 
 10.00 
 IS 
 
 »5 
 
 5 
 
 fo 
 
 5 
 
 13 i-a 
 
 4 
 
 «S 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 «5 
 
 30 
 10 
 18 
 
 li 
 it 
 (i 
 
 li ti ti 
 
 Coal Oil 6c. per gal 
 
 Carpets, cotton warp,per yard,3C. per yard and 5 p. c. 20 
 
 50 
 
 all wool " 5c per sq. yd. and 25 p. c. 50 
 
 it It it il it I QQ 
 
 Cordage, per lb i ^c. per lb and ' o p. c. 10 
 
 it it it (t 20 
 
 Window shades, per yd^l 35 p. c. but u.^/' less 10 
 
 *' " / 5c. per sq. yard, 20 
 
 Baking Powder per lb .... 6c. per lb 30 
 
 60 
 
 ti 
 
 II 
 
 5» a-3 
 36 
 
 41 3-3 
 33 1-3 
 
 »5 
 
 I a i-s 
 
 20 
 8 
 
 6 a-3 
 
 .16 2-3 
 
 10 
 
 100 
 
 50 
 
 15 
 
 81.3 
 from 60 to 100 
 40 
 31 
 35 
 
 30 
 22 1-2 
 
 16 1-4 , 
 
 50 
 
 35 
 20 
 
 10 
 
 On tweeds, etc., where the duty is not stated above, the tariff 
 taxes the goods per pound weight, thns manifescly pressing mor« 
 heavily upon the coarser and heavier goods. 
 
 Extracts From the Tariff. 
 
 The following are the duties imposad by th% tariff upon 
 some of the articles in common use : 
 
 Adzes and hatchets 
 
 Agate iron-ware, 36 
 
 Agricultural implements : Mowing machines, self- 
 binding harvesters, harvesters without binders 
 binding attachments, reapers, sulky and walk- 
 ing ploughs j harrows, cultivators, seed drills 
 and horse rakes, 30 
 
 Agricultural implements; Axe(9 of all ]|i|i4Sy*<'y^M 
 hay knives, lawn moif:9r8, pronged forli^, ra^et) 
 ' hoes and other agricaltnral tools or impl«mentB, 36 
 
 36 per cent. 
 
 t( 
 
 (( 
 
 <( 
 
52 
 
 \ 
 
 / 
 
 Agrionltaral implements : Shovels, spades, 50 cts. 
 
 per dozen and 25 per cent. 
 
 Axle grease, 25 " 
 
 Bags or sacks of hemp, linen or jute, and cotton 
 
 seamless bags, 20 " 
 
 Bags, cotton, made by the needle, 32^ " 
 
 Bags, paper, printed or plain, 25 " 
 
 Baking powder, 6c. per lb. 
 
 Barbed wire fencing of iron or steel, |c. " 
 
 Binder twine, 12^percent. 
 
 Blankets 5c. per lb. and 25 " 
 
 Blueing, (laundry) 25 " 
 
 Bolts, nuts and washers (iron or steel) Ic. per lb and 20 " 
 
 Bolts, nuts and washers firon or steel, less than 3-8 
 inch in diameter) Ic. per lb, and 25 per cent., 
 
 but not less than 35 " 
 
 Boots and shoes (leather) 25 " 
 
 Braces or suspenders. 36 ** 
 
 Braids, ;.... 30 " 
 
 Brass nails, rivets, screws, etc., 30 " 
 
 Brushes, 25 " 
 
 Buckles, iron or steel, 27^ " 
 
 " brass, 30 " 
 
 Builders' hardware, 32^ " 
 
 Buttons, pantaloons, etc., 20 " 
 
 Candles, paraffine wax, 4c. per lb. 
 
 '* (other than above); 26 percent: 
 
 Candy and confectionery, 36 " 
 
 Caps and hats, fur, 25 " 
 
 Caps and hats and bonnets, 30 " 
 
 Carpenters' rules, 35 " 
 
 Carpets (two-ply and three-ply ingrain, whose warp 
 is wholly composed of cotton or other material 
 tban wool worsted, ha\r of alapaca goat or 
 
 like animals), 3c. per square yard and 25 " 
 
 Carpets (treble ingrain, three-ply or two-ply com- 
 posed wholly of wool) 5c, per square yard and 25 " 
 
 Carpets (other than above) 30 " 
 
 Carriages, buggies, pleasure carts and similar 
 vehicles (not elsewhere specified). -Costing not 
 more than $50, $5 each and 25 per cent; costing 
 
 more than $50 ?5 " 
 
 Carriages : Farm and freight wagons, carts drays 
 
 and similar vehicles 26 " 
 
\ 
 
 / 
 
 53 
 
 Ohains, trace, tug and halter 
 
 Ghimneys, lamp, glass, 
 
 Ghina ware and porcelain ware 
 
 Ghurns, wood 
 
 Crocks and churns, earthenware, 3c. per gallon of 
 holding capacity 
 
 Clothes wringers 25c. each and 
 
 Cordage IJc. per lb. and lOJp. c 
 
 Collars, cotton, linen, etc *24c. per doz. and 
 
 Cuffs " " 4c. per pair and 
 
 Cultivators 
 
 Currycombs and currycards 
 
 Cutlery, table, not plated 
 
 '♦ << plated 
 
 " N. O. P., not plated 
 
 Cutters and sleighs 
 
 Duke, cotton, printed, dyed or colored 
 
 Earthenware and stoveware, jugs, crocks, etc. 3c. 
 per gallon capacity 
 
 Earthenware, viz., drain pipe and tiles 
 
 " drain tiles not glazed 
 
 Edged tools, n. e. s 
 
 Envelopes, printed or not 
 
 FLOUE, 
 
 Fanning mills and parts, 
 
 Barbed wire fencing of iron or steel 
 
 Buckthorn and strip fencing of iron or steel 
 
 Fertilizers, compounded or manufactured 
 
 Flags, bunting or cotton, 
 
 Forks, prong^, hay, manure, etc., 
 
 Furniture, all kinds, 
 
 Glass Goods, lamp chimneys, etc., 
 
 Mirrors, 27^ to 
 
 Axlegrease, 
 
 Grindstones, 
 
 Halter chains, 
 
 Hammers, 
 
 Harrows and parts, 
 
 Hats, caps and bonnets, not fur, 
 
 Hay knives, 
 
 Hay rakes, wood, 
 
 India rubber and waterproof clothing, 
 
 Linen clothing, 
 
 Mangles, washing, 
 
 Harvest mitts and mitts and gloves of all kinds 
 
 B2^ per cent 
 
 30 
 
 (( 
 
 30 
 
 n 
 
 20 
 
 (( 
 
 20 
 
 (t 
 
 2ic 
 
 1 per lb. 
 
 25 per cent. 
 
 25 
 
 ti 
 
 20 
 
 it 
 
 32^ 
 
 a 
 
 324 
 
 11 
 
 36 
 
 n 
 
 25 
 
 K 
 
 30 
 
 t( 
 
 30 
 
 <( 
 
 35 
 
 if 
 
 20 
 
 11 
 
 35 
 
 n 
 
 3 
 
 0" 
 
 75c. 
 
 per bbl. 
 
 35 per cent. 
 
 fc. 
 
 per lb. 
 
 gC. 
 
 t< 
 
 10 per cent. 
 
 30 
 
 (( 
 
 35 
 
 u 
 
 30 
 
 a 
 
 30 
 
 (( 
 
 32^ 
 
 <( 
 
 25 
 
 a 
 
 30 
 
 (( 
 
 32^ 
 
 (( 
 
 25 
 
 '( 
 
 20 
 
 (( 
 
 30 
 
 (( 
 
 35 
 
 (< 
 
 35 
 
 <( 
 
 36 
 
 It 
 
 32^ 
 
 n 
 
 27i 
 
 ti 
 
 35 
 
 (( 
 
54 
 
 \ 
 
 i'* i 
 
 ft ! 
 
 Nails and spikes, 
 
 Wire nails, 
 
 Gut nails, 
 
 COAL OIL (equal to from 100 to 150 per cent) 
 
 Ploughs, walking and sulky, 
 
 Horse rakes, 
 
 T&akes, not elsewhere specified, 
 
 Eice, cleaned, 
 
 Saws of all kinds, 
 
 Screw nails, 4 
 
 Scythes, 
 
 Scythe stones, 
 
 Separators and parts, 
 
 Shears (pruning and sheep) : 
 
 Sleighs and sledges, 
 
 Soap (common) 
 
 Soap (castile, mottled or white) 
 
 Starch, 
 
 Steam engines, (portable) 
 
 Stoves, 
 
 Stovepipes, 
 
 Stove shovels, 
 
 Sugar (raw above 16 Dutch standard and all 
 
 refined) 64c 
 
 Syrup, 
 
 Molasses, 
 
 Surcingles (cotton or hemp) 
 
 Suspenders and braces, 
 
 Underwear of all kinds, 30 to 
 
 Washing machines, 
 
 Winceys, checked, striped or fancy cotton 
 
 Windmills, 
 
 30 per cent. 
 
 Ic. per lb. 
 
 |c. per lb. 
 
 6c. per gal. 
 20 per cent. 
 20 " 
 35 " 
 
 lie. per lb. 
 32J per cent. 
 36 
 
 It 
 
 (( 
 
 
 
 per 
 
 <( 
 
 It 
 
 (I 
 
 lb. 
 
 35 
 30 
 30 
 35 
 30 
 
 Ic. 
 
 2c. 
 
 lie 
 30 per cent. 
 27i 
 27i 
 27i 
 
 I. per 100 lbs. 
 ^c. per lb. 
 l|c. per lb. 
 30 per cent: 
 35 
 35 
 27i 
 30 
 30 
 
 " The customs tariff of the Dominion should be based, not as 
 it 18 now, upon the protective Principle, but upon the require- 
 ments of the public service ; and it should be so adjusted as to 
 make free, or to bear as lightly as possible upon the necessaries of 
 life, and should be so arranged as to promote free trade with the 
 whole world, more particularly with Great I^ritaiu and the United 
 States." 
 
