sary. The Government would also have to fear some expense on the Windsor branch. The would have to put that part of the road in repair and change its gauge. amount if the Dominion Government did | which would be delivered by the time the not recoup the payment, yet, as it was abso- gauge was changed, about the 1st July, or lutely necessary to have the leaders sent probably earlier; and the trucks and cars out of the country for one year, he was necessary were also being constructed. willing to pay one half of the amount and For the mere moving of the rails a comMr. SMITH the other half, and the agree-paratively small amount would be necesment was so made. When Mr. SMITH subsequently came to Ottawa he told him (Sir JOHN) the facts, to which he replied, "that of course the Lieut. Governor had no authority and no instruction to make any payment, because the facts arose so suddenly that he could not have any communication with the Government." He also told Mr. SMITH that if Mr. ARCHIBALD, as the representative of Canada in the North-West, took the responsibility of making a promise of payment on the faith of its repayment by the Dominion Government, Parliament would not allow the Hudson Bay Company or Mr. SMITH to lose the money. He (Sir JOHN) made that statement before the committee and he now repeated it. The amendment was negatived on the following vote:-Ayes, 18; Nays, 49. The item was then passed. On item 43, to pay the sum agreed to be paid to certain parties for services during the troubles in the North-West Territories, $2,500, Mr. BOWELL asked for explanations. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said this was the £500 that Mr. SMITH was authorized to pay some of the loyal French inhabitants of Manitoba when he went up there on behalf of the Government of Canada. The evidence clearly showed that the repayment of that sum was promised. Sir JOHN MACDONALD.-There is no doubt about that. Mr. RYAN asked whether these claims would be submitted to arbitration, as were the claims of other loyal men. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE.-We have not yet decided about that. The item passed, as also items 44 to 47 inclusive. On item 48 to pay the cost in connection with the change of gauge of Intercolonial Railway, and for rolling stock$800,000, Hon. Mr. TUPPER asked if this money was to be expended for the change of gauge on the part of the road now in operation. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said it was. There were 37 new engines being built Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald. Mr. BOWELL asked if any part of this money was for the change of gauge on the Intercolonial Railway proper. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE replied that this money was for the change of gauge between St. John and Shédiac, between Moncton and Halifax, between Truro and Picton, and between the Junction and Windsor. The item passed. On item 49, Post Offices (additional)$58,000 in anwer to Mr. MACMILLAN, Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said that the contract for the London Post Office had given out by the architect without tenders having been advertised for, to the contractors who previously had the work. This was done without his (Mr. MACKENZIE'S) knowledge at the time, and without his authority, and it was the only instance of the kind that had occurred. The architect did this at the instance of the sub-architect in London who had charge of the works, who the hon. gentleman knew was no political friend of the present Government. The item passed, as also item 50, and the committee rose and reported. The House adjourned at 3:30 a. m. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, March 31st, 1875. The SPEAKER took the chair at three o'clock. HARBOR MASTER FOR THREE RIVERS. Mr. BARTHE asked whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint a Harbor Master for the City of Three Rivers, and when ? Hon. Mr. SMITH-There is a Bill now before the House with reference to the appointment of Harbor Masters. If it should become law the appointment will BELLEFEUILLE appointed in his place; and be made. Mr. A JUDGE FOR NORFOLK. WALLACE (Norfolk) asked whether, and when, it is the intention of the Government to appoint a Judge for the County of Norfolk ? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE—A Judge for the County of Norfolk has been appointed. A PROHIBITORY LIQUOR LAW. Mr. WALLACE (Norfolk) asked whether, in consideration of the petitions that have been presented to this House, praying for the passage of a Prohibitory Liquor Law, it is the intention of the Government to initiate, sanction or aid legislation to prohibit the manufacture, importation or sale of wines and spirituous and malt liquors ? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE—The Government will always be prepared to sanction all abstinence from drinking intoxicating liquors. A RECIPROCITY TREATY. Mr. WALLACE (Norfolk) asked whether, during the Parliamentary Recess, it is the intention of the Government to renew negotiations for a Reciprocity Treaty with the United States? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-We will always be glad to negotiate for a Reciprocity Treaty with any nation. THE TARIFF. Mr. WALLACE (Norfolk) asked whether it is the intention of the Government to re-arrange the Tariff, so as to provide for the imposition of duties on all articles, the product of the soil or of the farm, when coming into Canada from the United States, so long as duties are levied by the United States upon similar articles going from Canada into the American market? