IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /. ^.^ ^/ / ^- %i^ 1.0 I.I UilM |2.5 ■^ Uii |2.2 ImlHH 140 IL25 III 1.4 m Id ^>. ^ '/ Photographic Sciences Corporation 33 WIST MAIN STRUT VVIUTIR, NY. USIO (71«) 179-4303 4r CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/iCIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian institute for l^iatoricai iVIicroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions hietoriques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes tachniques at bibliographiquas The tot 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. Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pelliculAe Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur D D D Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intirieure 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 ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissant dans le taxta. mais, lorsqua cela Atait possible, ces f.^ges n'ont pas «t4 filmtes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaira qu'il lui a 6t4 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exempiaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de filmage sont indiqute ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurAes et/ou peiliculAes The pos oft film Ori( beg the sior oth firsi sior ori Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dicoior^es, tacheties ou piqudes □ Pages detached/ Pages ditachies r~y Showthrough/ C^ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ D Qualiti inAgale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprand du materiel suppi^mentaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible The aha TIN whi Ma| diffi •ntl bag righ reqi met Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiallament obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont kxh fiimies A nouveau de fapon h obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est \\\mk au taux de riduction indiqui ci-dessous. 10X 14X HR 22X 26X 30X ^■^1 J 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here hee been reproduced thenks to the generosity of: L'exempiaire film6 fut reproduit grflce A la ginArositA de: Univarsitt da Montreal UnivarsM da iVIontrtel The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Iceeping 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 bacic cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les images suivantes ont M reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la netteti de rexemplaire film*, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires orlginaux dont la couverture en papier est ImprimAe sont film6s en commen9ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, lelon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmfo en commen^ant par la premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniire page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol ▼ (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles 8uiv<^nts apparattra sur la derniire image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — »> signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Meps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed et different reduction ratios. Those too lerge to be entirely included in one exposure ere filmed beginning in the upper left hend corner, left to right end top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diegrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, pisnches. tsbleaux, etc.. peuvent Atre filmte A des taux de rMuction diffirents. Lorsque la document est trop grsnd pour Atre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est f ilmA A partir de I'engle supArieur gauche, de geuche A droite, et de heut en bas, en prenent le nombre d'images nicesseire. lies diagrammes suivants illustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 rv^^ ^ l"^- ■-'-,■ St-^'"ri^-^\ aL?4_* ,«-t.■?^ 5™ glfe^i"^ S*!,- <■«<•* Si .,r-' •->, *>*■!.' >i -r 1."^. '^ v,» • SUGGESTIONS FOR THE CAMPAIGN. ., V In discussing the political situation it is respectfully suggested that the best course to pursue in the conduct of the campaign would be the following : THE DISSOLUTION OF PABLIAMENT. , 1. Dissolution is not objected to on party grounds, seeing that Reformers are likely to get considerable advantages from having attetidtMl to revision of the voters' lists and from having escaped an- other gerrymander, but because it is a gross violation of sound con- stitutional usage. Point out — REVISION Of VOTERS' LISTS REPUSED. 1. That the Government refused to revise the voters' lists in 1890 because of the trouble and expense which the work in- volved, but upon a olear understanding that a revision would be made before a general election ; and that as the new oi'UBUs will almost certainly show several Provinces to he entitled to a larger representation another general election would have to be held within eighteen months of the taking of the census, at large MpMillllli ee.^ifs, >., The delay which occurred this year was a delay which cannot occur another year. The Bill itself will prevent it. Commons Debates, 1890, pp. 3896-97. 3 I an expression hon. gentleman the expenditure i a considerable •n the candidates ny that a re- )uble and ex- •esenting con- ites for those . the end of this ill cease in the ion for the next the returns of the , sometime about jf the lite of this a must take place That census will Brical census will wa that from the n of the different ; of the decennial n, and while the pinain stationary, tation of the other )roportion of the Pter the census the course of uire that the readjusted in ]y ,1891, the it be changed, jlections soon luld take place death of this Tlie (juestion experience ot une, 1891, be ■eady for the is no reason ar was a delay will prevent if. THE YOUNG MEN DISFRANOHISED. 2. That the practical effect of the dissolution of Parliament has been to disfranchise 1 16,000 young men between 21 and 23 years of age, computed on the basis of the censuses of 1871 and 1881, or about one-eighth of the voting population of Canada ; and that of this number there are 55,000 in the Province ot Ontario, nearly two-thirds of whom are farmers' sons ; although the professed reason fcr dissolving Parliament is one in which the young men of the country, and far- mers' sons in particular, are most deeply in^rested. Point out how thie accords with the statement in Sir John Macdonald's address to the electors of Canada that the destinies of the future rest with " the young hope of the country." " v AN APPEAL ON A FALSE ISSUE. 3. That the intention of the Government was fraudulent, their manifest object being to appeal to the people on a false issue, awd to prevent the wide divergence of opinion between the {nembcrs of the Cabinet becoming known. Hon. Mr. Colby: My hon friend ( Mr. Mills) wishes to pool the farmers of Ontario with the farmers of the United States. I tell hiiD that the farmers of Ontario are better off to-day. They do not want to go into partnership with the farmers of Vermont ; they do not want to como under any of those conditions which have brought Vermont to the situation in which she finds herself to-day. It is very easy for the hon. gentleman to sneer, to sit there and show a great ejlee as if he had superior knowledge to that of every other person, to look pompously down upon the opinions of other people ; but 1 tell the hon. gentleman that if the farmers in Ontario and in the Dominion of Canada are in a better condition than the farmers in Vermont and in New York — and statistics show that they are — it Ib because we have protected our farmers ; I declare that boldly, it is because we have given protection to our farmers in our markets, so that the products of the farmer may be sold at fair prices in the local market. Hon. gentleoien opposite have the most singular faculty of misapprehending faots. It is only after an election, when they have been shown the true feeling of the country that they have any realisation of them, and that awakening only lasts for six or twelve ,,tr»*:t:^'!*'*fc<-'. months ; but the old fatuity conies back, the old self-conceit comes back again ; they know more than anybody else, and they go again to their destruction, as they are going now. Sir, pork in my county pork in the county of Missisquoi, in the county of Brome, and thoughout the Eastern Townships has been reduced in price more than a cent a pound by pork coming in from St. Albans and other places in the State of Vermont, p&ying one cent a pound duty and reducing the value of pork in our market. That being the case if we are not inundated and overwhelmed by the products of the United States coming into competition with the products of our farmers, we owe it largely to the protective tariff, and to it is due in a very large degree the superior condition of the farmers in Canada to that of the farmers of the United States. Even now, does the hon. gentleman suppose that we for one moment could compete on even terms in the markets that are common to Canada and the United States if we were one country ? Can we produce corn as cheaply as they can I Can we produce the equivalent of corn as cheaply as they can 'I I say we cannot. Our barley is the nearest equivalent to their com for feeding purposes. The unrestricted admission of their corn would lower the price of our barley. Th^t would be the effect also upon all the coarse grains which the farmers do produce, and will produce, notwithstanding the high scientific farming that is coming by- and-bye. The average price of com in Chicago for seven or eight years past has been 40 cents per bushel, while that of Canadian barley for the same period has been about 57 cents per bushel, The effect of an intimate relation with the United States, of being upon even terms with them, would be to bring down the priceg of our own coarse grains to the corn standard, and not only the coarse grains, but also the products of animals that are fed upon coarse grains. Our prices would be brought down to the corn standard of the United States as against th '.