\ 
 
 55 
 
 nt. 
 
 b. 
 b. 
 al. 
 at. 
 
 lb. 
 nt. 
 
 t). 
 
 at. 
 
 s. 
 b. 
 b. 
 t: 
 
 iS 
 3- 
 
 ;o 
 
 Df 
 
 ENLARGED MARKETS -REOIPROOITT. 
 
 Plank 2— Liberal Platform. 
 
 " That, having regard to the prosperity of Canada and the United 
 States as adjoining countries, witn many mutual interests, it is desir- 
 able that there should be the most friendly relations and broad and 
 liberal trade intercourse between them ; 
 
 " That the interests alike of the Dominion and of the Empire 
 would be materially advanced by the establishing of such relations ; 
 
 " That the period of the old receprocity treaty was one of marked 
 prosperity to the British North American colonies; 
 
 " That the pretext under which the Government appealed to'the 
 country in 1891 respecting negotiation for a treaty with the United 
 states was misleading and dishonest, and intended to deceive the 
 electorate; 
 
 " That no sincere effort has been made by them to obtain a treaty 
 but that, on the contrary, it is manifest that the present Government, 
 controlled as they are by monopolies and combines, are not desirous 
 of securing such a treaty; 
 
 " That the first step towards obtaining the end in view, is to place 
 a party in powcr who are sincereljr desirous of of promoting a tea ty 
 on terms honorable to both countries} 
 
 " That a fair and liberal reciprocity treaty would develop the great 
 natural resources of Canada, would enormously increase the trade and 
 commerce between the two countries,would tend to encourage friendly 
 relations between the two peoples, would remove many causes which 
 have in the past provoked irritation and trouble to the Governments 
 of both countries, and would promote those kindly relations between 
 the Empire and the Republic which afford the best guarantee for 
 peace and prosperity; 
 
 " That the Liberal party is prepared to enter into negotiations 
 with a view to obtaining such a treaty, including a well-considered 
 list of manufactured articles, and we are satisfied that any treatv so 
 arranged will receive the assent of Her Majesty's Government, with- 
 out whose approval no treaty can be made. 
 
 The Benefits of Reeippoeity. 
 
 Reciprocity is not a mere theory as regards the effects to be pro- 
 duced. The old reciprocity treaty extending from 1854 to 1866 atfords 
 practical illustration of the benefits to be derived from interchange 
 of trade with the United States. During the twelve years that treaty 
 remained in operation our exports to the United States nearly quad- 
 rupled, rising from $10,473,000 in 18-54 to $39,950,000 in 1866 from all the 
 provinces now embraced within the bounds of the Dominion. The 
 period durng which the treaty remained in force was one of marked 
 prosperity for all the provinces Since the abrogation of the t reaty 
 m 1866 our export trade with the United States has practically re- 
 mained stationary, though maintaining the average annual increase 
 from 1854 to 1866 would hare carried it up for 1893 to over !|100,000.000, 
 the actual amount having been for that vear 837,296,110 of the produce 
 of Canada, not including coin and bullicn, the produce of Canada, 
 which amounted to an additional $809,469. 
 
V 
 
 '. I 
 
 \ ■ 
 
 '\\ 
 
 56 
 
 Sham Negotiations, 
 
 It is obvions that the advantages to be derived from reciprocity are 
 very great, and it is to be regretted that the Government has been 
 gmlty of duplicity in dealing with the question. When Parliament 
 was dissolved in February, 1891, the reason assigned for the act was 
 that a treaty of reciprocity with the United States was about to be 
 made, and t-hat it would be desirable to refer the treaty to a Parliament 
 fresh from the people, and not to a moribund House Statements in 
 Government organs that a reciprocity treaty in natural products simi- 
 lar to the treaty of 1864 was bemg negotiated at Washington, and that 
 Sir Charles Tupper was goin^ there as Canadian Commissioner, at( 
 traacted attention in the United States, and on January 29th, 1891i 
 Congressman Baker addressed a letter to Mr. Blaine,^ Secretary '»f 
 Stete,!asking if these rumors were well founded. To this enquiry yr. 
 Blaine made the following unequivocal reply : 
 
 / 
 
 * Washimoton, D. C, 29th January, 16i9i. 
 
 My Dkar Mr. Baker,— I authorize you to contradict the rumors yon refer 
 to. There are no negotiations whatever on foot for a reciprocity treaty with 
 Canada, and you may be assured that no scheme for reciprocity with the 
 Dominion confined to natural products will be eutertained by this Government. 
 I know nothing of Sir Charles Tupper's coming to Wasbingtou. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 JAMES G. BLAINE 
 
 Five days after this letter had emphatically given the lie to the 
 claim that reciprocity negotiations were in progress. Parliament was 
 dissolved on th' pretext above named. And the false representations 
 thus made to the electors no doubt aided powerfully in securing a 
 verdict favorable to the Government. 
 
 Having won the election upon these representations it became 
 necessary to fulfill the promise to send commissioners to Washington, 
 and this was done in April, 1891. Owing to indignation at the 
 duplicity and misrepresentation of the Canadian aivthorities as to the 
 action of the United States Government in tne premises. President 
 Harrison refused the Canadian commissioners an interview. 
 
 In February, 1892, Canadian commissioners succeeded through 
 through the intervention of Sir Julien Paunceforte in obtaining a re- 
 ception by Hon James G. Blaine, American Secretary of State, and 
 then stated their proposal for reciprocity to be on the basis of the 
 treaty of 1854 and to be confined to natural products. To this proposal 
 Mr. Blaine made answer that the United States would consider no 
 proposition for reciprocity which did not embrace an agreed list of 
 manufactures, as was well known to the Canadian commissioners 
 from all previous declarations of the American State Department. 
 In truth the Canadian proposals were a mockery made solely to save 
 appearances. 
 
\ 
 
 57 
 
 The repftrt ruade by Mr. Blaine to the President of his interview 
 with the Canadian Coininissioners in a state document, signed by him 
 and ptublished in the offcial records of Congress, contains the 
 following: 
 
 " At the first conference, on February 10, the commissioners 
 " stated that they were authorized by the Canadian Government to 
 " propose the renewal of the reciprocity treaty of 1854 (which was 
 " terminated in 1866 by the action of the Congress of the United 
 " States), with such modifications and extensions as the altered 
 "circumstances of both countries and their respective interests 
 " might seem to require. 
 
 " In answer to an inquiry, the commissioners stated that the 
 " modifications or extensions contemplated in the schedules of 
 " articles should be confined to natural products and should not 
 "embrace manufactured articles. 
 
 " The commissioners were informed that the Government of 
 of the United States would not be prepared to renew the treaty 
 of 1854 nor to agree upon any commercial reciprocity which 
 should be confined to natural products alone; and that in view of 
 the great development of industrial interests of the United States 
 and of the changed conditions of the commercial relations of the 
 two countries since the treaty of 1864 was negotiated, it was re- 
 garded of essential importance that a list of manufactured goods 
 sfundd be included in the schedules of articles for free or favored 
 exchange in any reciprocity arrangement which might be made. 
 
 " The commissioners then inquired if the Government of the 
 " United States would expect to have preferential treatment ex- 
 " tended to the list of manufactured goods of the United States on 
 " their introduction into Canada by virtue of a reciprocity treaty, 
 "or whether it would regard the Canadian Government as at 
 " liberty to extend the same favors to the manufactured goods of 
 " other countries not parties to the treaty on their introduction 
 " into Canada. 
 
 " The reply given them was that it was the desire of the Gov- 
 " ernraent of the United States to make a reciprocity convention 
 " which would be exclusive in its application to the United States 
 " and Canada, and that other countries which are not parties to it 
 " should not enjoy gratuitously the favors which the two neighbor- 
 
58 
 
 I 
 
 " iiig countries might reciprocally concede to each other for valuable 
 " cousidoratious and at a large sacrifice to their respective 
 " revenues. 
 
 " Upon receiving thi i reply, the Canadian commissioners 
 " asked that the further consideration of the suhj„ct be adjourned 
 " till another conference, to enable them to consult as to the course 
 " which they would adopt in view of the foregoing declaration." 
 
 " In the conference of the 11th the Canadian commissioners 
 " stat'jd that they had given careftd consideration to the suggestion 
 " that manu^Actured goods should be included in the schedules of 
 " articles for exchange in a reciprocity convention, and to the desire 
 " expressed by the Government of the United States that such 
 " American goods on their introduction into Canada should be 
 " accorded preferential treatment ever similar goods from other 
 " countries; and they announced, with an expression of regret, that 
 " they did not consider it possible to meet the expectations of the 
 " Government of the United States in these respects. In the first 
 " place they encountered a serious obstacle in the matter of 
 "revenue. If any considerable list of manu "• jtured goods of the 
 " United States should be admitted free into Canada, it would 
 " entail a material loss to the Dominion treasury, and if the same 
 favors were likewise extended to the merchandise of other 
 countries the loss of revenue would be much greater. They felt 
 that they would not be able to recoup these losses by other 
 methods of taxation. In the second place, it seemed to be 
 impossible for the Canadian Government, in view of its present 
 political relations and obligations, to extend to American goods a 
 prei'erential treatment over those of other countries. As (Canada 
 " was a part of the British Empire, they did not consider it 
 " competent for the Dominion Government to enter into any com- 
 " mercial arrangement with the United States, from the benefits of 
 " which Great Britain and its colonies should be excluded. 
 
 " The announcement of these conclusions of the Canadian 
 " commissioners was accepted as a bar to further negotiations on 
 " this subject, and it was not again discussed except in connection 
 " with the fishing privileges on the Atlantic coast." 
 
 FORMER RECIPROCITY TREATIES. 
 
 [Articltflll, Treaty with Great Britain of 1854. J 
 
 It is agreed that the articles enumerated in the tjchednle hereunto unnexed, 
 being the growth and produce of the aforesaid Britisli colonies or of the 
 United States, sball Ini admitted into each country rebpectively free of duty : 
 
\ 
 
 no 
 
 Oratn, flonr andbreadstnffof all kinds. 
 
 Animals of all kinds. 
 