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-We never like to give information on so confidential a subject as the Tariff in advance of bringing it down. SOREL HARBOR MASTER. Mr. CARON asked for what reason for what reason the Government refuses to pay the said GEORGE HENRY BRAMLEY the sum of $212.50 for services as Harbor Master of Sorel from 1st January, 1874, to 15th September of same year, and $100 for services in superintending repairing and rigging Floating Lights Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Lake St. Peter ? Hon. Mr. SMITH-GEORGE HENRY BRAMLEY was appointed by the late Government at a salary of $300 a year, as an officer of the Trinity House of Montreal, which was abolished in July, 1873. The office was therefore practically abolished. Mr. BELLEFEUILLE was appointed in July, 1874, and was paid by fees. Mr. BRAMLEY is entitled to $166, which the Government have always been ready to pay, but he claims $100 for services connected with Lights Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which the Government do not recognize nor do they recognize his claim for two months' salary after his ceasing to hold office. TERMS OF UNION WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA. Mr. DECOSMOS asked whether the Hon. the Premier is aware that the letter found on page 11 of the "Message relating to the Terms of Union with the Province of British Columbia, viz :— "Feb. 21, 1874. "Sir,-The bearer is JAMES D. Edgar, Esq., Barrister, Toronto, who visits Columbia as the Agent of the Dominion Government, to consult with your Government with reference to the late agitation concerning an extension of time for the construction of the Pacific Railway beyond that provided in the Terms of Union. Mr. EDGAR will explain to YOUR EXCELLENCY our anxiety to do everything in our power to meet the views of your people. "He will be glad to receive your suggestions concerning matters which require attention. "I am, Sir very respectfully, "Your obedient servant, "(Signed) A. MACKENZIE. "His Excellency T. W. TRUTCH, "Lieutenant Governor, "Victoria, British Columbia." was never delivered to Governor TRUTCH GEORGE HENRY BRAMLEY, Esq., of the by Mr. J. D. EDGAR, nor any one else. town of Sorel, has been dismissed as Har- Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-I became bor Master of the port of Sorel,and PIERRE | aware of it a week ago. Hon. Mr. Smith. DISALLOWANCE OF PROVINCIAL ACTS. Mr. DECOSMOS asked what are the reasons why HIS EXCELLENCY the GOVERNOR GENERAL disallowed "An Act to amend and consolidate the Laws affecting Crown Lands in British Columbia ;" and also "An Act to make provisions for the better administration of Justice in British Colum bia." Hon. Mr. FOURNIER in reply, read a lengthy statement showing that the Acts referred to were disallowed because no reservation of lands had ever been made for the Indians in British Columbia, and because the Indian title had never been extinguished in that Province. It had always been the policy of England to treat with the Indians to acquire their territorial rights and to compensate them for such lands as they obtained from them by treaties. THE HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY'S CLAIMS. Mr. SCHULTZ asked whether it is the intention of the Government to recognize and pay the claims of the Hudson Bay Company for alleged losses incurred during the Red River Insurrection of 1869-70 ? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-It is not the intention of the Government to recognize any alleged losses. If the Government find any real losses that they should recognize, they will come to Parliament and ask Parliament to sanction their payment. A GEOLOGICAL MUSEUM. Mr. GOUDGE asked whether it is the intention of the Government during the Recess to take steps with a view to the establishmet of a Musenm in the City of Ottawa of a character similar to those established in Washington and London, England, embracing Geological collections, and collections of agricultural produce, analysis and implements, manufactures, machinery, &c., &c ? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-It is not the intention of the Government to do this. THE PACIFIC RAILROAD SURVEYS. Mr. THOMPSON (Cariboo) asked when will the several surveying parties, required to complete the surveys for the Canada Pacific Railway, on the Mainland of British Columbia, be despatched to that Province. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE—Most ofthe parties have been there all winter and some of them have been at work all winter. Only Mr. DeCosmos. those whose presence was necessary in order to work out the results of last summer's Surveys, have come here. They will all be at their posts very soon. REPORTS OF THE C. P. R. SURVEY. whether the Reports of the Engineers Mr. THOMPSON (Cariboo) asked. employed during the year 1874 on the survey of the Canada Pacific Railway, will be published during the present Session; and if the Report of Mr. HORETZKY, as to his explorations on the Peace River route, will be published? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-It will be impossible to publish those reports this session, but all the reports conveying information will be published as soon as possible. The maps are in course of preparation. MONTREAL VOLUNTEERS. Mr. DEVLIN-The Government having sold to the City Corporation the Quebec Gate Barracks, having handed over the Logan Farm, St. Helen's Island, and other Government property-while the DrillShed is a ruin and the Volunteers only occupy a portion of it on sufferance from the Corporation, has any, and if so, what arrangement has been made for the accommodation of the Volunteers and City Corps for drilling purposes. Hon. Mr. VAIL was understood to say in reply that the Government were not in possession of sufficient information to be able to give a reply on the subject, but they would attend to the matter. RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT. Hon. Mr. BLAKE moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following resolutions : That by the 56th clause of the British North America Act, 1867, it is in effect enacted that when the GOVERNOR GENERAL assents to a Bill in the QUEEN's name, the QUEEN in Council may within two years after its receipt disallow such Act. That by the 90th clause of the said Statute it is enacted that the above provisions shall extend and apply to the Legislatures of the several Provinces as if re-enacted, with the substitution of the Lieut. Governor for the GOVERNOR GENERAL, of the GOVERNOR GENERAL for the QUEEN, of one year or two years, and of the Province of Canada, That in the opinion of this House the power of disallowance of Acts of a Local Legislature conferred by the said Statute is thereunder vested in the GOVERNOR GENERAL in Council, and that HIS EXCELLENCY's Ministers are responsible to Parliament for the action of the GOVERNOR GENERAL in exercising or abstaining from the exercise of the said power. That by a letter dated 13th December, 1872, the Registrar of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom conveyed to the Colonial Office the opinion of the Lord President of the Council that the power of confirming or disallowing local Acts is under the said Statute vested in the GOVERNOR GENERAL acting under the advice of his constitutional advisers. That notwithstanding the premises by a despatch dated 30th June, 1873, the Secretary for the Colonies in response to an application from the GOVERNOR GENERAL for instructions on the subject informed HIS EXCELLENCY that he was advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that the question of disallowance or allowance of Local Acts is a matter in which IIIS EXCELLENCY must act on his own individual discretion, and in which he cannot be guided by the advice of his responsible Ministers. That this House feels bound in assertion of the constitutional rights of the Canadian people to record its protest against and dissent from the said instruction, and to declare its determination to hold HIS EXCELLENCY'S Ministers responsible for his action in the exercise of the power so conferred by the said Statute. He said-I ask the House to affirm the principle contained in the third resolution. It is hardly necessary to observe that no more delicate function could be discharged by the Executive authority than the function which entrusted to it by this 90th clause. I can conceive of no function which has to be exercised with greater caution, under greater restraint or with a more careful prevision of its consequences to the future of the confederacy than the power of disallowing acts of the Local Legislatures, and the higher the degree of caution, and the more delicate the duty, the more obvious it must be that the case is one in which the constitutional doctrine with reference to the responsibility of the Government, ought to be strictly applied-ought to be implied if they be not on the face of the Act, but being on the face of it, ought to be rigidly and amply enforced. Therefore, I ask that the House affirm the proposition that this power of disallowance, which is expressly vested, not in the GOVERNOR GENERAL, but in the GOVERNOR in Council, is so vested, and that his Ministers are responsible for the exercise of that power. At a very early period in the history of the Confederation, the hon. member for Kingston, occupying the position of First Minister and Minister of Justice, thought it proper-and no man can dispute the propriety of that course Hon. Mr. Blake. to propose to the Council and through it to His EXCELLENCY, to assent to certain general rules relative to the exercise or abstinence from exercising this power. I am not called upon to discuss the policy of those rules but simply to direct the attention of the House to the fact that it was then declared to be the opinion of the Council, sanctioned by His EXCELLENCY and adopted not merely tacitly, but I may say expressly, by Parliament (having reference to the various transactions which have taken place in Parliament) that this power was to be exercised through the Council and that for the exercising or abstaining from exercising of which the Ministry must be responsible to Parliament. At an early period in the history of the Confederation, my hon. friend from Chateauguay, with reference to a Bill passed by the Legislature of Quebec, having reference to the navigation of the St. Lawrence, invited the attention of the House by a motion, to the course which he thought fit HIS EXCELLENCY'S Ministers should advise His EXCELLENCY to take with reference to that Act. Though the motion was withdrawn, there was no dissent from the opinion that the power should be exercised by His EXCELLENCY on the advice of his Ministers. The uniform course of practice since that time has been in accordance with that view. From time to time we have had returns brought down to us of correspondence that has taken place, and Orders in Council, with reference to the disallowance of Acts