-irloy stanriard of Canada if we were brought down to a level with the United States. Their prices would control our prices. They are the greatest agricultural country in the world to-day, there is hardly any limit to their production, and their prices would determine our prices and we could not help ourselves. Our prices are better than their prices and will continue to be better, provided ^e continue to persist in those methods which we have adopted ^ reeent years in order to keep those prices up. Mr. Mills (Bothwell): Then the hon. gentleman is opposed to free trade in natural products? Mr. Colby : Most decidedly, flrom the farmers' stand- point. I know whereof I speak. The hon. Rentleman hag devoted many years to the study of philosophy ; I have devoted many years to the study of agriculture, and when I first catoe to this House I was one of the largest agriculturists in my county. For many years I have studied agricultural problems from a farmer's standpoint, and I am sure the farmers of this country will endorse me when I say that free trade between Canada and the United States in all agricultural products would be the worst possible thing that could happen to the farmers of Canada at the present time. — Commons Debates^ 1890, p. 2590. Mr. Chapleau (at Napierville) : Contrary to the opinions of some of his colleagues of the Cabinet, who held that the passage of the McKinley bill was a good thing for Canada, as it would awaken Canadians to greater efforts, he thought that it was rather a verit- able calamity, as they should have the freest intercourse with their neighbors. Still, they were not going on their knees at Washington, but wanted to act in a patriotic fashion. He would even declare for the freest interchange of the products of land, sea, and forest between Canada and the United States, but upon an equal and just basis. Even if free trade was needed to further the interests of the tountry, like Mr. Paradis, he would vote for it. The Canadian Gov- ernment had neglected no opportunity of trying to bring about reciprocity, but it was the Americans themselves who refused it. He approved of Mr. Paradis' independence, and he had a higher opinion of him than if he was a blind partisan. — Toronto Mail's Report, Dec. S, 1890. " He (Mr. Chapleau) announced that there was a considerable chasm between his colleagues and himself respecting the McKinley bill. They believed it would be a good thing for Canada ; he believed it would be a ' veritable calamity.' He objected to Canada going on her knees to ask for reciprocity, but " he would even declare for the freest interchange of products of land, sea, and forest between Canada and the United States, but upon an equal and just basis." But he went even further than this. He said that 'be would support free trade if it was necessary to further the ends of the country. And if this was not enough, he supported Mr. Paradis because he had declared himself independent. " He had a higher opinion of him than if he was a blind partisan." — Montreal Herald, Dec. 4t 1890. THE LANGEVIN-McGREEVY JOBBERY. 4. That dissolution was further intended to avoid the exposure of Sir Hector Langevin's malversation, as detailed by Mr. Tarte. For many years an immense expenditure has been going on upon the Quebec graving docks. It is well known that the contrac- tors on this work have been verj/" large contributors to election |..^/i»4itWS flinds, but although l\e moral evidence was complete full legal proof of their doings has only lately come to light. Thanks to a quarrel among the theives over their booty, a vast number of letters have lately been published by Mr. Tarto, a well-known Conserva- tive journalist in Quebec. These letters prove that for many years the grossest and most systematic plundering has been going on in the Public Works Department, presided over by Sir Hector Langevin. They show that Sir Hector's bosom friend and alter ego Thomas McGreevy, M. P. for Quebec, with the aid of the Chief Engineer of the Department, of Sir Hector's own son and divers other officials, and beyond a shadow of doubt with the fcdl cognizance of Sir Hector himself, has been fraudulently altering contracts for the benefit of the contractors with whom Thomas McGreevy was a sleep- ing partner, in utter defiance of all parliamentary law, tliat the officials were steadily bribed, and that large cums were paid for elec- tion purposes. It is perfectly well known to the Government that Sir Hector would have been publicly impeached when the House met, and it is equally well known that Sir John Macdonald is most anxious to avert the enquiry, or at least postpone it until after the elections. There is likewise no doubt that Sir Hector Langevin threatened to resign on the question of disallowing the Manitoba School Act unless his colleagues agreed to see him through with this McGreevy business. These accusations have been made with the utmost publicity by a life-long friend and supporter of the Conserva- tive party. The letters have been printed, and all Quebec is ringing with the matter. A SHAM OFFER OF RECIPROCITY. 5. That above all things else dissolution was decided upon in^Qirder to delude the rural population with a sham offer of Reciprocity ; that the Government in making this olFer have been warned beforehand by the most distinguished leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties in the United Stares ; and that neither the Government nor the Congress of that country will listen to anything short of Absolute and Unrestricted Reciprocity. I^T<|-jii»li>'.liiaiiii I !■»*.■ The details of the Canadian Government's scheme of Reciprocity with the United States are contained in the following despatch from the Governor-General to the Secretary for the Colonies, dated Dec. 13, 1890: " My Lord, — I have the honor to send to your Lordship to-day a telegraph message in cipher, of which the following is the sub- stance : With reference to my telegram of the 10th inst., this Government is desirous to propose a joint commission such as that of 1871, with authority to deal without limitation, and to prepare a treaty respecting the following subjects , " 1. Kenewal of the Reciprocity of 1854, with the modifications required by the altered circumstances of both countries, and with the extension deemed by the commission to be in the interests of Canada and the United States. "2. Reconsideration of the treaty of 1818 with respect to the Atlantic fisheries, with the aim of securing the free admission into United States markets of Canadian fishery products in return for facilities to be granted to United States fishermen to buy bait and supplies and to tranship cargoes in Canada ; all such privileges to be mutual. *' 3. Protection of mackerel and other fisheries on the Atlantic Ocean and in inland waters ; also ** 4. Relaxation of seaboard coasting laws of the two countries. " 5. Relaxation of the coasting laws of the two countries on the inland waters dividing Canada from the United States. " 6. Mutual salvage and saving of wrecked vessels. " 7. Arrangements for settling boundaries between Canada and Alaska. The treaty would of course be ad referendum." On the day upon which the dissolution was ani^unced (Feb. 3rd) the reasons for it were published in the Government organs, in an Ottawa dispatch which emanated from the Cabinet itself It reads as follows : " Sir John Macdonald's Government, not long ago, made a definite proposal to the Washington author- ities for a settlement of all existing differences be- tween the two countries on a basis of an extension of the trade between the two countries. It involves Partial Reciprocitv, the enumerated articles to include^ q^uite a nimiDer of natural products. But the proposi-^ tiOG discards any idea of Commercial Union or Unre- stricted Reciprocity. Moreover these propositions were invited and suggested by the Wasnington au- thorities. Commissioners from Canada and Qreat •^ ^^'M*^x:'i-^''y^i'^p.. , .I'imW fea{a.afcj»!g»' •Wi 'l«'^,>...bUMJUIUL <.. Britain will start for Washington on March 4th, the date of the opening of the new Congress. The result of the Canadian elections will be known on March 6th, the day the Commissioners reach Washington. In order that this Commission may have no uncertain sound, Sir John Macdonald has decided to appeal to the country and ask for judgment on these propos^ of his to the Washington authorities. He does not want the endorsation of a parhament in its last ses- sion, but the freshly, expressed opinion of the people of Canada, and for this reason he has advised a dissolution." On January 29th (fifty days after the Governer-General's letter to the Secretary for the Colonies), Mr. <3harles S. Bjiker, a member of the United States House of Representatives from the Rochester District of the State of New York, addressed the following note of inquiry to Secretary of State Blaine : •*My Dear Mr. Blaine,— It is reported in the news- papers of Canada and along the northern border of j my State, where my constituents are deeply inter- ested in the subject, that negotiations are going on between this country and Great Britian with a view to partial reciprocity with Canada, including natural 1 products only, and not manufactures, and it is stated] that Sir Charles Tupper is on his way here as a com- missioner to negotiate for such modifications of our | tariff. I should be very glad if you would enable me to ] answer my constituents. Very truly yours, (Signed) Chas. S. Baker.' On the same day Mr. Blaine sent the following reply to Mr. Baker : "Dear Mr. Baker,— I authorise you to contradict the] rumors you refer to. There are no negotiations what- ever on foot for a reciprocity treaty with Canada,] and you may be assured no such scheme for recipro-j city with the Dominion confined to natural products wiU be entertained by this Government. We know! nothing of Sir Charles Tupper's coming to Washing- ton, very truly, etc (Signed) . ^ Jas. G. Blaine" V 9 Every Canadian knows that since the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 in 1866 there has been no chance of framing another treaty acceptable to the United States which did not include more than natural products. Sir John Macdonald himself has so declared in his speech upon Mr. Davies' motion for Reciprocity in the House [of Commons in 1884, quoted elsewhere. For a number of years during the continuance of the treaty of 1854 criticisms of its one- sided