 Fresh, smoked and salti;d moats. 
 
 Cotton, wool, seeds and vegetables. 
 
 Undried fruits, dried fruits. 
 
 Fish of all kinds. 
 
 Products of flsh, and of all other 
 
 creatures living In the water. 
 Poultry, eg'^s. 
 
 Hides, furs, skins, or tails, undressed. 
 Scone, or marble, in Its crude or nn- 
 
 wrought state. 
 Slate. 
 
 Butter, cheese, tallow. 
 Lard, horns, manures, 
 Ores, of metals, of all kinds. 
 Coal. 
 
 Pitch, tar, turpentine, ashes. 
 Timber, and lumber of all kinds, round, 
 
 hewed and sawed, unmanufactured 
 
 in whole or In part. 
 Firewood 
 
 Plants, shrubs, and trees. 
 Pelts, wool. 
 Fish oil. 
 
 Rice, broom corn, and bark. 
 Gypsum, ground or unground. 
 Hewn, or wrought, or unwrouglit 
 
 burr or grindstones. 
 Dyestuffs. 
 
 Flax, hemp, or tow, unmanufactured. 
 Unmanufactured tobacco. 
 Hags. 
 
 [Article IV, Diaftof treaty with Great Britain, 1874.— Geo. Brown Treaty.] 
 
 It la agreed that the articles enumerated In Schedules A, B, and C, hereunto 
 annexed, being the growth, produce or manufacture of the Dominion of vJanada 
 or of the United States, shall, on their Importation from the one counti'y Into 
 the other, from the 1st day of July, 1875, to the 30th day of June, 1876 (i)oth 
 included), pay only two thirds of the duties payable at the date of this treaty 
 on the Importations Into such countr> of such articles respectively ; and from 
 the 1st day of July, 1876, to the 30th day of June, 1877, (both Included), shall 
 pay one-third of such duties, and on and after the 1st day of Jgly, 1877, for the 
 period of years mentioned In article xili of this treaty, shall be admitted free of 
 duty Into each country, respectively. 
 
 For the terra mentioned in article xili no other or higher duties shall be im- 
 posed in the United States upon other article not enumerated in said schedules 
 the growth, produce or manufacture of Canada, or In Canada upon such other 
 articles the growth, produce or manufacture of the United States, than are re- 
 spectively Imposed upon like articles the growth, produce or manufacture of 
 Great Britain, or of any other country. 
 
 SCHKDULK A. 
 
 Consists of the following natural products : 
 
 Animals of all kinds. 
 
 Ashes, pot, pearl, and soda. 
 
 Bark. 
 
 Bark extract, for tanning purposes. 
 
 Bath bricks. 
 
 Breadstuffs of all kinds. 
 
 Bricks for building, and Hre bricks. 
 
 Broom corn. 
 
 Burr or grindstones, hewed, wrought, 
 
 or unwrought. 
 Butter, 
 Cheese. 
 Coal and coke. 
 Cotton wool. 
 Cotton waste. 
 Dyestufls. 
 Earths, clays, oohers, sand, ground or 
 
 unground. 
 
 Eggs. 
 
 Fish of all kinds. 
 
 Fish, products of, and of all other 
 
 creatures living in the water, except 
 
 tish preserved in oil. 
 Firewood, 
 
 Flax, unmanufactured. 
 Flour, and meals of all kinds. 
 Fruits, green or dried. 
 Furs, undressed. 
 Grain of all kinds. 
 
 Gypsum, ground, unground, or calcined. 
 
 Hay. 
 
 Hemp, unmanufactured. 
 
 Hides. 
 
 Horns. 
 
 Lard. 
 
 Lime. 
 
'! 
 
 II 
 
 
 ■i 
 
 60 
 
 Malt. 
 
 Manures. 
 
 Marble, stone, slate, or granite, 
 
 wrought or unwrought. 
 Meats, fresh, smoked or malted. 
 Ores of all kinds of metals. 
 PeltH. 
 
 Pease, whole or split. 
 Petroleum oil,crude,reflnd or benzole. 
 Pitch. 
 Plants. 
 
 Poultry and birds of all kinds. 
 Rags of all kinds. 
 Ulce. 
 Salt. 
 Seeds. 
 
 Sbrnbs. 
 
 Skins. 
 
 Straw, 
 
 Tails. 
 
 Tallow. • 
 
 Tar. 
 
 Timber and lumber of all kinds, round, 
 
 hewed and sawe<1, manufactured In 
 
 whole or in part. 
 Tobacco, unmanufactured. 
 Tow, unmanufactured. 
 Trees. 
 Turpentine, 
 Vegetables. 
 Wool. 
 
 Schedule B. 
 Consisting of the following agricultural implements: 
 
 Axes. 
 
 Bagholders. 
 
 Beehives. 
 
 Bone-crushers, or parts thereof. 
 
 Cultivators, or parts thereof. 
 
 Chaff-cutters, or parts thereof. 
 
 Corn-huskers, or parts thereof. 
 
 Oheese-vats. 
 
 Cheese-factory heaters. 
 
 Cheese-presses, or parts thereof. 
 
 Churns, or parts thereof. 
 
 Cattle-feed boilers and steamers, or 
 
 parts thereof. 
 Ditchers, or parts thereof. 
 Field rollers, or parts thereof. 
 Fanning mills, or parts thereof- 
 Feed-choppers or parts thereof. 
 Forks for hay and manure, hand or 
 
 horse. 
 Grain Drills, or parts thereof. 
 Grain-crushers, or parts thereof. 
 Harrows. 
 
 Hoes, hand or horse. 
 
 Horserakes. 
 
 Horse-power machines.or parts thereof 
 
 Hay tedders, or parts thereof. 
 
 Liquid manure carts, or parts thereof. 
 
 Manure sowers, or parts thereof. 
 
 Mowers, or parts thereof. 
 
 Oil and oil-cake crushers, or parts 
 
 thereof. 
 Plows, or parts thereof. 
 Root and seed planters, or parts thereof. 
 Root cutters, pulpers, and washers, or 
 
 parts thereof. 
 Rakes. 
 
 Reapers, or parts thereof. 
 Reaper and mower combined, or parts 
 
 thereof. 
 Spades. 
 Shovels. 
 Scythes. 
 Snaiths. 
 Threshing machines, or parts thereof. 
 
 SCUBDULK C. 
 
 ron«lstinff of the following manufactures, — 
 
 Axle.s, all kinds. 
 Boots and shoes, of leather. 
 Boot and shoe making machines. 
 Buffalo robes dreseed and trimmed. 
 Cotton grain bags. 
 Cotton denims. 
 Cotton jeans, unbleached. 
 Cotton drillings, unbleached. 
 Cotton tickings. 
 Cotton plaids. 
 Cottonades. unbleached, 
 (Cabinet ware and furniture, or parts 
 thereof. 
 
 and other 
 sleighs or 
 
 (Carriages, carts, wagons 
 
 wheeled vehicles and 
 
 parts thereof. 
 Fire engines, or parts thereof. 
 Felt covering for boilers. 
 Gutta-percha belting and tubing. 
 Iron, bar, hoop, pig, puddled, rod, 
 
 sheet, or scrap. 
 Iron nails, spikes, bolts, tacks brads 
 
 or sprigs. 
 Iron castings. 
 India rubber belting and tubing. 
 
\ 
 
 61 
 
 und, 
 id In 
 
 reof 
 eof. 
 
 arts 
 
 ■eof. 
 
 I, or 
 
 irts 
 
 of. 
 
 her 
 or 
 
 Locomotives for railways, or parts 
 
 thereof. 
 Lead, sheet or pig. 
 Leatlier sole or npper. 
 Leather, harness, and saddlery of 
 Mill, or factory, or steomboat fixed 
 engines and machines or parts teereof 
 Mannfactures of marble, stone, slate 
 
 or granite. 
 Manufacturers of wood solely, or wood 
 
 nailed, bound, hinged, or locked with 
 
 metal materials. 
 Mangles, washing macbines,wringing 
 
 machines, and drying machines, or 
 
 parts thereof. 
 Printing paper for newspapers. 
 
 Paper-making machinef^.or p.iris themnr. 
 
 Printing type, presses, and folders, 
 paper cutters, ruling machines, page 
 numbering machines and stereotyp- 
 ing apparatus, or parts thereof. 
 
 Refrigerators, or parts thereof. 
 
 Railroad cars, carriages and trucks, 
 or parts thereof. 
 
 Satinets of wood or cotton. 
 
 Steam engines or parts thereof. 
 
 Steel, wrought or cast, and steel 
 plates and rails. 
 
 Tin tubes and piping. 
 
 Tweeds of wool solely. 
 
 Water-wheel machines and apparatus 
 or parts thereof. 
 
 American duties have been imposed upon Canadian agricultural 
 products imported into the United States since 1866. In October, 
 1890, these duties were largely increased by the McKinley Hill and the 
 disastrous effect upon our export trade produced by this increase is 
 shown by a comparison of farm exports tor the year ending June 30th, 
 1890, the last year before the McKinley Bill went into operation, and 
 the year ending June 30th, 1893, the last year for which we have full 
 trade returns since the bil went into operation. The following is the 
 comparison in twelve leading articles of farm products. 
 
 Comparison of Export of Farm Products, 1890—1898. 
 
 Name of Article, 
 
 1890 
 
 1893 
 
 Horses, 
 
 - $1,887,895 
 
 $1,123,339 
 
 Cattle, 
 
 104,623 
 
 11,032 
 
 Poultry, 
 
 105,612 
 
 52,114 
 
 Eggs. 
 Wool, 
 
 1,793,104 
 
 324.365 
 
 236,436 
 
 228,030 
 
 Flax, 
 
 175,563 
 
 124,082 
 
 Barley, 
 
 4,582.562 
 
 638,27 1 
 
 Split peas, 
 
 74,215 
 
 4,214 
 
 Hay, 
 
 922,797 
 
 854.958 
 
 Malt, 
 
 149,310 
 
 19 
 
 Potatoes' 
 
 308 915 
 
 259,176 
 
 Rye. 
 