passed by the Local Legislatures, and I was going to say allowance of them, but that is not a strictly correct phrase. They have vitality from the assent of the Lieut. Governor, and their life is not dependent upon no affirmative action of HIS EXCELLENCY in Council. He can destroy but his assent is not necesary to life. So we find repeated reports from the Minister of Justice of the day, on rare occasions, recommending the disallowance of Local Acts, and, in the vast majority of cases, recommending that it should be left to the courts to determine whether the Acts were beyond the power of the Legislatures. Upon an occasion not very far removed, the same view was held by the Imperial authorities, as the resolution which I move alleges. You will find in the sessional papers of 1873, at page 64, a letter dated 13th December, 1872, in which the Lord President of the Privy Council makes а communication with reference to the same subject matter, out of which this present motion arises. That communication reads thus : ઃઃ "It appears to His Lordship that as the power "of confirming or disallowing Provincial Acts | "is vested by the Statute in the GOVERNOR GENERAL of the Dominion of Canada, acting "under the advice of his constitutional adviser, "there is nothing in this case which gives to "HER MAJESTY in Council any jurisdiction over this question." "Brunswick Legislature, with a view of "legalizing a series of assessments, made "under the Common School Act of 1871, "and in amendment of that Act." Then His Lordship says he has been instructed by despatches from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that the New Brunswick School Act of 1871 was within the competence of the Provincial Legislature, and that he was further advised by the Minister of Justice that the Acts recommended to be disallowed were equally within its competence. Then His Lord Thus there is a clear declaration which ship goes on to say :-" Under these cirbeing transmitted from the colonial office "cumstances Sir JOHN MACDONALD has to the GOVERNOR GENERAL of this country "announced to the House of Commons and being by the advice of his Privy "that I am not at present prepared to Council, without 1emark laid before Par- comply with the terms of the resolution liament and acquiesced in, as it naturally" which has been passed in favor of the would be, by Parliament, may be taken to "disallowance of these Acts, but that it be the accepted doctrine with reference to "is my intention to submit the circumthe theory of dis-allowance of local Acts. 'stances of the case for the consideration But a new state of things arose with refe- ' of HER MAJESTY'S Government, and to rence to the sanie matter. In the Session "await your further instruction. In of 1873 the House of Commons passed a taking this step, I have followed the resolution in which they did not, as I re- course recommended to me by my recollect, address HIS EXCELLENCY the GOVER-"sponsible advisers." His Lordship also NOR GENERAL, but declared it to be, in the opinion of the House, the duty of HIS EXCELLENCY'S Ministers to advise His EXCELLENCY, under certain circumstances, to disallow certain acts of the Legislature of New Brunswick. The House of Commons made no communication to His ExCELLENCY on that occasion, but they declared, as it certainly was competent for them to do, their opinion as to what the duty of the Ministry was in a certain emergency. It was competent for those Ministers, of" passed by any of the Local Legislatures course, to act upon or decline to act upon "is a statutory as well as a constitutional the resolutions of the House of Commons "power, vested in Your Excellency by the -to tender the advice, or refuse to "British North America Act, and for tender it. They did not tender the advice, "the exercise of which there is no responbut neither did they tender advice to the sibility to the Parliament of Canada. contrary. As appears from sessional That is the statement of certain members paper No. 25, of the session of 1874, the of the Government of New Brunswick. course which they recommended His Ex-The communication which is also enclosed CELLENCY to pursue was to refer the matter to the Imperial authorities for their instructions and guidance. The letter of HIS EXCELLENCY is dated May 27th, 1873, and in it he says: "I have the “honor to enclose copy of a resolution, "carried in the House of Commons on "the 14th of May, by a majority of 35 against the Government, urging the "disallowance by the GOVERNOR GENERAL certain Acts passed by the New Hon. Mr. Blake. "of states that a considerable sum was voted for the purpose of defraying the legal expenses of those who proposed testing the legality of the School Act before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He also subjoins a copy of a remonstrance addressed to him by a delegation from the Government of New Brunswick. That remonstrance is appended and contains in the 4th paragraph the following doctrine : "The right of disallowance of Acts says: "The resolution adopted by the House on the 14th of May, was duly laid before HIS EXCELLENCY the GOVERNOR GENERAL, and I have it in command to state that he is asked by one branch of the Parliament of Canada to exercise the royal prerogative by disallowing certain Acts of the New Brunswick Legislature. It is stated that these Acts were passed for the purpose of legalizing certain assessments made under the Common School Act of 1871, and in amendment of such Act, the object sought in getting these Acts disallowed is to give the |