character were being made by American writers and public men, and every attempt since made for the renewal of trade relations [between the two countries has failed because the United State? [would not negotiate upon a basis of natural products. During recent years the subject has received a good share of at- tention in Congress, and u number of resolutions and measures have [been presented and discussed referring to it. But in every case it [was made clear that no arrangement would be accepted which did apt embrace much more than natural products. The Hitt resolu- ions (which the House of Representatives unanimously endorsed in |1889) and the Butterworth bill were of this character, both pro- sed by prominent members of the Republican party ; and the aost rocent of them, proposed by Senator Carlisle, the leader of the )emocrat8, is not less pronounced. In its first form, as introduced the Senate on the 29th of December last, it proposed that the Presi- dent be authorised to invite the Government of Canada to appoint bree Commissioners to meet a like number to be appointed by him ^n behalf of the United States, to consider all questions relating to be commercial relations of the two countries and to recommend such pgislation as will settle all differences and controversies and t^nd to bromote the growth of trade and commerce between them. But liscovering, apparently, that the terms of his resolution were being [lisapprehonded by the Government of Canada, Senator Carlisle on be 4th of February (the day following the dissolution of the Cana- |iad Parliament) introduced an amendment to his resolution which oposes that — " Such joint commission shaU condder all questions fecting the commercial relations of th& two countries ider existing treaties and statutes, and agree upon ^^^^J. 10 i and recommend to their respective (Governments such reciprocal legislation as will settle all differences and controversies between the two countries, and in the judgment of said joint commission best tend to pro- mote the speedy and permanent establishmenu of un- restricted commercial reciprocity between the United States and the said Dominion of Canada. " Thus Ufion every side in Washington the door is closed againgt negotiations on the basis of trade in natural products, and it ig utterly hopeless to look for a partial reciprocity as proposed by the Canadian Government. A DEVICE TO HUMBUa THE PEOPLE- II. Take up the language of Lord Stanley's despatch to show how utterly useless it is to attempt to extract any clear idea of the policy of the Government from its terms, and intimate that the only construction to be put upon this document is that Sir John Mac- donald desires to secure the money of the manufac- turers first and betray them or the farmers of Canada afterwards, as may suit his purpose. Compare the Governor- General's despatch with the Address of Sir John Macdonald to the Canadian electors, and direct attention to the fact that the AddreSB does not contain a word of reference to a Joint Com- mission or Reciprocity negotiations. frlr] THE GOVERNMENT'S PREVARIOATIONS III. Point out that the proposals of the Canadian Government will be looked upon in the United States as mere impudent pre rarioations, unworthy of serious consideration, aS evidenced by the contemptuous manner in which they are alluded to in Mr. Blaine*s letter quoted above, and that Canada can have Unrestricted Reciprocity or none at all. Point out also the exceeding impolicy of the Government towards the United States if they desired to iiecure Reoiprocity, wf^A'fmmm ; * B ?r ' ■ ' ! ' 5 "" - J. J " t - J .' ■ ■■^ . w ^ ^ m- -' 11 TRADE POLICY OF THE LIBERAL PARTY. lY. Impress upon your audiences in the strongest manner that the Liberal party mean to get Unrestricted Reci- procity and can get it, and that they have received positive assurances from the most distinguished men of both parties that the Government and Congress of the United States are abundantly willing to treat with Canada on the terms which the Liberal party has indicated by its motions in Parliament. In the session of 1888 Sir Richard CartwrililiHiwii(iBitriti «rfir l>%lllllti^itiftfa«.«-...^ ■> following resolu- THE STATES. 13 manently settle all di£ferences betveeen the tviro countries upon {air and honorable terms, and the persistent opposition given by the Government to such settlement as shown — , PROPOSAL FOR REOIPROOITY IN 1884. 1. By their treatment of the proposal in 1884 to open negoti- ations with the United States in view of the termination of the Fisheries arrangement under the Washington Treaty. Mr. Davies moved, seconded by Mr. Charlton — " That in view of the notice of the termination of the fisheries articles of the Treaty of Washington, given by the United States to the British Government, and the consequent expiration on the 1st July, 1885, of the reciprocal privileges and exemptions of that treaty, this House is of opinion that steps should be taken at an early day, by the Government of Canada, with the object of bringing about negotiations for a new Treaty, providing for the citizens of Canada and the United States the reciprocal privileges of fishing and freedom from duties now enjoyed, together with additional reciprocal freedom in the trade relations of the two countries ; and that in any such negotiations Canada should be directly represented by some one nominated by its Government." Commons Debates, 1884, p. 1182. Ou this motion Sir John A Macdonald spoke as follows : I do not know any reason why the hon. gentleman who moved this, or the seeonder, laid before the House these elaborate state- ments to show the value of reciprocal trade^ or trade of any kind with the United States. That is admitted. That goes without saying. We all admit that it would be well that we had a large trade with the United States rather than a small one ; and I think Canada, as compared in her action with the action of the United States, has done everything that she could well do in order to secure that desirable object. In the first place thoro was the original Reciprocity Treaty which was finally consum- mated in 1854. The merit of that, as far p^ Canada was concerned, rested altogether with the administration of Sir Francis Hincks, the Liberal government of that day. Although the government of which I was a mem- ber in 1854 had accidentally, from the retirement of Sir Francis Hincks, the duty of carrjdng out the Treaty to its consummation by introducing and carrving into law the Act which ratified that Treaty, still it was the mmmmmit u Pr merit of the Reform party ; and it was a great merit • it did a great service to Oanada. That, as we all knov^, wag a Treaty for reciprocal free trade in the natural productions of the two countries. We regretted when the Americans from, I must say a rather natural feeling of irritation against England, gave notice for the cancellation and the termination of that treaty. It was no fault of Oanada that that treaty was terminated. Canada, during the troubles which arose in the internecine war between the north and south, did everything that she could to preserve friendly relation* with the Northern States ; and I can well remember the repeated statements of Mr. Seward, who was the presiding jjenius of the Northern States in those- days, that he wished the Mother Country (Great Britain) had been as friendly in her action towanls the Northern States as the Province of Canada had been. Then when the Treaty was ended Canada attemr ted by every possible means, by send- ing agents to act with the British Minister at Washington, by stirring up Her Majesty's Government in England to interest itself in the renewal of the Treaty, by doing everything that possibly could be done to induce the American States to enter upon a renewal of the Treaty, or a Reciprocity Treaty of some kind. We went so far aj^jain and again in pressing it that a great many Canadians, in the press and at public meetings, and the voice was heard in Parliament, thought the Government had gone too far, that in fact it had humiliated itself by going as it were on its knees to Washington to entreat for the renewal of that reciprocity. Well, Canada at first thou<,'ht that a great blow had been struck at her prosperity in the future, but the people faced it manfully, and, strange to say, while it was a loss— we cannot deny it was a loss — Canada survived it and still was prosperous, and still went on in her development and expansion. Her prosperity was checked, but it was not destroyed. Then the attempt was not ended by the failures of the Canadian Govern- ment to succeed at once. It was renewed again and again. It was renewed by the Government of which I was a member. We sent one Minister after another. Sir Alexander Gait and Sir William Howland went to Washington. When my hon. friend opposite assumed the Government, he sent a very able leading mem- ber of his party, Mr. Brown, to Washington ; but it was all of no avail, the Americans had taken a certain line and we had to submit. And I believe that the feeling which then exi.sted still exists, and that you will never get a Treaty between the United States and Canada for reciprocal trade in the natural pro dUCtionS of the two countries. The Americans said-whether truly or not I do not know — that it was a nominal rociprncity, but all the advantages were on the side of Canada. We had no niurket of suihcient importance to offer co them for their produotions of grain and cereals and fisheries. We, on the other hand, \m\ to gain • "fw^mmf'^ [ ^ m^ i 0m\ \ m. S5S 5!?* •wr M jfcaa^i ■*^ '■ - ■ - ■ dl 16 everything by their markets being open for the articles virhich were specified in the Treaty. That feeling I believe Still exists, and unless the United States wl come at some time or other to a conclusion that they would be willing to enter upon a Reciprocity Treaty, not only for our natural productions, but for our manufactures as well as our natural products, we will never have a Treaty. I am quite satisfied the United States will not agree, the country will not agree, the voice of the country will be against a repetition of the Treaty of 1854.— Commons Debates, 1884, PP- 1186-7. A VERY SERIOUS CRISIS. 