 1 13,320 
 
 3,302 
 
 
 $10,453,352 
 
 !?3,624.892 
 
 Dd, 
 
 ids 
 
 United States Market Compared With All Others. 
 
 It is the custom of the Conservative orators, and of the Con- 
 servative press to seek to belittle the importance of the* American 
 market, and we are told that substitutes for that market can easily 
 be obtained, as for instance in Australia, a country which last year 
 
: 
 
 62 
 
 took of the farm products of Canada to the value of $25 only. A 
 statement of the lines in which our exports to the United States, 
 even under the grievous restrictions of the McKinley Bill, exceeded 
 our exports to all the rest of the world in 1893 will show how 
 utterly destitute of foundation is this assertion. Here is the table 
 which is more convincing than argument : 
 Arttcleo or clasaiflcation of exports 
 
 :< 
 
 the produce of Canada. 
 
 United States. 
 
 All other countries. 
 
 Products of the mine, 
 
 $ 4,750.280 
 
 $ 573.010 
 
 forest. 
 
 18,869,900 
 
 12,49.., 950 
 
 Fresh water fish and salt 
 
 
 
 water fish, fresh. 
 
 1.287,822 
 
 4,642 
 
 Horses, 
 
 1,123,339 
 
 337,818 
 
 Swine, 
 
 130,093 
 
 15,997 
 
 Sheep, 
 
 1,088,814 
 
 1 59.041 
 
 Poult' y, 
 
 52,114 
 
 9,013 
 
 Bones, 
 
 58,444 
 
 10,282 
 
 Hides, 
 
 385,240 
 
 7,122 
 
 Sheep pelts, 
 
 66,939 
 
 10 
 
 Wool, 
 
 228,030 
 
 281 
 
 Flax, 
 
 124,082 
 
 
 Berries, 
 
 96,104 
 
 115 
 
 Fruit, N. E. S., 
 
 24,640 
 
 1,114 
 
 Barley, 
 
 038,271 
 
 300,084 
 
 Beans, 
 
 351,058 
 
 4.024 
 
 Hay, 
 
 854 958 
 
 597,914 
 
 Straw, 
 
 25.117 
 
 932 
 
 Maple sugar. 
 
 48,174 
 
 1477 
 
 Trees, shrubs and plants, 
 
 11,959 
 
 232 
 
 Potatoes, 
 
 259,170 
 
 102,782 
 
 Vegetables, 
 
 105,830 
 
 10,404 
 
 Other articles, 
 
 27,090 
 
 1,577 
 
 Fertilizers, 
 
 7,700 
 
 ■ 
 
 Furs, 
 
 0,004 
 
 3,103 
 
 Grindstones, 
 
 24,754 
 
 948 
 
 Gypsum, 
 
 27,091 
 
 2,3£0 
 
 Household effects, 
 
 1,240,085 
 
 37.081 
 
 Lime, 
 
 97,898 
 
 8.207 
 
 Barrels, 
 
 10,031 
 
 0,297 
 
 Household furniture, 
 
 123,872 
 
 50,749 
 
 Wood pulp. 
 
 424,253 
 
 1.640 
 
 Other manufactures, 
 
 249,752 
 
 117,727 
 
 Bullion, 
 
 309.459 
 J!28,132,233 
 
 
 
 Ifl4,932.145 
 
\ / 
 
 . A 
 atos, 
 
 B(lc(l 
 
 how 
 tttble 
 
 tries. 
 
 6S 
 
 RECIPROCITY. 
 
 In conneotion with this subject of Reciprocity with the United 
 States, the following tables are submitted showing the exports ot the 
 three Maritime Provinces, during 18'.)3, and the countries where 
 exported to : 
 
 NEW imUNSWICK. 
 
 Total exports 
 
 Of these the United States took 
 Over 50 per cent. 
 
 The rest of the world t(X)k 
 
 « 7,253,611 
 :<,735,074 
 
 « :J,518,.537 
 
 Of this 8:i,518,537 Great Britain took almost 8,3000,000, of which all 
 but $225,000 was deal and deal ends. 
 
 Practically, therefore. New Brunswick's market for all she has to 
 dispose of, except deals and deal ends, is found in the United States. 
 
 Thu prochicts ot* her manut'iicturos. ."? 444,990 
 
 mines, 6(3,348 
 
 fisheries, 7')6,437 
 
 * '* animals and their produQts,* 158,041 
 
 " a^ricullurul produce, 174,763 
 
 All find their best markets in the United States, while leas than 
 half <i million of her total exports find a market in all countries of the 
 world outside of Great Britain and the United States. 
 
 The case is even stronger with 
 
 PHINCK EDWARD ISLAND. 
 
 Her total exiK)rts in iao;5 reached 
 Of these the United States took 
 or over 60 per cent 
 All the rest of the world took 
 
 « 1,235,344 
 <)t)8.152 
 
 a 567,202 
 
 NOVA SCOTIA. 
 
 Total exports, 
 
 or ihese the United States took 
 or nearly one third, 
 All the rest of the world took 
 
 $10,308,628 
 3,230,218 
 
 » 7,078.410 
 
 This is irrespective of 8304,220 coin and; bullion exported to the 
 United States. 
 
 These tables show that one of the most valuable markets for the 
 Maritime Provinces is the United States. 
 
 That it would be suicidal on our part not to cultivate and 
 develop it, 
 
64 
 
 That in flpite of hontUe \t(iri/fH on both m'tf,en our trade witli the 
 United States, in the years 1893-04 was aa follows : 
 
 Nova Scotia, exi)ort8 to United States, $ 3,-230,'218 
 
 New Brunswick, '' " " 3,735,074 
 
 P. K. Island " " '• 608,152 
 
 Total exports, S 7,573,444 
 
 Nova Scotia, ImjwrtH from U S., 9 2,465,576 
 
 New Brunswick, " " 2.933,763 
 
 p. E. Island " " 130,294 
 
 Total trade of Mar. Provinces with 
 with the United States in 1893 4. 
 
 5,620,632 
 
 813,103,076 
 
 This trade is capable of infinite expansion. A reciprocity 
 treaty would re-vivify trade, increase our exports and imports, 
 duplicate our profits, increase the value of our lands, retain at 
 home and give employment to our population. 
 
 We do not ignore the increasing value of our British trade. 
 On the contrary we desire to increase it. That is evident by the 
 resolution moved by Mr. Davies in Parliament, and voted down 
 by the Tories : Resolved that 
 
 '' Inasmuch as Great Britain admits the products of Canada 
 into her ports free of duty, this House is of the opinion that the 
 present scale of duties exacted on goods mainly imported from 
 Great Britain should be reduced." 
 
 We have and will have the British markets absolutely free. 
 We want two strings to our bow. We want to make the Ameri- 
 can market as free as the revenue acquirements of both countries 
 permit. 
 
 We know we could have negotiated a reasonable p"i *■" 
 Reciprocity treaty in 1891 or 1892, embracing a fair list o .,uu 
 factured goods. 
 
 We believe such a treaty can yet be had. The task has been 
 rendered exceedingly difficult by the blundering of the Tory Gov- 
 ernments. But it is not insuperable ; and if a Liberal Govern- 
 ment is returned to power we can reasonably hope for the 
 successful negotiation of a Reciprocity treaty with the United 
 States at an early date. 
 
\/ 
 
 Go 
 
 .au- 
 
 
 PURITY OF ADMINISTRATION -CONDEMN 
 
 CORRUPTION. 
 
 ** That thft convention deplores the groHS corruption in the 
 Di!inag(MiM'iit aixl oxprnditiiio of public moncj'n which for yearH 
 past has exist<!(l under the rulnof the ('ouservatire party, nnd the 
 revelations of which by the different parliamentary cominittees 
 of enquiry have brought disgrace upon the fair name of ('anada. 
 
 '* The (Tovcrniucnl which profited politically by these c.v 
 penditurcs of public moneys whi reof the people have been de- 
 frauded, aud which, never huicss, have never punished the 
 guilty parties, must be held responsible for the wrong-doing. We 
 arraign the (iovernmeut for retaining in office a Minister of the 
 Crown proved to have accepted very large contributions of money 
 for election purposes from the funds of a railway company, which 
 while paying the ])olitical contributions to him, a member of the 
 Government, with one hand, was receiving Government subsidies 
 with the other. 
 
 " The conduct of the minister aud the approval of his col- 
 leagues after the proof became known to them are calculated to 
 degrade Canada in the estimation of the world, aud deserve the 
 severe condemnation of the people." 
 
 A Few Examples. 
 
 The force of the charge of corruption made against the Con- 
 servative Government, and the urgent condemnation they deserve 
 can be best shown by a few examples. 
 
 The illustrations given are confined to cases involving the 
 action of members of the present administration, or of their sup- 
 porters in the House, who have been sustained in their wrong- 
 doing by the ministry and the party in Parliament. 
 
 1. In the Caron case the evidence is complete of the levying 
 by a Minister for a reptile fi^nd of au enormous sum from those 
 interested in railway government subsidies, and its expenditure 
 by Ministers in electoral corruption. The exposure is more re- 
 markable because the original charges were mutilated and enquiry 
 largely stifled, on the motion of Mr. Bowell, the present First 
 Minister. 
 
 The McGreevy Conspiracy illustrates the levying of cor- 
 I'U' u funds from contractors for public works, the complicity 
 ol listers, and the timpering with justice by the release of 
 poi oal criminals. 
 
s/ 
 
 m 
 
 S. The Blind Share Case illustrates the eucouragement aud 
 assistance given by Mr. Bowell, the new Premier, to the traffick- 
 ing in Orders in Council. 
 
 4. The Cochrane Case is a gross case of the sale of public 
 offices by a member of Parliament. 
 
 5. J'he Turcotte case is one where a Member of Parliament is 
 maintained in his seat while drawing the profits from a Govern- 
 ment contract. 
 
 The Capon Case. 
 
 Sir Adolphe P. Caron, M. P., is the leader of the Conservative 
 party in the Province of Quebec, and ne ranks next to the Premier 
 in the Cabinet, both in seniority of appointment and in intiuence. 
 
 In 1892, charges were made by Mr. J. D. Edgar, M. P., in the 
 House of Commons that sums amounting to $100,000 and upwards 
 were levied from Government contractors and those interested in 
 certain railway subsidies, and were spent in the bribery of twenty- 
 two constituencies in the District of Quebec,at the general election 
 of 1887, 
 
 To investigate these charges, he demanded a reference to the 
 Committee of Privileges and Elec^^^ions. The members comi)osiug 
 this committee are, in the proportion of two to one, supporters of 
 the Government. 
 
 The Ministers did not dare to face a full enquiry, and there- 
 fore they put up Mr. Mackenzie Bowell, the present Premier, to 
 move to strike out some, and to vary others of the charges. 
 
 I'he Parte McGreevy inquiry of the previous year was made 
 before the Committee of Privileges aud Elections, and it had been 
 so damaging to the Government that they dared not again face 
 the committee. Mr. Bowell, therefore, provided in his motion 
 that the emasculated charges should be referred to a Royal Com- 
 mission, to be appointed by the Government and selected by the 
 accused. Mr. Bowell's motion was carried by the usual party 
 majority. 
 
 Mr. Edgar very properly declined to appear at the sittings 
 of this Royal Commission but sent to the Commissioners a list of 
 his witnesses, whom they called and partially examined. 
 
 In due time the Royal Commission reported the evidence 
 taken, i'he startling and disgraceful facts revealed before them, 
 even under the limited scope of the inquiry, show that the Minis- 
 ters had good reasons for dreading the more complete exposure 
 that would have been made if the original charges had been gone 
 iuto. . ; .. 
 
s^ 
 
 67 
 
 to 
 
 It was clearly shown that when Sir Adolphe Caron entered 
 the Ministry in 18cS0, he was a shareholder of the construction 
 company which received all the Government subsidies granted to 
 the Quebec and Lake St. John Eailway Company. After he 
 entered the Government, the subsidies voted tO that railway ex- 
 ceeded a million of dollars. The late Senator Boss was president 
 of this company, and Mr. Beemer was the contractor, also deeply 
 interested in the subsidies. Just before the elections of 1887, Sir 
 Adolphe Caron applied for a political subscription from Senator 
 Ross, who promptly gave him $25,000. 
 
 According to Mr. Beemer's books, there were also about the 
 same time a number of other payments amounting to $25,000 
 more, which was charged to "A. P. C." and " G. E. F." These 
 letters were sworn to have ment "A. P. Caron" and "General 
 Election Fund." There can be no doubt that at least $50,000 
 were furnished towards a corruption fund in 1887, from those in- 
 terested in the subsidies to this one railway. It was a great 
 investment for them, of course, to make this contribution, for 
 the Government have paid them $46.'i,408 since 1887. 
 
 Then there was the remiscouata Railway, which was also 
 receiving Dominion subsidies, and was partially enquired into by 
 the Royal Commissioners. They found in this instance, too, thac 
 $25,000 was set apart and expended by this railway for political 
 purposes during the progress of the work of construction. 
 
 These sums went to swell a Reptile Fund for the District of 
 Quebec alone, for the election of 1887, which amounted to 
 $112,000 according to the figures of the McGreevy papers papers 
 published in The Globe. 
 
 Out of the twenty-two counties where this fund was expended, 
 the Government only carried ten seats, making an average cost to 
 the country for each member returned to support them $11,200. 
 
 It is not o.t all unfair to assume that in the rest of the Dominion 
 similar corruption funds have been provided by the same vile means 
 for the elections of 1887, and for all elections. 
 
 The raising of these enormous sums before every general elec- 
 tion is a well recognized practice of the Conservative party in 
 Canada. Before another Royal Commission in 1873, it was proved 
 that Sir Hugh Allen paid for the promise oi the old Canadian 
 Pacific Railway Charter, $365,000 to the election fund of the Con- 
 servative party in 1872. How much more they had from other 
 sources for that election will never be known. 
 
68 
 
 \f' 
 
 For each dollar that a contractor, or a subsirlizeH railway com- 
 pany, or a tariff-protected monopolist, pays to reptile funds, he is in 
 a position to demand A ten fold return iu the plunder of the public. 
 By the acceptance of these bribes, the Government phice themselves 
 at the mercy of the contributors. 
 
 Since the exposures in the Caron case, several new Ministries 
 have been constructed, and in each one of them Sir Adolphe Caron 
 has been placed in a high and honorable position. His offence has 
 been adopted by the Conservative party as their own, and he him- 
 self has boldly justified it in his place on the floor of Parlinment in 
 these memorable words: "I say that under the same circum- 
 stances what I did on that occasion I would do ag>ain to-mor- 
 pow in order to help my friends." 
 
 The McGreevy Conspiracy and the Langevin-Caron 
 
 Reptile Fund. 
 
 In 1891, a number of charges were made in Parliament by Mr. 
 Tarte, M. P., against Sir Hector Langevin, then Minister of Public 
 Works, and Hon. T. McGreevy, M. P. Mr. Tarte alleged that the 
 contracting firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., were allowed by Sir 
 Hector Langevin, then Minister of Public Works, with the assistance 
 of Mr. McGreevy, to choat the country out of hundreds of thousands 
 of dollars on Government contracts. 
 
 These charges were referred to a Committee of the House for 
 investigation, and the public were startled by the revelations of 
 fraud and conspiracy by which the country was shown to have 
 lieen robbed of about half a million of dollars. The full extent to 
 which this money was applied to Tory Corruption Funds will never 
 be known, but evidance was dragged out rf unwilling witnesses 
 that $119,438 of it were paid for election expenses. 
 
 The famous (Quebec District Election Fund i)f 1887 receivi d 
 $20,000 from these contractors, and that fund was distributed for 
 election purposes by two Ministers of the (Vown, Sir Hector 
 Langevin and Sir Adolphe P. Caron. . 
 
 As an instance of the grossly corrupt uses that were made of 
 this Reptile Fund, the case of Three Rivers, Sir Hector Langevin's 
 swn constituency, may be given. In 1887 the total number of 
 votes cast for Sir Hector, the successful candidate, was 640. The 
 sum returned by Sir Hector's agent and published as his total law- 
 ful election expenses was $917.09. The sum sent into the con- 
 
\/ 
 
 69 
 
 le of 
 vin'.s 
 r of 
 The 
 law- 
 con- 
 
 stitnency from this fund alone was 3^13,160. No wonrlor In was 
 successful after an expenditure of oyer $20 for every vote he re- 
 ceived. 
 
 Messrs. McGreevy and Connolly were placed on trial for their 
 part in this conspiracy to defraud, and on conviction in November, 
 1894, were sentenced to gaol for twelve months. How could a 
 Conservative Government who owed their places to the support 
 given them by these conspirators permit them to serve out their 
 sentence ? How could Sir Adolphe Caron, a noble knight nnd a 
 Minister, who had received and expended in corruption, part of 
 the proceeds of this conspiracy, allow his friends and pals to lan- 
 guish in prison while he was an adviser of the Crown ? It was 
 therefore represented to the Government that confinement did not 
 agree with the prisoner's digestion, and they were liberated after 
 but three months' imprisonment. 
 
 The eminent judge who tried the case (Mr. Justice Rose) said 
 that the offence was only aggrava^^^ed by the purposes of electoral 
 corruption to which the proceeds of this conspiracy were applied ; 
 yet it was the verj' Vmseness of the objects of the con-piracy that 
 saved these culprits from the punishment of their crimes. To 
 screen the crin:inal purveyors of the Reptile Fund th'.' course of 
 justice was tampered with and the prison doors were flung open 
 wide for the escape of the men who ha<l dark political secrets in 
 their breasts, which they threatened to divulge. 
 
 In order that the full responsibility may be shown to rest 
 upon the proper shoulders, the following extract is givon from the 
 Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons of 3rd July, 1894. 
 It is a motion of want of confidence, and .^11 the Government sup- 
 porters in the House voted agiiinst it : 
 
 "The Order of the day for the House to go iigain into Com- 
 mittee of Supply, beini; lead : 
 
 " Sir John Thompson moved, That Mr. Speaker Ao now leave 
 the Chair. 
 
 " Mr. Edgar moved in amendment thereto, that all the words 
 "after the word "that" be lel't out, and the fc llowing inserted in- 
 " stead thereof : "from the public trial and conv.ciiun of Thomns 
 " McGreevy and N. K. Connolly for conspiracy to defraud, anrl 
 " fiom evidence and papers already before this Hou.'^^e, it appears 
 "that large portions of the moneys which were found, upon said 
 " trial, to liave been criminally received by the said Thomas Mc- 
 
70 
 
 " Greevy from Government contractors, were so received by him for 
 ' the purpose of being expended in elections in the interest of the 
 " (.'Dnservative party, and for distribution by Sir Hector Langevin, 
 " M, P., and Sir Adolphe Caron, M.P., for the election of themselves 
 " and of other supporters of the Government at the general elec- 
 " tions held in February, 1887." 
 
 " That it further appears that large portions of the said 
 " moneys, together with other large sums collected by Sir Adolphe 
 " Carou from those interested in Government railway subsidies, 
 " were expended and distributed by Sir Hector Langevin and Sir 
 " Adolphe Caron, and in lavish and illegal amounts, to assist in 
 '■ the election of themselves and of other supporters of the Govern- 
 " ment, in the district of Quebec, at the general elections of 1887." 
 
 ' That the said Sir Hector Langevin and Sir Adolphe Caron 
 " were then, and are now, members of this House, and on the roll of 
 ' Her Majesty's Privy Councillors for Canada, and the said Sir 
 " Adolphe Caron is a Cabinet Minister and Postmaster General." 
 
 *' That in the qpinion of this House, the said Sir Hector Lan- 
 " gevin and Sir Adolphe Caron are deserving of the severest 
 '' censure foi- their connection with the said transactions, and 
 " that it is a public scandal and an injury to the reputation of 
 " Canada that Sir Adolphe Caron should continue to hold the 
 *' position of a Minister of the Crown," 
 
 "And the question being put on the amendment; in was 
 negatived on division." 
 
 Bowell and the Blind Shares. 
 