2. By the state of a£fairs represented by Sir Charles Tupper in his speech on the Fisheries question in the House of Commons in 1888, when he stated that Canada was on the verge of total suspension of intercourse with the United States, of downright commercial war, and possibly of actual hostilities. In the letter written by Secretary Bayard to Sir Charles Tupper in 1887, he said : " I am confident we both seek to attain a just and permanent setclement — and there is but one way to procure it — and that is by a straightforward treatment on a liberal and statesmanlike plan of the entire commercial relations of the two countries. I say commercial, because I do not propose to include however indirectly, or by any intendment however partial or oblique, the political relations of Canada and the United States, nor to effect the legis- lative independence of either country." The Non-Intercoui'se Bill, passed by the United States Congress, to which reference was made by Sir Charles in 1888, provided as follows : " Whenever the President of the United States shall be satisfied that any other vessels of the United States, their masters or crews, so arriving at or being in such British waters, or ports or places of the British dominions in North America, are or then lately have been denied any of the privileges therein accorded to the vessels, their masters or crews, of the most favored nation, or unjustly vexed or harassed in respect of the adiue, or unjustly vexed or harassed therein by the authorities thereof, then, aud in either of all such cases it shall be lawful, and it shall be the duty of the President of the United States in his discretion, by pro- clamation to that ettect, to deny vessels, their masters and crews, of the British dominions of North America, any entrance into the waters, ports or places of, or within the United States, (with such exceptions with regard to vessels in distress, stress uf weather, or .-i^jsc*.* .' vi.""'-/ ^1. -"«^ i"iP idit^' ^/<; 16 needing sappliea as to tibe President shall seem proper), whether such vessels shall come directly from such dominions on such destined voyaffe, or by way ol some port or place in such destined voyage elsewhere ; and, lilso, to deny entry into any port or place of the United States of fresh fish or salt fish, or any other product of said dominions, or other goods com- ifig fronn said dominions to the United States. Sir Charles Tuppeb : I would like to draw the attention of the House to what has been accomplished by this (Fisheries) treaty. T have told you what posil:ion Canada stood in with regard to the United States or America before the initiation of these proceedings. I have told yoa that we stood face to face with an enactment which had been put on the statute book by a unanimous vote of Congress, ratified by the President, providing for non-intercourse between the United States and Canada. I- need not tell you that that bill meant commercial war, that it meant not only the ordinary suspension of friendly feeling and intercourse between two countries, but that it involved much more than that. If that Bill had been brought into operation by the proclamation of the President of the United States I have no hesitation in saying that we stood m the relation to that great country of commercial war, and the line is very narrow which separates a commer- cial war between two countries from an actual war. . . Yesterday we stood face to face with a Non-intercourse Bill sustained by the united action of the Senate and House of Repre- sentatives, sustained by almost the whole press, Repablican and Democratic, of the United States, sustained, with few exceptions, by a prejudiced, irritated and exasperated people of sixty millions, lying on our borders.— Cwwjnorw Del)ate.8, 1888, pp. 690-2. TORY AVERSION TO TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES. 3. By the attitude of aversion to reciprocal relations afterwards assumed in revising to entertain the pro- positions made in Parliament by the Liberal party in the session of 1888, 1889 and 1890, even to the length of declaring against Reciprocity in natural products, as indicated in the speech of Hon. Mr. Colby, previously quoted, and in the speeches of various other members on the Government side, among them Manson of Orey, Ferguson of Welland, White of Renfrew, Porter of Huron, and Wood of Westmoreland. i- ,,„,i.>f.iif,4'*» 17 EETALIATION PROVOKED. 4. By the deliberate challenge to the United States to retaliate, through the imposition of heavy duties on many articles of farm produce under the Foster Tariff of 1890, which be. came law fully six months before the McKinley Tariff had passed tlio Senate* or received the sanction of the President. INSULTING OUR NEIGHBORS. VI. Show that not only have the subsidised press and many sup- porters of the Government given utterance to uncalled-for insults to the United States, but that Sir John Macdonald himself no longer ago than last October, speaking to a great audience at Halifax, had the effrontery to declare that the Canadians would sneer at the struggles of the fierce democracy of the United States, and would sit by and laugh to see that neigh- bor country torn by revolution. Comment upon the obvious fact that such language in addition to its wickedness was an action of incredible folly, certain to bring the speaker into the worst possi- ble odor with the Government of the United States, and explain that the contemptuous language in which Secretary Blaine spoke of the alleged negotiations set on foot with the United States was caused and justified by the language used by the Canadian Premier at Halifax. Sir John A. Macdonald (at Halifax) : The United States is determined to have Canada, and is trying by a restrictive trade policy to force it to sell out its flag and allegiance. But Canadians are not so jnf'an and so sordid, treacherous and unworthy of their ancestors as to sell their heritage for a mess of pottage or a pot of gold. What has Canada to gain by joining the United States with its mass of foreign ignorance and vice ? They will have revolution while we can sit calmly and quietly under the British flag and look with philosophy upon the struggles of a fierce uemocracy. The Ainorican lion and the Canadian lamb might Ho down together, but the lamb would be inside of the lion. — Halifax Herald {Conserva- tive) Oct. 3, 1890. CORRUPTION AT OTTAWA- VIT. Call attention to the gross corruption so prevalent at Ottawa, as illustrated : 2 i*ji.i:.'^.i»iiy> )*ai < 18 ETKERT, LANOEVIN, McGEEEVY, TUPPER, EOBILLAEL & 00. 1. By the cases of Rykert, Langevin, McGreevy, Robil- lard, Temple and Bums, and the bribes given by Sir Charles Tupper to secure six constituencies in Nova Scotia on the eve of the last general elections. Call attention also to the ominous return of Sir Charles Tupper to take part in the present election campaign. Sir Richard Cahtwright : Sir John A. Macdonald's system has been compared to that of Walpole, but the parallel don't hold. In Walpole's day the English House of Commons, though it had goon elements in it, was in no sense a truly representative assembly. Half the seats were rotten boroughs, filled by the nominees of a cor rupt and selfish oligarchy ; communication was very slow and liiffi cult ; publicity as we have it hardly existed ; the press could only publish reports of the proceedings of Parliament in disguise, and editors who commented too freely on the doings of the Government did so in peril of the prison and the pillory, if not of the hangman's rope. Such was the state of things which Walpole found but did not make, and it would be gross injustice to hold him responsible in any equal degree. No, sir, if a parallel is to be found for the system now existing in Canada it is not in England but on this side of the Atlantic you must look for it, and not in legislative assemblies either. There is one parallel and one only that I know of, and that is in that chapter of the history of municipal misgovernment which records the dolu;<^ of the late W. M. Tweed, whilom chief of Tammany and ultimatei\ denizen of Black well penitentiary. There, sir, the parallel is very nearly perfect. There you find power got and kept by very nearly the same identical means. There you find the same financial history. There you find the same insolent defiance of all honest public opinion. There you find, too, much the same difficulty in dealing with the offenders. Both had. secured the tribunals by which they could be judged. Tweed, availing himself of the customs of that state, had contrived to secure the election of his own creatures as judges. Sir John A. Macdonald has done much the same and by the same means as regards the majority of Parliament ; nay, in one respect he has sur passed his prototype, for whereas Tweed found it iniposbiltic to secure the public press, Sir John A. Macdonald has to a great decree made a large part of that safe also. Sir, this is a grave statement, and I make it deliberately and under a grave share of responsibility, as grave as if 1 stood to night in my place in Parliament. mm 19 Of the truth of these statements I will now ()roceed to give you proofs. Last session we had several very notable instances of the extent to which the demoralization of Canadian politics has pro- ceeded, and of these I will select three — one showing the utter indifference of the existing majority of Parliament to gross derelic- tion of duty on the part of a Minister — one the impudent abuses of the position of a private member for personal advantage — and one thf callous and cruel disregard of the rights of helpless wards of the state on the part alike of Government and of the majoiity which sustains them. And, first of all, I will present the case of Sir Oharles Tupper. Two years ago or so Sir 0. Tupper, being desirous, for certain personal and political reasons (partly connected with the wholesale scheme of bribery by which he secured certain constituencies in Nova Scotia in the very throes of last general election), of inducing the House to build a certain line of railway, deliberately assured the House with the utmost emphasis and particularity that by building a bare 80 or 83 miiss they would shorten the distance from a large part of Nova Scotia to the rest of Canada