 In 1882 a craze set in for the formation of Colonization Com- 
 panies in the North west. The plan was to secure an Order-in 
 Council from the Dominion Government granting large tracts of 
 land at low prices to individuals who would then form a joint 
 stock company to buyout their grants. For this purpose a mem- 
 ber of the House of Commons, now deceased, associated himself 
 with Mr. James C. Jamieson, a son-in- v of Sir Mackenzie 
 Bowell, then and now a Minister of the Crown, and they pro- 
 cured for themselves and ten others in April, 1882, an Order in 
 Council granting them several townships of very choice land. Mr. 
 Bowell was consulted about it before the Order in Council was 
 passed, and knew of the exceedingly advantageous *' deal " that 
 had been arranged for the profit of his supporter in the House, 
 and for hiH son-in-law. Both of those gentlemen were to receive 
 what was called '' blind shares " in the stoek of the company, 
 
71 
 
 that is, stock on which they were to receive all the profits with- 
 out paying auy money into the company. A company called 
 " The Prince Albert Colonization Company " was accordingly 
 organized with twelve shareholders, ten of whom were paying 
 parties, and the aforasaid two gentlemen were non-paying hold- 
 ers of blind shares," each to the extent of $33,000. 
 
 It is true that Mr. Jamieson had to pay another party $500 
 to get in on the ground floor, but so warm an interest was t«,ken 
 by Mr. Bowell in this clever scheme of making money out of the 
 Government grant that he offered to lend, and did lend, to Mr. 
 Jamieson this $500, which was afterwards repaid to Mi . Bowell, 
 when Mr. Jamieson sold out his blind shores for cash. 
 
 On the demand of Mr. Edgar, M. P., these charges were re- 
 ferred for investigation to the CJoumiittee of Privileges and Elec- 
 tions. They were proved to be literally true ; yet by a ninjority 
 composed entirely of Ministers themselves, Mr. Bowell was white- 
 washed by the Committee, and his conduct was declared to be be- 
 yond reproach. This report was laid before the House of Com- 
 mons on 18th May, 1886, but although the House sat until 2nd 
 June, the Government did not dare to move for its adoption. The 
 position therefore is that Sir Mackenzie Bowell was accused in the 
 House of conduct of which he himself said : " These statements 
 affect not only my position as a Minister of the Crown but my re- 
 putation as a public man." These charges, so serious and disgrace- 
 ful to a Minister and a public man, stand of record yet against 
 him on the journals of the House oi' Commons. They have not 
 been dealt with by the House. Arc they wiped out by reason of 
 his elevation to the Senate ? He allowed the Session and the 
 Parliament, in which the charges were made, to pass without a 
 mov?, satisfied apparently with the whitewash of a packed com- 
 mittee, and a verdict cast by his own colleagues on that committee. 
 Is this the stainless Premier, the puro and lofty statesman, who 
 leads the Conservative party of Canada to-day ? 
 
 No wonder that he moved the resolution to burke enquiry in- 
 to the charges made against his colleague Sir Adolphe Caron in 
 1892. " A fellow feeling made him wondrous kind." 
 
 Corrupt Sale of Public Offices — The Cochrane Case. 
 
 From 1888 to 1890 the patronage of the County of E ist 
 Northumberland was in the hands of Edward Cochrane, Conserva- 
 tive M. P. The completion of the Murray Canal gave a number of 
 positions as keepers of swing bridges across the canal to beawar.l- 
 ed to political supporters by Mr. Cochrane. 
 
72 
 
 There wits at that time also a vacancy tt) be Hllcd l)y him in 
 the position of keeper of the Presquc Isle Light House. 
 
 A committee of Mr. Cochrane'^ suppor ers was organized for 
 the express purpose of corruptly trafRckini,' in these offices, and 
 with the full knowleii<^e of Mr. (>ochrane they did corruptly sell 
 and dispose ol such offices. 
 
 Hedley Simpson paid $200 for tlie Light House position, and 
 each of the following persons paid from $125 to $200 apiece for 
 the petty positions of keepers of swing bridges, namely: Wesley 
 Goodrich, John D. Cloustou, William Brown, Robert May and 
 Thomas Fitzgerald. 
 
 When Mr. Cochrane, M. P., was informed that the price of 
 the berths had been duly paid, he recommended to the Govern- 
 ment the appointment of these men, and the appointments were 
 promptly made. 
 
 The proceeds of these corrupt sales were applied to the poli- 
 tical purposes of the Conservative party in the riding, and in 
 part to pay off a promissory note on which Mr. Cochrane, M. P., 
 was personally liable. 
 
 Mr. M. C. Cameron, M. P., brought these matters before the 
 House, and this flagrant and miserable abuse of patronage, and 
 this sale of public offices was proved before a select committee of 
 the House of Commons in 1891. A mild censure of the system of 
 sale of public offices was passed, but the whitewash brush was 
 applied, and the Government majoiity refused to (jondemn the 
 conduct of the member who not only escai)ed censure, but has 
 been treated by his party as a martyr, a hero, and a victim of 
 Grit persecution ever since. 
 
 Buying Up a MembeF of Parliament. The Tureotte Case. 
 
 Mr. A. J. Turcotte, the present M. P. for Moutmorenci Co., 
 was elected on 11th March, 1892. He is now a very active per- 
 sonal ally and supporter of Sir Adolphe Carou. At the time of 
 his election he was cairying on a grocery business in Quebec in 
 partnei ship with Mr. Provost. The tirm then had a contract with 
 the Government in the name of Mr Provost, for the supply of the 
 militia at the Citidel of Quebec with groceries and provisions, 
 and up to the dissolution of the firm on 2nd February, 1893, they 
 received from the Governujent cheques amounting to $4,112.85. 
 This amount was all paid over by the tirm to Mr. Turcotte for his 
 private beuetit. 
 
y 
 
 73 
 
 After tho dissolution of the firm, Mr. Turcotte continued in 
 the grocery business and supplied the Militia Department with the 
 goods. For these he leceived all the payment for his own benefit, 
 although the cheques, as before, continued to be issued in Mr. 
 Provost'H name, and were endorsed by him over to Mr. Turrotte 
 who cashed them. 
 
 It is of course grossly improper tor a member to be .sitting in 
 the House drawing pay from contracts let to him by the Mini.s- 
 ters. He is in fact sold to them, and does not represent the people, 
 but is the slave of the Government. 
 
 The law condems this sort of thing very clearly, for section 10 
 of the Independence of Parliament Act, says : 
 
 " No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with any other, 
 by himself or by the interposition of any trustee or third party, 
 holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing any contract or 
 agreement, expressed or implied, with or for the Government of 
 Canada on behalf of the Crown, or with or for any of the officers 
 of the Government of Canada, for which any public money of 
 Canada is to be paid, shall be eligible as a member of the House 
 of Commons, or shall sit or vote in the said House." 
 
 Yet in spite of the plain language of the statute, the Govern- 
 ment majority iu the House on 13th July, 1894, was called upon 
 to whitewash Mr. Turcotte in the face of sworn evidence proving 
 the above facts. 
 
 On that date Mr. Edgar, M. P., moved a resolution declaring 
 tliat Mr. Turcotte had forfeited his seat. 
 
 Four Conservative members refused to swallow the scandal- 
 ous whitewashing vote, but all the rest were whipped into line, 
 voted down Mr. Edgar's motion, and had to justify by their votes 
 the clearest breach of the Independence of Parliament that was 
 ever proved before a committee. 
 
 Under that precedent, members can be safely bought up by 
 public money, like sheep in a market, to support any Govern- 
 that happens to be in power. 
 
 Favoritism and Extpavagcance. 
 
 The Hon. .John Haggart, Minister of Railways and Canals, 
 represented his present eonstituenviy of Lanark in 1882, and used 
 his influence with the Government to induce them to undertake 
 the construction, at public expense, of a short canal of six miles 
 in length (called the Tay canal) from the liideau canal to the 
 town of Perth, with a branch to Mr. Haggart'g own mill in that 
 town. The estimated cost inclusive of certain land and damages, 
 was $132,660. i he actual cost has amounted to the enormous 
 sum of lH76,128. 
 
74 
 
 Is this imiueuse expenditure justified by traffic upon the Tay 
 canal 1 On the contrary it is navigated only by some skiflfs, one 
 scow, two yachtH and two tugs. The total revenue from this 
 canal for the year ending Jan. lat, 1894, was .fl35.76, while the 
 actual cost of maintenance was for this same period, $2,486.00. 
 Here is an instance of grossly excessive expenditure which lays 
 the member who forced it upon the Government for his own ad- 
 vantage, open to the charge of being utterly unfit to manage the 
 Department of Railways and Canals. 
 
 A resolution condemning that expenditure was moved in 
 1894 by Mr. John Charlton, M. P., but was voted down by the 
 usual Government majority. 
 
 Curran Bridgre Scandal. 
 
 I'he story of the constructien of two Government bridges 
 over the Lachine canal (commonly called the Curran bridges), 
 involves as startling a disclosure of incompetence, extravagance 
 and criminal neglect of duty as has yet been made in Canada. The 
 responsible head of the Department is Honorable John Haggart, 
 Minister of Railways and Canals and the work was all done in 
 the city of Montreal, within telephoning distance of the Minister's 
 office. The bridges were constructed during the first four months 
 of the year 1893. The Department decided to have the work on 
 the sub-structures of the bridges done by day labor. The contract 
 was entered into with a contractor named St. Louis, a Govern- 
 ment election pusher, who carried out the work as laid out by 
 the Department and under its superintendence and direction. 
 
 The original estimate of cost of these sub-structures was 
 $122,000, but the account presented to the Department for that 
 work have amounted to $430,325, and of this sum $394,000 has 
 actually been paid to the contractor by the Government. 
 
 I Q order to illustrate the nature of the outrageous over- 
 charges a few examples may be given. The supply of timber and 
 lumber paid for is over 1 ,000,000 feet, board measure, more 
 than could have been used in those works. The cost of stone 
 cutting on one of the bridges, if it had been let at the usual 
 prices by piece work, would have been $3,000, whereas the 
 amount paid by the Government, including the contractor's price 
 is $16,715, and the cost of stone cutting on the other bridge was 
 still more excessive, rhe prices paid by the Department to the 
 contractor for labor were greatly beyond current prices, in some 
 instances being as high as $12 for work for which the contractor 
 only paid $4.50, and $9.20 for other work for which the contractor 
 only paid $3.75. False pay lists were made up with the names 
 of hundreds and thousands of men upon them who never worked 
 at ail, and very many of whom were entirely fictitious. 
 
I the Tay 
 ;iflf8, one 
 L'oin this 
 liile the 
 J,486.00. 
 lich lays 
 own ad 
 lage the 
 
 loved in 
 1 by the 
 
 bridges 
 )ridge8), 
 Lvagance 
 Ida. The 
 :Jaggait, 
 done in 
 inister's 
 • months 
 rork on 
 contract 
 Govern- 
 i out by 
 tion. 
 ires was 
 for that 
 ,000 has 
 
 IS over- 
 iber and 
 e, more 
 f stone 
 e usual 
 reas the 
 •'s price 
 dge was 
 t to the 
 in some 
 itractor 
 Q tractor 
 e names 
 worked 
 
 75 
 
 No check was kept by any Government official upon these 
 lists, or upon the number of men employed. For months the 
 contractor, St. Louis, was allowed to charge just what number of 
 men he liked, and these pay sheets were duly certified by the 
 Government officials as correct, and paid by the Government. 
 One official swore that he kept a private memorandum of the 
 numbers of men employed each day for some weeks. On com- 
 paring this the truth of which was sworn to, with the Govern- 
 ment returns, it was found that where 10 men were actually cm- 
 ployed 30 were charged for, and where 30 were actually employed 
 90 or 100 were charged, and where 100 were employed 300 or 40t> 
 were charged. 
 
 It was the most open, bare-faced swindle ever exposed in 
 Canada, and to this day not one of the culprits has been con- 
 victed in court or punished. A pretence has been made of be- 
 ginning a prosecution against St. Louis, but it is only a pretence. 
 The elections will soon be over, and if the Government is sus- 
 tained, Mr. Ouimet will take good care that his cousin St. Louis, 
 does not suffer. The Government Commissioners. Messrs. Mc- 
 Leod, Douglas and Veniot, appointed to examine into the facts, 
 reported that the amount stolen was $195,693. 
 
 This was a larger sum than the whole work could have been 
 completed for had it been built by contract in the usual way. 
 
 These facts cannot be contradicted or denied, as they have 
 been proved on several occasions, and Mr. Haggart, while not 
 denying them, is pursuing a somewhat cowardly course of throw- 
 ing the whole blame upon subordinate officers of his Department. 
 
 The people of Canada, however, pay Mr. Haggart a very 
 large salary for looking after this business for them, and it is a 
 mon/ijtrous proposition that he, the responsible Minister of the 
 (^I'own, should be able to clear his skirts by blaming subordinate 
 officers and contractors whom he appointed and paid. Mr. St. 
 Louis, the contractor, excuses himself on the ground thrft he was 
 forced to contribute so much money to the election of the Conser- 
 vative party that he had to make it up out of contracts. In order 
 to avoid the exposure of particulars of his political contributions 
 all his books connected with the matter were burnt. It is pos- 
 sible that the inward history of this disgraceful transaction will 
 never be known, but the Government and their followers who de- 
 fended it by their votes last session, will be held to strict ac- 
 count when they appear before their electors. Sir Richard 
 Cartwright, on the 18th July, 1894, moved a resolution in the 
 House of Commons exposing and condemning this transaction, 
 but it was voted down by the usual Government majority. 
 
76 
 
 Refusal of Enquiry. 
 
 When charges of misconduct have been made against Ministers 
 in the House of Commons, the Government iiavt; sometimes altered 
 the charges. There is another instance where a serious charj^e was 
 made against a Minister of the Crown, and the (ioveniincnt crtilfid on 
 their majority in Parliament to vote down and nifuse aiiy inciuiry 
 whatever into the matters charged. This was notably the case 
 when in 18U1 Mr. J. F. Lister, M.P., brought serious charges against 
 Hon. John I laggart in connection with the Section B. contract. On 
 the 13th September, 1891, he made the following motion : 
 
 "That James Frederick Lister, Rlsquire, the member rein'«'sent- 
 ing the electoral district of West LambU)n in this House, liaving de- 
 clared from the seat in this House that he is credibly informed, and 
 that he believes that he is able to establish by satisfactory evidence : 
 
 "That in the year 1870 Messrs. Alexander Manning, Alexander 
 Shields, John James Macdonald, Alexander McDcmell, .lames 
 Isbester and Peter McTiaren enterod into a contract with the (4ov- 
 ernment of Canada for the construction of a ]>ortion of tln! Canadian 
 Pacific liailway between Port Arthur antl Kat Portage, known as 
 Section H, 
 
 " The said contract and the works in connection therewith were 
 completed by the said contractors to whom they were a source of great 
 })ront. 
 
 "During the whole period covered by the said contract, the 
 Honorable John G Haggart, now Postmastei'-Geneval and a member 
 of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada, was a mcnluu' *of the 
 House of Commons for the South Hiding ot Lanark, and still is such 
 member. 
 
 "That the said Honorable John G. Haggart became and wis 
 beneficially interested in the pi-oflts of said contract whinh accrued 
 to the share thereof standing in the name of the said Pofcr McLaren, 
 and has received large sums out of the said profits, and has oi her wise 
 derived direct and substantial pecuniary benetils tlierefrotn 
 
 " That during the pi'ogress of the said works, and whiU; the said 
 Honorable .fohn G. Haggart was so interested therein, members of 
 the said firm were called upon by members of the Government of 
 cJanada for largo contributions for iwlitical purposes, and such con 
 tributions were paid out of the mone> s of tht; said lirni. and with the 
 knowledge and assent of the said Honorable .lohn ii. Haggart were 
 charged against the profits of the firnj ; and while the said contribu- 
 tions were so (l^manaed and i);ii(l, the suid tirni of contractors were in 
 various ways deptmdent upon the (Toverinn.Mit by reason of many 
 matters being unsettled and in dispute in relation to the said con- 
 tract, which were at the time of such contributions or subsequently 
 settUnl not unfavorably to the said contractors 
 
 "That a Select Committee be appointed to enquire fully into the 
 said allegations, with the power to send for persons, papers and re- 
 cords, and to examine witnesses upon oath or affirmation, and to em- 
 ploy shorthand writers to take down such evidence as they may deem 
 necessary, and to have the evidence printed from day to day for the 
 use of the Committee, and that the Committee do report in full the 
 evidence taken before them, and all their |)ro<ieedings on the refer- 
 ence, and the result of their enquiries, and that rule 78 of this House 
 
77 
 
 liniaiers 
 i altered 
 ir^e was 
 'ail';(l oil 
 ■ in<iiiiry 
 the ease 
 against 
 act. On 
 
 !pr<'sent- 
 viiif? de- 
 led, and 
 v^idence: 
 lexaiider 
 James 
 he (4nv- 
 !aiiadiaii 
 
 !1()\VI1 aH 
 
 ith were 
 of great 
 
 act, the 
 
 member 
 
 :of the 
 
 is sucli 
 
 iiid was 
 accrued 
 cLareii, 
 herwise 
 
 the said 
 ibers of 
 meiit of 
 ch con 
 ith the 
 rt wer(^ 
 )utril»n- 
 \ver(^ 111 
 many 
 Id coii- 
 juently 
 
 1 1 to the 
 and re- 
 to em- 
 y deem 
 for the 
 tuU the 
 e refer- 
 Houae 
 
 The ex- 
 1877-8 was his 
 year was 
 a portion 
 
 that 
 For 
 
 as to the selection of committees be susjiended and that the said com- 
 mittee be composed of Mes.srs. Mills (Uoth well), Kdj?ar, Karron, Lister 
 (who shall not have the right to vote), Dickey, \Vo.)d (Hrockville), 
 (Tironard and McLeod " 
 
 This motion was voted down by the usual Government majority. 
 
 Public Expenditure Has Increased Alarmingfly. 
 
 Since Confederation in 18(57, the public expenditure has increased 
 alarmingly. Commencing with Sn,48(),()l>2 in 1807-8, it nad risen to 
 »87,58r),025 in 1893-4. On July 1st. li^W, tht; estimated pouulation of 
 the Dominion was .'{,520,000. On July 1st, 1801, the estimated popula- 
 tion was but little over 5,000,000, showing an increase of population 
 during the period (• fraction over 42 per cent , while the increase of 
 expenditure for the sime period was #24,008, 0.'W, or 178 per cent. The 
 increase of the net debt during the same period was #170,454,588, or 
 225 per c ent. 
 
 Mr. Mackenzie came into office November 8th, 187;{. 
 penditure for that tiscal vea" amounted to $2:i,:U<>,:U0, 
 last full fiscal year in office and th(i expendit ire for 
 $2:5,503,158. An increase for the term of only #18»),842. 
 of the fiscal year ending June ."iOth, 1878, .\Ir- Mackenzie's administra- 
 tion was responsible as it held office till October lOth, 1878, making 
 three months and ten days of the year, and if a comparatively exact 
 statement of the increase of expenditure under Mr. Mackenzie's ad- 
 ministration is desired, the supply bill for 1878 will lurnish the 
 data. 
 
 In no year during Mr. Mackenzie's administration did the ex- 
 penditure exceed the amount of the supply bill for that year. The 
 sui)ply bill for 1878 9 amounted to $23,0(50,000, and his administration 
 would not have exceeded that amount Had he remained in office 
 therefore till July 1st, 1870, the increase of expenditure during his 
 administration would have been *}.>>, 000. That the expenditure for 
 18780 actually reached the sum of .#24,455,381 is due to the fact that 
 for nine months of year Mr. Mackenzie's successors administered the 
 finances. 
 