by " from 44 to 45 miles lor every pound of freight and every passenger " going from one place to the other. On this solemn and distinct assurance the road was undertaken. It is now nearly completed, and on the vote being brought up in supply it was ascertained after a long and full discus- sion, and was admitted by Sir John A. Macdonald himself, that so far from the construction of this 83 miles having shortened the transit by from 40 to 45 miles, the utmost that could be gained (and even that was stoutly disputed) was barely 7 miles ! And for that the country was to spend not less than $1,500,000 and probably full $2,000,000 for a road, the constraction of which had been secured by this most gross and deliberate misrepresentation on the part of Sir C. Tupper. This took place on the 5tii April, and three weeks after, on the 27th April, having given the Government and Sir John A. Macdonald, the Minister of Railways, most ample time to pre- pare their defence, if they had any, I moved the following resolution : '' That the said resolution be not agreed to, but that it be re- solved, That it appears from the statements made in this House by liSir ( 'harles Tupper, then Minister of Finance, that * that the con- struction of the road (Oxford and New Glasgow Junction), which 1 proposed to this Parliament to secure, shortens the distance between the whole of that great portion of Nova Scotia and the rest of Ganaclii by no less than from forty to forty-five miles for every pound ot freight and for every passenger that is carried ' ; that, on the faith of this statement, the House was induced to undertake the con- struction of this road as a Government work, and to incur an expen- diture of not less than $1,500,000 ; that it now appears from atate- ^Vf^i^^l i.^:*!»^ 20 ments made in this House by the First Minister and others, that the distance, instead of being reduced from forty to forty-five miles, has only been reduced by a distance variously estimated at from four to seven miles, and that the statement above mentioned was without foundation in fact, and that the House was induced to undertake the construction of the said road by false representations." And lest I should appear to be unfair, I add Sir Charles Tup" per's remarks in 1887 inextenso: » " I can best illustrate to the House the position if I say that that corner of the Chamber is New Glasgow, that corner is Oxford Junction, on the Intercolonial railway, and that corner is Truro, At present the people of the whole of the eastern portion of Nova Scotia, the whole of the great county of Pictou, the county of Guysboro', the county of Antigonish, and the whole Island of Cape Breton iu addition, have, in order to reach Moncton, in New Brunswick, to travel to Truro ; and this intersection, taking the hypothenuse of seventy-five miles, that the construction of the road which I propose to this Parliament to secure, shortens the distance between the whole of that great portion of Nova Scotia and the rest of Canada by no less than from forty to forty-five miles for every pound of freight and e^ery passenger that is carried." This, one would say, was plain enough and emphatic enough, and for fear of any mistakes I repeated all the facts in a speech in which I expressed without reserve the opinion in which all honest men will concur, that the man who in private life had procured the expenditure of a large sum of money by such means ought to have been indicted for procuring money under false pretences. Well, sir, what did the Government of Canada do ? Did they dare to resent the imputation 1 Did they dare to defend their col league? Did they pretend to offer any explanation ? Not they. They were wise enough in their generation to know that with the evidence in my hands and recited in my resolution there was no de fence possible, and, as Hansard will show you, they sat dumb and mute. All they could do was " to call in the members," who trooped in accordingly ; and, having heard the facts read from the chair, de- cided by a large majority that iu the opinion of the greater part of the Parliament of Canada a Minister of the Crown deserves im pun- ishment and not even a censure, for having deliberately induced Parliament to expend near two millions by the grossest possible mis- reprentation. Two days later, on the 29th April, this same docile majority were called on to vote a sum of $30,000 to a certain bridge company, of which Mr. Temple, a member of the House, was a principal part- ner, under the following remarkable circumstances : Mr. Ttimploand some patriotic friends, zealous for the public good, had built a bridge ■yr'r*(f^t^?^^''^ms^^?e^^m$ 1 1-« ,-3 Lib. 1873-4. 5,724,436 283,004 26,681 513,920 459,037 19,092 883,686 76,2471 97,814! 318,5731 146,068' 784,048 537,058 66,463 1,122,282 444,786 199,599 407,700 395,552 56,454 56,388 1,826,001 10,292 3,762.757 (^1,443 82,886 ::727,629 283,164 206,936 11,371 1,387,270 2,389,680 23,316,316 Lib. 1887-8. 7,048,884 189,567 2,620 946,746 564,920 92,366 823,370 93,262 96,050 180,691 421,504 8,577 618,035 461,968 57,486 618,137 137,337 334,748 402,. S72 308,102 105,842 10,616 998,595 14,316 3,472,808 106,589 5,965 49,940 714,528 87,629 215,025 1,020 21.785 1,724,939 2,471,438 96,485 23,503,158 Con. 1889-90. 9,656,841 186,3.37 44,072 1,887,237 709,784 153,398 1,308,847 328,894 120,548 182,337 1,107,824 7,647 932,187 466,116 41,729 1,287,014 354,759 753,093 450,361 349,839 107,391 20,465 2,186,619 20,990 3,5)04,922 241,765 23,259 30,781 873,400 173,574 362,996 2,041 6,4fy0 3,075,470 4,548,546 88.383 36,994,031 ' Including Mail Subsidies and Steamship Subventions, f Including Canals .»nd Kftilways. % Including $69,330, refunds of former years. NoTK.- The expenditure in the year 1873-4 was made under estimates of the Conservative Government, and was within the estimates. Mr. Mackenzie's (joyernment was in c tHce for f')ur months of the fiscal year 1878-9, but the MtiiniliH of llrit year were exceeded by their siiccesHnrH ; therefore 18H7-H i% taken as the last fiscal year for whose expenditure the Liberals are resp.msible. '\X\^^ ^' 1 ^ \-f^^m -^ ' "" s V '• \ 26 OPERATION OF THE McKINLEY TARIFF. IX. Illustrate the operation of th« McKinley TariflFupon Cana dian farm products hitherto chiefly exported to the United States and compare the outlook for the Canadian farmer under that tariff on the one side and Unrestricted Reciprocity on the other. A COMPARATIVE STATEMENT. 1. The following table taken from the Commerce Report of the United States for the year ending June, 1889, gives the quantitie i>.nd values of the principal agricultural imports of the United States from Canada in that fiscal year, together with the duties levied upon them under the then existing tarif! : Articles. Cattle No. Hones " Sheep . .;................ '• Bailey bush. Barley malt " Wheat " Beans and pease " Pototoee '* Hay tons. Eggi doc. Quantity. 43,734 19,021 397,041 11,365,881 136,266 129,767 647,361 776,520 105,220 15,360,061 Value. Duties. 8461,043 1,887,658 1,108,030 7,821,475 100,314 116,618 663,031 189,2f)5 1,081,802 2,345,716 $!K),20S 377,511 2;-<7,(W6 772,147 27,251 2r),l)63 (ifi,.W lltl,478 J10.440 Free The valueiof the foregoing articles under Unrestricted Reciprocity between the two countries would be the values as entered at the Customs with the duties added. The first column in the following table shows what these values would be under free trade, the second column shown what the amount of duties levied upon them would be under the ojieration of 27 3 m,m >8 377,511 2:^7, m '5 772,147 4 27,251 8 25,96,'? 1 (ifi,303 6 n»),478 t2 J10.440 6 FrH' B(J1 Reciprocity nte red at the th ese values Wri wlmt the e o] )Pnitiiin of the McKinley Tariff, and the third column (being 'the values in a free market, le^s the duties imposed by the McKinley Tariff) shows what the Canadian farmers would realise upon their products in the United States under the new Tariff, computed on the basis of exports for the year ending June, 1889 : Articles. Values in 1889. Cattle Horses Sheep Barley Barley malt . . . . Wheat Beans and pease Potatoes Hay Eggs 9 551,261 2,265,069 1,345,636 8,593,622 127,565 142,571 729,334 305,733 1,292,242 2,345,716 17,698,738 Duties under new tariff. 9 699,744 570,630 596,661 3,409,764 61,315 32,442 258,944 194,130 420,880 768,500 Values under new tariff. 7,011,910 $ - 148,493 1,694,439 760,075 5,183,858 66,250 110,129 470,390 111,603 871,362 1,677,215 10,686,828 It thus appears that it would take the whole value of cattle and 1148,493 besides to pay the duties upon cattle under the new tariff, baaed on the quantities and values of 1889, and that of the total values of $17,698,738 the large sura of $7,011,910 would go to the payment of duties to the United States Treasury and only $10,686,828 to the Canadian farmers. In other words, under Un- rentricted Reciprocity with the United States the farmers of Canada would receive $17,698,738 for their principal products sold in the United States markets, while they would receive under the new tariff of that country only $10,686^828. mum ihjWfriwiiMJL . ,.*/:-'^i T/d 28 WHO PATS THE DUTIES ? 2. Show upon the authority of Sir John Macdonald and Sir David Macpherson who pays the duties, and apply their doctrine to our exports as above. Show that whether the tariflf cuts down prices to the Cana- dian farmer or excludes his products the effect is the same. Hon. John A. Macdonald (at Caledonia) : If there is one measure of late date which benefits the country more than another, it is the Eeciprocity Treaty, negotiated by the Hincks' Government but perfected under Sir Allan's. You know that whereas wheat used to pay 20 cents per bushel to enter the frontiers of the United States, it now goes in free, and every farmer here is 20 cents a bushel richer for that measure. Instead of being kept out (^f the United States, and being obliged to go to Montreal to sell his produce, he has now the choice of two markets — he has two strings to his bow — no collector of Customs stands between him and the New England manufacturer, or between him and the British con sumer. — Pamphlet of Speeches, 1860-61, page 65. Sir John A. Macdonald : I find that the farmers of West Canada and East Canada could not understand there was any- thing in their barley, for instance, being obliged to pay a duty of 15 per cent, upon going into the United States, whereas the produce of the American farmers was allowed to be brought into this country free. It is said that the consumers pay the duty, and that the farmer does not suffer anything. That is the state ment, but when I put a simple case, which I have done fre- quently, I can get no answer. I put a case in the Enstcrn Townships of a man upon the imaginary line which was between this country and the Unittd States. Suppose a man has 100 at res on the Canadian aide of the line and 100 acres on the American side of the line. Suppose he grows 1,000 bushels of barley on each of his farms. He takes his 1,000 American bushels to the American market and gets one dollar a bushel for it. Ho takes his 1,000 bushels of Canadian barley to the Amer'can market and gets but 85c. per bushel, because he has to pay 15 percent. for taking it across tliat imaginary line. How can it in tliis case bo said that the consumer pays the duty 1 It comes out of the pockets of the Canadian farmers. — Commons Df hales, IS7S, page 801. 29 Sir David Macpherson (at Walkerton) • There is a very simple rule by which a man can ascertain for himself who pays the duty on almost every article. If we produce that which our neifi;hbors have not, and which they must buy from us, we can put our own price upon it, and leave them to pay the duty im- posed by their Government. In that case the consumer unquestion- al/ly pays the duty. But our neighbors and ourselves pro- duce similar commodities, and our producers have to compete witli their producers. On their way to the American market our producers have to p; "^s through the American Custom House and pay the American duty, and when they reach the market they can obtain no more for their commodities than the American producer who pays no duty. . . . Suppose a far- mer in this country takes five horses valued at $100 each to Detroit to sell. The duty on horses in the United States is 20 per cent., which the Canadian farmer must pay before he can enter the Detroit market. That is, he must pay $20 for each horse, and on his five horses |100, or the value of one horse, at the United Skates Custom House before he can take them to the niai'ket. Then he will get ho more than a Michigan farmer will get for five equally good horses. Suppose that he and a Michi- gan farmer each sells five horses, each gets $500 for his horses. The American takes his $500 home in his pocket, while the Canadian takes home only $400. — Toronto Mail's Report, July, 1878. THE TARBIF AND THE COMBINES. X. Show how farmers are fleeced by the N. P Tariff and Com- bines, and give list of extortions extracted from them under these two agencies. Show also that the tarriff is the parent of combines. Instance the ruinous effect of a system of high taxation and artificial prices by the loss of rural population in Ontario. mmmmmmmKammimmmmiimmifm I'' J 80 The following Table gives the rural population of the Province of Ontario by Counties for the years 1879 and 1890 as enumerated by the Township Assessors : Counties. 1) Essex Keat Elgin Norfolk Haldimand Welland Lambton Huron Bruce Grey Simcoe Middlesex Oxford Brant Perth Wellington Waterloo Dufferin Lincoln . Wentworth Haltou Peel York Ontario Durham Northumberland Prince Edward Lennox and Addington Frontpnac Leeds and (Jrenvillo. . . . Dundas Stormont Glengarry Prescott RuBsell Carleton Renfrew Lanark Victoria Peterlx)rough Haliburton HaHtin^H Mtiskoka Parry .Siuind NipisHJug Algoma Rural population. Totals. 1879. 27,688 30,847 27,772 25,200 18,540 19,199 30,659 51,592 45,176 56,263 43,999 50,861 30,106 15,848 32,719 37,203 24,919 15,598 16,982 22,989 14,910 18,973 46,258 33,466 22,6.32 26,686 15,473 18,906 21,95() 39,852 14,926 14,910 18,590 16,046 lo.bor 30,771 26,355 21,333 22,116 18,321 5,005 3.S,22!» 8. Hit; 2,,934 33,909 46,814 40,859 52,789 48, 26.^ 46,857 28,905 15,447 30,493 J4,.172 24,339 16,890 13,!K)1 24,448 13,525 17,7t6 39,491 30, .ll!) 20.7<)'J 25,280 13,691 18,065 21,000 36,822 14,3(10 16.443 18,726 1»,12.S 13, 8 lit 28, that t;o there 3,000 will be heads of families, occupying houir^tivuls and pre-ei!>ption claims. Ev«iry man takes up his preemption claim. He gets his lot free, and he looks forwai'd to ha\ in^' ;in additional farm, from the preemption ; and that is one great ad- vantage of our system over the American system, where a niau is ohiiged to pay cash down for the whole amount of his pn -( nip- tion claini. Then we estimate that one-fourlh of the adults, or I f^mmi&AM* 33 1,500, will become purchasers of railway lands-r-men coQiing from England, Ireland and Scotland, and some from the United States, who possess money. Notwithstanding the sneer of the hon. gentle- man opposite, a great many Americans are going into that coun- try. There is a large move about to take place from Pennsylvania into the North-west. As I stated one-fourth of the 20,000 will buy -railway lands. They have got money, and every man will take up his homestead and pre-emption claim and become a purchaser of railway lands as well. Probably another fourth will be laborers, men with families, but men who will not take up land. Some hold that that is too high an estimate, and that a mechanic will take up his lot and work it in such a way as to secure a title thereof ; but in making this calculation we are trying to keep within the bounds, rather than make a statement which would be considered excessive. I calculate that 25,000 people will go into our North-west this year y that three thousand heads of families will take up free homesteads ; that 1,500 will purchase railway lands, and 1,500 will not purchase any. That is a moderate calculation. If this estimate is admitted, then the rest of the problem is altogether a matter of figures. Of the railway lands, we calculate that the average purchase will be 320 acres for each head of a family. We then take the average price of the whole of the lands extending from the $5 section,within 5 miles- of the railway, to 60 or 100 miles away. The average price of the lands sold to the 1,500 purchasers would be $3 an acre ; this is greatly under the average. What then would be the result ? Mr. Blake : Over the whole belt — 220 miles ? Sir John A. Macdonald : Yes. Take $1, $2.50, $4 and $5 per acre, and the average $3 ; admit we sell at those terms lands in 1880 to the value of $1,440,000, of which we shall receive one-tenth of the price, or $144- OOO ; we should receive from the fees from the home- stead and pre-emption grants $60,000 more, making in all $204,000 in cash. Then we calculate that as 25,- 000 would go in this year, we may add each year an increase of 5,000, so that we may expect 30,000 to go in next year That is a very small i)ercentage, if we look to the results of railway enterprise in the United States. We assume, therefore, an increase of 5,O0O a year till 1890, and expect in that year 75,000 settlers in our North-west. Mr. Blake: Can you not make it another 10,000? 8ir John A. MacDonald : I think that is a very moderate 1 estimate. On those figures the estimate of the total cash I revenue to be received for the lands by 1890 is $38,- 593,000. I :-^»'>;a* 84 Mr. Blake: That is up to 1890. Sir JoBN A. Macdonald: Yes, and including 1890. Mr. Blake : That amount with interest ? Sir John A. Maodonald : We expect $38,693,000, including simple interest for the lands sold in that period. Mr. Blake: What proportion is principle and what interest] Sir John A. Macdonald ; I cannot saj. That will be the total sum received in cash to the end of 1890. But, besides, there will be all the instalments to come in after 1890, accruing, yearly, so that the lands sold in 1890 will be one- tenth paid for nine years afterwards — for each year there will be an instalment ot one-tenth paid. The actual value in 1890 of the pre-emption up to that date, unpaid, will be $16,- 444,000. The actual value of the railway lands sold up to that date will be $16,272,000, making in all, $32,712,000. If you add to that total, unpaid, the $38,593,000 that will be paid in 1890 you get a grand total of $7 1 ,306,000. Deduct from that the estimated cost of surveys for the ten years, $2,000,000, and of the land officers, $400,000, and you reduce it by $2,400,000. Having shown that the estimate of the number of settlers, if the land be taken up, and if the average price is not excessive, we find that we have $69,000,000 either of money in hand, or money for which we shall have the best security in the world- the land itself. The whole estimated cost of the railway, includ- ing surveys, and the construction through the difficult as well as the prairie country, does not exceed, by the most excessive computation $75,000,000 for the work from Lake Superior to the Pacific Ocean. I believe hon. gentlemen opposite will be surprised yet to Ond it built for less than $75,000,000. It will not cost more in the most rigid calculation. Some gentlemen and newspapers have said that the Engineer-in-Chief is one of the most extravagant engineers possible. We can, therefore, place some reliance upon his calcu lations. If we finish the road for $75,000,000, and in the first ten years only sell half the lands we estimate, where will be the burden on the people 1 That would not make a very serious invasion into the very large tracts of land we should have still to sell. As the road progresses, the annual sales of land will more than be sullicient to meet all the possible cost of the railway. In addition to all that, we must remember that we will be pouring into that country an enormous population which, on a prairie soil, will rapidly be- come — not with the painful toil of the people of Ontario and Quebec, who have hail to clear the forest — consumers of dutiable goods and contributors to the revenue. We shall be receiving a large revenue from that country altogether independent of the products of the land. — Commons iJebates, 1S80, pp. 10'>!'