 During Mr. Mackenzie's administration the contracts and obliga- 
 tions left by his ju'edecessors rendered an increase of the debt neces- 
 sary, and of course rendered an addition to the annual interest charge 
 unavoidable, but so great was the e(!onomy and prudence of his ad- 
 ministration that diniii'.^ his term of oflioe, the controllaliie expendi- 
 ture was reduced by tlK^siim of $1,781,000, and the taxation from cus 
 toms duties fell from #14,325,192 in 1873 4 to S12,900.(159 in 1878-9, a 
 decrease of ^U,424,533. 
 
 By selecting the period commencing,' July 1st. hSSi, and ending 
 July 1st, 1891, an exact comparison can be made for the docando 
 between the increase of debt, of expenditure, and of customs taxa- 
 tion on the one hanrl an(] the increase of population on the otlier 
 hand. 
 
 Population, 1881, 
 
 4,824,810 
 
 Population, l.«91, 
 
 4,882, 23fJ 
 
 I, crease, 
 
 - 508,429 
 
 Percjntage of incrousc, 
 
 - iiee 
 
B 
 
 ir 
 
 78 
 
 Net debt, 1881, - - ?1 56.395,780 
 
 1M91, - - 2.S7,801),030 
 
 Increase. - «82,41.S,250 
 
 Percentage of increase, 53 
 
 Expenditure. 1881, - - »25,602,554 
 
 1801, - - 36,343,567 
 
 Increase of expenditure, $10,841,013 
 
 Percentage of increase, 42 
 
 Taxation by customs duties, 1881, $18,406,092 
 
 " • 1891, 23,3»9,300 
 
 Increase, - $4,993,208 
 
 Percentage of increase, 27 
 
 Increase of the Controllable Expenditure. 
 
 The 8tati>tics relating to the increase of the controllable ex- 
 penditure since 1878 are ot a most unsatisfactory character. .The 
 increase of population between July 1st, 1878. and July 1st, 1893, 
 have not exceeded 21 per cent, advance upon the population in the 
 first year named. During the same period the proportion of in- 
 crease in controllable expenditure has been very much greater. In 
 1878 the expenditure on account of Administration cf Justice, 
 Arts, Agriculture and Statistics, Fisheries, Quarantine, Indians, 
 Legislation, Militia and Defence, Public Works, Superannuation, 
 Excise, N rthwesi Territories Government, Mail subsidies and 
 Steamship subventions, Civil Government, Adulteration of Food, 
 Mounted Police .and Miscellaneous amounted to $5,256,424. The 
 expenditure for the same purposes in 1893 amounted to $10,384,272, 
 an increase of 97 per cent, during a period when the population 
 increased 21 per cent. Some of the items of increase need no com- 
 ment as will be seen by reference to the following statement: 
 Arts, Agricultnre and Statistics, 1878 $ 92,365 
 
 •893 25M35 
 
 Increase $166,270 
 
 , Percentage of increase 180 
 
 Fisheries, 1878 $ 93,262 
 
 1893 482,381 
 
 Increase $389, 1 19 
 
 Percentage of increase 417 
 
 Quarantine, 1 878 $ 26,340 
 
 1893 101,954 
 
 Increase $ 76,610 
 
 Percenta^ife of increase 287 
 
 Indians, 1878 $421,503 
 
 1893 956,552 
 
 Increase $535,o49 
 
 Percentage of increase ^ 126 
 
79 
 
 Militia and Defence, 1878 , $618,136 
 
 •' '• i«93 ',4«9,745 
 
 Increase $801,609 
 
 Percentage of increase 129 
 
 I'ublic Works, 1878 $9(;7,46g 
 
 " " 1893 •. 1,9^7.832 
 
 Increase $930,363 
 
 Percentage of increase 93 
 
 Superannuation, 1878 $106,588 
 
 1893 2''>3»7'o 
 
 Increase $157,122 
 
 F^ercentage of increase 147 
 
 Kxcise, 1878 $215,024 
 
 i«93 387,673 
 
 Increase $178,649 
 
 Percentage of increase 80 
 
 Northwest Territories Ciovernment, 1878 $ 18,199 
 
 " " " 1893 276,446 
 
 Increase $258,247 
 
 Percentage of increase '1420 
 
 Civil (Government, 1878 $823,369 
 
 i%3 1.367.570 
 
 Increase $544,201 
 
 Percentage of increase ...66 
 
 Mounted Police, 1878 $334.74'^ 
 
 " " 1893 615,479 
 
 Increase $280,748 
 
 Percentage of increase 83 
 
 It is time to call a halt. The march of corruption has been 
 continued too long. With increase in debt, expenditure and taxa- 
 tion, ?o far outstripping increase of population, the result, if wo do 
 not change our course, will be serious if not disastrous. Already 
 the consequences of extravagance and currupt waste of money and 
 rnsources are severely felt. The population of the country is at a 
 standstill. Without increase of population our undeveloped re- 
 sources cannot be utilized. Without a radical reform in the admin- 
 istration of our public affairs the increase of population and the 
 corresponding increase of wealth and property will be meagre and 
 unsatisfactory. Is it not time for patriotic citizens of all shades of 
 politics to give the situation of the country careful consideration, 
 and is it not evident that the record made by the party in power 
 since 1878, warrants the belief that thp principles, the purposes, 
 and the methods of its leaders now in office render them incapable 
 of giving the country an honest and economical administration of 
 its affairs ? To other men must be assigned the task of extricating 
 the country from the difficulties that njw confront it. 
 
80 
 
 Admiiiiatratjou. Puiif.y of,. 5, Go 
 
 Albert To.. N. B 22 
 
 Agriculttiral prodiicts, duties on. . . .45 
 
 Boundaries, County nrcsprved U 
 
 Biaiue's letter, Reciprocity. 56 
 
 Bowell and Blind Shares 70 
 
 Corruption condemned 5, «)5 
 
 County Boundaries (5 
 
 Cotton Mills 20. 
 
 Cordam:u ;}0 
 
 Cotton and cotton jjoodt* 34 
 
 Co8f to consumer under N. P. & Fveo 
 
 Trade 3r> 
 
 rorablncH, Met of 38 
 
 Coal duty 40 
 
 Caron Corruption 65-(jC 
 
 Cochrane Case fiO, 71 
 
 Currau Bridge Scandal 74 
 
 Dedclts 11, 16 
 
 Debt 14, 78 
 
 Dutiable goods, Dec. '1)4 . 4b 
 
 Duties, avei-aRo, under N. P 48 
 
 Edgar, J. 1)., M. P 69 
 
 Enlarirc'd markets 4 
 
 Economy demanded 5 
 
 Expenditure •■ 5, 14 
 
 Exodus 18 
 
 Extracts fron Tarirt' 51 
 
 Extravagance 73 
 
 Expenditure, Increase 77 
 
 " controUiible 78 
 
 Vavorltlam 73 
 
 Free Trade and Protection 11 
 
 Free Trade, ^ ;'> 
 
 Free Trade, dettuilioii :)f S 
 
 Franchise 6 
 
 Government, respou-^ibie 5 
 
 Goods cheap as t-ver ! 32 
 
 GurrviTiander 6 
 
 Halifax as winLor port. 
 Hay 
 
 .25 
 
 .47 
 
 Independence of Parliament 5 
 
 Iron Duties 36 
 
 Ironmaster's monopoly j. . . .38 
 
 Kei osene oil 31 
 
 Lister's motion re Hagyart 76 
 
 Liberal Platform 3 
 
 Liberal Policy 12 
 
 Letter from Sir John A. 41 
 
 Langevin Caron Hej»tile Fund 68 
 
 Monopoly 12 
 
 Mining 45 
 
 Mackerel 47 
 
 Markets, enlarged 4 
 
 McGreevy Conspiracy 65, 68 
 
 N. W. T. Government. 79 
 
 New Brunswick under N. P lt> 
 
 Natural increase 21 
 
 Negotiations —Reciprocity 56 
 
 Object of Tariff to develop indus- 
 tries— (Foster) i:; 
 
 Occupations, injured by N. P. ... .43 
 '• benefited by N. P ..44 
 
 Platform, Liberal 3 
 
 Purity of administration 6 
 
 Parliament, Independence of 5 
 
 Prohibition and Plebiscite 7 
 
 I rimer of Tariff" u; form 8 
 
 Protection, d 'flnilioii of 9 
 
 Policies, the two 11 
 
 Popula ion, loss of 17 
 
 Population of Maritime Provinces. 20 
 
 Potatoes 4 7 
 
 Pork 46 
 
 Refusal of enipiiry 76 
 
 Reduced taxaticm 3 
 
 Reciprocity 4, 55 
 
 Responsible Goveiument 5 
 
 Reflner .cs, Sugar 26 
 
 Rice 29 
 
 Reform of Tariff 48 
 
 Sail' of public offices 71 
 
 Senate defective 7 
 
 Shipping ■— 22 
 
 Shipping, sea going 24 
 
 Si'gar 27 
 
 Sir John A. Macdonald's letter. . .41 
 Specific duties 49 
 
 Teniihcouta Railway. . . ,67 
 
 Taritt Reform 8, 48 
 
 Tarirt', detlnition i)f 8 
 
 Tariff, extract:^ from 51 
 
 Taxes increased 15 
 
 Tax ')ii each class of goods, Table. . .49 
 
 Tapper's promises 37 
 
 Tnr.otte Case 66, 72 
 
 Vessels . 
 
 .25 
 
12 
 
 41 
 
 1 08 
 
 12 
 
 46 
 
 .... 47 
 i 
 
 . 65, fiS 
 
 7i» 
 
 1J> 
 
 21 
 
 56 
 
 uilus- 
 
 i;} 
 
 43 
 
 44 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 11 
 
 17 
 
 ces . 20 
 .....47 
 46 
 
 7« 
 
 . .... 3 
 ..4,55 
 
 5 
 
 26 
 
 29 
 
 . . . . 48 
 
 71 
 
 .....7 
 
 22 
 
 24 
 
 27 
 
 . . .41 
 49 
 
 . . . ,i;7 
 
 . .8, 48 
 
 ...8 
 
 ...51 
 
 ... 16 
 
 le...49 
 
 ... .■(- 
 W, 72 
 
 . ..25