>-57. Ill JJi"iHii|W«« -^fm 35 Sir Oh wl£S 'Iupper : When I remind the House that the land alo accor«iing to the authority of the right hon. Minister of the Ip or, upou the calculation which he believes to be sound, within tl next ten years will ^ve us $38,000,000 in hand, aud $32,000,000 to receive on mortgages within the following ten years, or a total sum of $70,000,000, it will be seen that we incur no risk. But suppose the land does not give us that, we have an authority which hon. gentlemen. opposite will accept : that the customs revenue from the people who will go into the country for the next ten years will furnish the interest on 160,000,000.— Cowiwiow Debates, 1880, p. I4SI. - ^f' Mr, Blake : I quite agree that if the calculations of the hon» First Minister and of the hon. Minister of Eailways as to receipts from lands and expenditure on construction are founded upon a reasonable basis, they remove all serious difficulty, and we may fairly and reasonably launch out into the construction of the cen- tral aud western, and also into the construction of the eastern end of the Pacific Railway. I perfectly agree that if these matured conjectures, in which every doubt was given to the side of pru- dence which represent minima instead of maxima ; if these close and accurate calculations are fairly to be counted upon as the results of the immigration and the railway construction ; it business men, acting in their own concerns, or acting for others for whom they are trustees, ought to accept these figures as a basis for encounter- ing for themselves or for others for whom they act enormous lia- bilities, then the results of these calculations do justify us in assum- ing the liabilities proposed to us. Now, let US see what thesa calculations are. They assume that the emigration will com- mence at 25,000 and increase yearly by 5,000, making in the course of eleven years 550,000 emigrants. Of these, 68,500 are to become homesteaders and pre-emptors, at an average rate of $3 an acre for the pre-empted laud ; 34,200 are to become purchasers of and settlers upon railway lands at an average rate of $3 an acre for the railway lands, making 102,700 owners of 32,640,000 acres to be settled in that country in the course of eleven years The Government calculates not merely on this num- ber of emigrants, not merely on this number of purchasers, not merely on these prices, not merely on this acreage, but with a sublime indifference to all the dictates of prudence, and to all the experience of all time, they Calculate on the settlers on these lands paying their large instalments up to the day. They calculate on the receipt of $38,593 OOO from land sales in eleven years, and, in addition, on a good debt of $32,750,000 more, bearing interest, making over $71,300,000 for lands, with a claim for ''•»:ij:^-.,-V,,..,.t --:,,; "-!) r.vrs V , .-.^— - 86 interest on the debt at 6 per cent. They estimate the cost of survey and management for this vast undertaking at $3,400,000. I allege that the result of these several calculations is absurdly ex- travagant. I hope for a very large emigration to the North-west this year, and perhaps next year. I do not intend to be bound to an estimate for ten years by the results of one or two years. 1 call the attentioi of the House and the country to the consideration of the fact thau we are dealing with an estimate, not for one or two year8,but an estimate for ten years; not on an estimate of $10,000,000 but an estimate of $60,000,000 ; therefore, I do not intend to be bound by the figures for the early years, attended as these are with many exceptional circumstances. Of course the whole thing is conjectural. . . . We may hope, I do, I am sure, as earnestly as any n>an can hope, that those residents of the older provinces who decide to remove will simply transfer their residences to some other part of this Dominion. I hope that the emigration Irom Canada to the United States may be seriously checked and replaced by migration to the North-west. I hope that many of those who are actuated by an adventurous spirit, or a desire for change, will seek the North-west. But my hopes will not change the facta, and whatever we may hope and wish, it is only prudent, it is only wise, that before incurring vast obligations which whatever the result of your speculations you have got to meet, you should count the cost and carefully consider the risks and weigh the probabilities. We <}annot shut our eyes to the fact that a considerable number of our surplus population will still go to the manufacturing centres of the United States ; that some of our agricultural population will do what some have done before, and are doing now, prefer Dakota and some of the western territories. But suppose I am wrong- suppose that, moved by some sudden flush of patriotism, changing the desires and inclinations upon which they have acted hitherto, our whole migratory population should, without exception, reHoive to remain within the borders of the Dominion, and to that end move to our North-west in preference to the manufacturing or the Western States : or, suppose the establishment of an actual wall, as high and as effectual as your tariff wall, to keep all these within your bounds, as you wish to keep out all foreign manufactures : Kuppose you build a wall like that of China, not indeed to keep out invaders, but to bar your own citizens from transgressing your limits, and to drive them into the North-west, what would it do. Certainly it would be better than there going to the United States, for to go there -involves a positive loss to the whole Dominion of their resourcts. But it is no better for us, with reference to the early ability of the country, as a whole, to meet these burdens ; it is no better for us that they should reside in the :*'m»*i^M'mm ^0^'. K 87 North-west than that .they should remain ia the older provinces. In the most highly colored view they will only be in one part instead of another part of the Dominion ; they will only be paying taxes in the east instead of the west. But talking of it only during the next few years, I do not agree that it is merely a transference of tax- paying power. I am convinced that the North-west settler for several years, will not be a very heavy contributor to the net revenue of Canada. He is a new settler. He pays, the Minister says, an average of $3 an acre for his land. At the end of the third year he pays four-tenths of the money and interest. He has to build his house ; he has to build his barn and to fence his land ; he has to get bis implements and his animals, and to maintain his family — in the homely parlance of the country he has ' hard scratching' before him for some years. It is true that the prairie has very great advan- tages in some .respects. It enables you, if you have capital and can lay out money, to fence in and sow very much earlier and to raise your crop very much sooner. But, on the other hand, the scarcity of timber, and so forth, renders the material required for the house and the barn and the fences dear, and that is what, I have no doubt, the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Mackenzie) meant when he spoke of the initial difficulties of the settler in the prairies of our North- west, as compared with those of the wooded country. I expect to be called unpatriotic because I tell a few plain truths, but those who are so loud in this kind of denunciation may go on. I believe that it is not patriotic to be dishonorable. I believe it is not honorp.ble to present false views of one's country to emigrants or others. We should not over- state, but fairly state the true position and situation of the case." — Commons Debates, 1880, pp. I444.-47. " Sir Leonard Tillby : But between this and 1890 the amount tliat is to be paid into the sinking fund, and which forms part of our annual charges upon the consolidated revenue will average $1,500, 000 a year for the next nine years. That will give for the reduc- tion of the debt $13,500,000. Then the surplus foi the nine years — An hon. member (Sir Richard Cartwright) ; Oh ! Sir Leonard Tilley : An hon. member says Oh ! but when we have $4,500,000 assured for this year, when there is no doubt, after the reduction that we propose to n^ake, that there will be a surplus of .S3,000,00Q for the next year, it is not, I think, asking too much for the hon. gentleman to accept as reasonable a surplus of $1,000, 000 a year for the remainin<{ seven years of the nine, commencing on the 1st of July last ; that would make $14,500,000, and would with the sinking fund redace the net debt to $175,897,680. But if we estimate the increase of population at but 18 per cent, only during the ten years, the increase of the last decade, the result will 1 mmm ,iLv_,.'„JSJ'-JS 38 be that, taking the population at that period and the debt as stated, the net debt will then be $34.27 per head. If we have any extra ordinary increase of our population (which I think it is but right to expect we will, but which I have not estimated for here) it will be ample i o meet at any rate any extraordinary expenditure that niaj be chargeable to the debt which we are not anticipating at the pre- sent moment. But more than that, if the 150,000,000 acres of arable land that will be the property of the Government after hand- ing over to the Syndicate 25,000,000 of acres, and which is now as established as fit for settlement, yields but $1 an acre for half of it (the other half being offered as a free gift to settlers), it will meet the whole expenditure of the Government on the Pacific Railway and in the North-west down to 1890. If that be the case, then our debt, which certainly is not alarming, provided we realize from these lands the sum that I have stated, would only be about $100,000,0(10 instead of $175,000,000, or less than twenty dollars per head."— Budget Speech, Commons Debates, 1882, pp. 82-3. Sir OiiARLES TuPPER : •• I may say that I believe there are few members of this House, much as our attention has been turned to the development of the North-west, who have begun to contemplate in all its fulness what the capabilities of that great country are. I have spoken of its enormous extent, of the unexampled fertiliiy of the soil, of the splendid description of wheat that can only be pro- duced in these more northern and colder climes. But let mo just ask the attention of the House for a single moment to a few figures which will indicate what the capabilities of that country are in regard to the production of wheat. One hundred thousand farmers, each farmer cultivating 320 acres of wheat land. Has any hon member made the calculation of what they would produce 1" Sir Richard Cartwrioht : Yes. Sir Charles Tuppbk : I am glad the hon. gentleman ha.s done so. I am glad his attention has been drawn to the fact that 100,000 farmers, cultivatirg 320 acres each, or 200,000 farmers, cultivating half that quantity each, and taking the product at only 20 bushels to the acre, instead of 27 or 30, which is the average in the North- west in favorable years, would give 640,000,000 bushels of wheat, or 50 per c^nt. more wheat than the whole United States produces today. You have only to look at those figures for a single moment to see what the future of Canada is, to see what a magnificent granary for the world is placed in our Canadian North-west, and when you remember we have six belts running through that fertile country that would each give 320 acres each to 10(),000 farmers, you can understand to some little degree what a maKuificent future awaits us in the development of that great country." — Commom Debates, 1884, p. 112. 4. ' **%*,.. We are now in the year of grace 1891, and the Public Accounts show that the total receipts realised from thf sale of Dominion lands from the 30th June, 1881, to the 30th of June, 1890, was 1866,826, iustoad of the $38,000,000 in hand and $32,000,000 in mortgages so positively estimated by Sir John Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper an 1990. And instead of the 102,700 farmers computed by Sir John Macdonald as settling in the North-west between 1880 and 1890, we have not had one-quarter of that number ; and instead of the gigantic output of 640,000,000 of bushels of wheat in the North- west with its 100,000 farmers, as estimated by Sir Charles Tupper, the total amount of the wheat harvest of last year did not exceed 1 5,000,000 bushels ; and instead of the public debt being reduced to $100,000,000 in 1890 as calculated by Sir Leonard Tilley, it has boen increased to $286,000,000, or (less so-called assets) a net debt of $237,000,000. GERRYMANDER AND FRANCHISE ACTS- XII. Point out the iniquity of the Gerrymander and Franchise Acts in defeating a free and honest oxprension of public opinion. THE STORY OF CHATTEL MORTGAGES. XIII. Show how the farmers of Canada are pinched by the policy of high tarifl's, and direct attention to the returns of Chattel Mortgages recently made by Clerks of the County Courts in Ontario to the Minister of Agriculture at Toronto, a number of which are presented on the following pages. The figures have been obtained from 28 out of 44 counties, and they shoV an increase of more than 1,000 in the number of instruments recorded last year. Assuming that there are as many Bills of Sale as of Chattel Mortgages registered in the Pro- vince, and doubtless there are, it foUoWS that more than 20,- 000 farmers in Ontario, or an average of 500 in each County, are practically in the hands of the Sheriff. For this state of things Reciprocity with the United States is the only remedy. One year of the McKinley Tariff means irretrievable ruin to tliousandH of Canadian farmers. ■pp ^ ''^K.^^ ^'t ^../■'?'<»>'*^'" 40 Number and Amount of Chattel Mortgafi^es on record and undis- charged in Twenty-eight Oountiea and Four Districts of Ontario on 3ist December, 1890 : Counties. No. Amount. Algoma, Manitoniin and Thunder Bay : Farmers 128 112 9 19,740 All others > 977,168 Totals. 240 288 189 996,908 Brant : Farmers 71,369 All others 107,159 Totals 427 120 476 178,528 Carleton : Farmers 31,905 All othsrs 848,853 Totals 696 240 181 380,768 Elgin : Farmers 62,893 i^Jl others 70,19(5 ToUls Essex : Fanners All others. 421 845 196 133,089 77,672 91,667 540 921 200 169,239 • Grey: Farmers ^ . . . . 187.520 All others 127,238 Totals 1180 119 78 314,758 Haldimand : Farmers 31,0:^6 All others 26,758 197 88 12 67,794 Ualiburton : Farmers 9,719 All otben M,%7 Totals 96 74,576 41 Number and Amount of Chattel Mortgages on record and undis- charged in Twenty-eight Counties and Four Districts of Ontario, on 31 St December, 1890. — Continued. Counties. Ilalton : Farmers . , All others. Totals Hastings : Farmers . . All others Totals LambtoD : Farmers . . All others. Totals Tianark : Farmers . . All others. Totals Leeda and Grenville : Farmers , All others ToUls Lincoln : Fnrmers . . All others. Totals Miiiillesex : Farmers . . All others. Totals Muskoka : Fanners . . All others No. Totals Amount. % 68 68 26,228 29,794 136 56,017 589 234 155,586 97,743 823 253,329 281 123 67,126 62,059 404 129,185 127 70 42,258 28,962 197 71,220 234 126 53,892 84,589 360 138,481 110 175 64,937 136,352 285 191.289 316 407 121,328 166,040 723 287,368 179 52 2S,2SS 96,533 231 120,766 42 K umber and Amount of Chattel Mortgages on record atid nndis- chaiged in Twenty-eight Counties and Four Districts of Ontario on 31st December, 1890. — Continued. Counties. No. Amount. Norfolk : Farmers 164 78 31,713 All otherH 24,334 Totals . 242 490 250 .59,047 Northumberland and Durham : Farmers 238,072 All others , . . . , 135,040 Totals. . . 740 162 149 374,612 Oxford : Farmers 77,413 All others 9*), 312 Totals . . 311 75 85 173,725 Peel: Farmers 8G,3»)2 All others 51,097 Totals . . 160 196 12a 137,45'J Perth : Farmers , 70,0«4 All others 75,2t;i) Totals. . . 319 194 112 151.353 Peterborough : Farmers 70,6 1« All others 102,912 Totals . . 30(5 257 96 n3,^m Victoria : Farmers 114,0f.3 All others 137,102 Totals. . . 352 64 82 261,lf.f) Waterloo : Farmers 28,1')4 All others 74,5ir) Totals 186 102,70?) 43 Number and Amount of Chattel Mortgages on record and undis- charged in Twenty-eight Counties and Four Districts of Ontario on Slst December, 1880. — Continued. Counties. No. Amount. Welland : FarinfirR 137 138 • 42,073 134,477 All others Totals 275 317 177 176,550 113,007 120,193 Wellington : Fiirmer& .....••• All others Totals 494 97 380 233,200 39,466 283.875 Went worth : Farinfirs All others Totals 477 233 1,513 323,341 87,023 Vork : Fanners All others 847,328 Totals 1,746 934,351 GRAND TOTAL OF TWENTY-EIGHT COUNTIES AND FOUR DISTRICTS. On record January 1st, 1890. On rkoord and Undischaeohd Dhc. 3l8T. 1890. No. Amount. No. Amount. Farmers All othem 5,458 5,642 «1,748,31(} 3,880,063 Fanners All others Totals 6,474 5,889 $!2,046,345 4,598,022 Totals 11,100 «5, 628, 379 12,363 86,644,367 W . "^-yC^ iwMJfsfe^ ' '^^*¥*"^^'"^^' INDEX. FAOB Baker, Hon. Charles S., enquiry of Secre- tary Blaine concerning Recipro- procity negotiations 8 Barron, Mr., motion oi on the Robillard case 22 Bayard, Hon. Mr., views of on commercial relations with Canada 15 Blaine, Hon. J. O., reply of to U.S. Con- gressman Baker 8 Blake, Hon. Edward, criticism of on Min- isterial cHlimates of North-west development 35-37 Bribery of the Press, Sir Richard Cart- wright on 24 Cartwright, Sir Richard, resolutions of on Ueciprocity 11, 12 ( omnientH of on corruption at Ottawa. 18 (III Sir Cliarles Tupper's Nova Scotian railway schemes 19, 20 on 'Ir. Temple's bridge job ^20, 21 ' Honore Robillard's Indian reserve timber purchase 22, 23 on bribery of the press 24 Chapleau, Hon. Mr., statement of on voters' lists 2 on the censi;er of 31-39 Foster, Hon. Mr., amendment of on Reci- procity 11 Franchise and Gerrymander Acts 39 Governor-General, letter of to the Col- onial Secretary on a proposed treaty with United States 7 Jones, Hon. Mr., amendment of on Reci- procity J J Liberal party, policy of on the trade *l"e«t'on 11,12, 13 Laurier, Hon. Mr., motion of on Recipro- procity ig Langevin, Sir Hector, jobbery in depart- ment of 5 ^ Macdonald, Sir John, declaration of on Reciprocity Treaty of 1864 13 no hope for Reciprocity in natural products 14 15 offensive language of against the United States 17 opinion of on who pays the duties . . 28 glowing predictions of conaerning the North- West 31^ 33 Macpherson, Sir David, rule of to deter- mine who pays the duties 2i> illustrated by sale of horses in Detriot market 29 MoOreevy, Thomas, jobbery practised by. 5 McKinley Tariff, effect of on Canadian trade 26 compared with old U. S. tariff in its operations 26, 27 Non-intercourse threatened by United States against Canada 16 provisions of Congressional Acton., 16 Sir Charlefi Tapper's remarks on IB North-west, Sir John Macdonald on pro- gress in 31, 33 Sir Charles Tupper's estimate o( re- venue from land sales in 35 Hon. Edward Blake s criticism of Gov- ernment Rpeculations of progress In 36, 37 t,' L,,/C-:^ V 'ts 46 PAOB North-west, Sir Leonard TiUey's com- putation of revenue from .... 37, 38 Sir Charles Tupper's vision of wheat production in 38 Realities of progress in 39 Population in rural districts of Ontario . . 30 growth of under revenue and protec- tion Uriffs 31 Reciprocity, Government proposals res- pecting.. 7 Secretary Blaine's opposition to in natural products 8 Views of other prominent Americans on 9 Senator Carlisle's motion on 9 Sir Richard Cartwright's motion on.. 11, 12 .Mr. Foster's amendment on 11 Mr. Jones' Amendment on 11 Mr. Laurier's resolutions on 12 Mr. Davies' resolution on 13 Sir John Macdonald's views on 13, 14, 28 Tory aversion to 10 Relations with the United States 12 PAOI Retaliation provoked by the Foster tariff. 17 Robillard, Mr., jobbery of in Indian reserve timber limit purchase. . . a Tariff and combines, influence of on growth of rural population in Ontario 29, m Temple, Mr., St. John River bridge, jobbery of 20, 21 Tupper, Sir Charles, views of on strained relations between Canada and the United States ig scheme of to bribe Nova Scotia by railway subsidies , I'j, 50 estimate of regarding revenue from sale of public lands in the nortli- west 35 estimate of upon agricultural produc- tion in the northwest 3j Voters' Lists, yearly revision of refused in Parliament 1 revision of promised by Mr. Chapluau •> disfranchisement of young men under 3 mMmKammmm ^ffiifeliS tf i S S fi i ff i *'' ^^"^ '^^k^^\ HAG! ?08ter tariff, n ' in Indian purchase... 22 ence of on tpulation in 29, ;ii ver bridge, 20, 21 on strained Canada and 16 a Scotia hy •- 19, 20 venue from 1 the nortti- 35 iiral produt- 3S )f refused in 1 r. Chapieau ■> rmenundiT 3 / /] IIIIW — »l III H .-. " ■ i. 'i»4iiiSSi)i>iirf :;?:«'Stj