bound by the same principles on this side of the House, that the same gentlemen advocated when acting on the other side of the House. He considered the half a million which the hon. gentleman insisted was chargeable to capital should not be chargeable to capital, and it should not be chargeable to capital as long as he was connected with the Administration of the affairs of this country. He considered that when a public work was once fairly stocked and fairly in operation that everything connected with it should be chargeable to revenue, because the Government might alienate sums of money from other sources to meet their engagements which a private company could not have at their disposal. The building of additional stock, the obtaining of additional locomotives, making additional sidings, renewing the road with new rails, etc., were clearly chargeable to income and not to capital, and when the hon. gentleman copies my report in proof he seems to think I took the same view as he did. The report of a department like his was not written by the Minister, it was a mere gathering of documents and reports of the respective officers of the department; but there was a simple difference in drawing and working expenses, additions and renewals on the road. The superintendent proper had charge of the working expenses simply. The Chief Engineer had charge of the expenses on the road and so he would have in the future, and he (the Premier) intended that everything connected with the working of the Railway should be charged to income, and not to capital. He was quite sure the business men of the House would sustain the Government in the position which they had taken. He would not say much on the topics spoken of by the hon. gentleman opposite, but he would consider it an unfair mode of comparison. The hon. gentleman instituted a comparison between the votes for which they asked the House for the approximate expenditure, and for the actual expenditure of the last year. He knew if they instituted such a comparison as that it would be a false one. It would be fallacious as far as giving information was concerned. Let him take the votes and the estimates, and compare them with the votes and estimates of last year; or let him take the expenditure for any given period under this administration Hon. Mr. Mackenzie. and contrast it with the expenditure under any other administration. The hon. gentleman also alluded in very strong he would not say offensive terms-to the increase of salaries in the Customs Department, but he supposed the hon. gentleman forgot that on the 31st of October, 1873, at the time they did not possess the confidence of this House, the late Ministry passed an Order in Council to increase the salaries on the Customs list $50,000 a year, yet the hon. gentleman did not scruple, to-night, to charge the whole of this increase on the present Government. It was true the present administration modified that order considerably by $20,000, and yet the hon. gentleman charged the Government, to-night, with making the very increase which the hon. gentleman had put his own hand to. (Hear, hear!) The hon. gentleman from Kings County had alluded very briefly to the position of Mr. BRYDGES as Special Commissioner on the Lower Province Railways. This was not the time to discuss Mr. Brydges' operations or reports, but it was somewhat curious to observe that gentlemen opposite, who placed Mr. BRYDGES as Chief Commissioner for the construction of the Intercolonial Railway; who was left in the office to which he was entrusted by the gentlemen opposite-it was curious to notice that since that gentleman manifested a desire to investigate the workings and management of the different portions of the road, hon. gentlemen opposite were desirous of assailing him with every opprobious epithet. He was quite satisfied that they should attack Mr. BRYDGES as that gentleman was quite able to defend himself; but he did not think it was particularly grateful of them to do so. When he came into office the very first thing Mr. BRYDGES did was to hand in his resignation, and he was the only one of the Commissioners who had the good sense and propriety to send in their resignations at once. The others waited until they were removed. He acknowledged Mr. BRYDGES ability, although he had not the pleasure of being on the same side of politics as he had always been, yet he felt bound to retain his services as one of the ablest men in the country. did not bind himself to agree with everything Mr. BRYDGES did or may do, but he was bound when a public servant was unjustly attacked to say a word in his favor. He Hon. Mr. TUPPER asked if he would be allowed to reply, as he thought the hon. gentleman had made a most important mistake when he said all the other members of the Intercolonial Railway Commission but Mr. BRYDGES were dismissed. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said he did not say they were dismissed, but removed. Hon. Mr. TUPPER said the hon. gentleman had stated in this House himself that Mr. WALSH had tendered his resignation without any pressure being brought to bear by the Government. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said he forgot to state that Mr. WALSH went away on an election tour, a position which he knew would not be tolerated, and he wrote a letter telling him so, therefore it was equivalent to a removal. (Cries of "oh ! oh !" What he meant to say was that there was no voluntary resignation of office except by Mr. BRYDGES, as the moment Mr. WALSH plunged into politics he could not remain. Mr. WALSH had the good sense to see this also and resigned, and he gave him credit for it. Only for the improper remarks of the hon. member for Kings County, he would not have referred to this matter at all. Every gentlemen in the House was in possession of the various tariffs published in Mr. BRYDGES' report, and the allegation brought to-night that some individuals had special rates because they were supporters of the Government was to say the least a gross improssivity. He was sure that such a thing never happened, as Mr. BRYDGES' had instructions to arrange for himself and his staff and act purely in the interest of the public as a commercial man. He could not dream that he would act according to political feelings, or under political pressure, to give special rates to any persons or class. He never heard of the accusation before; he never had a word or a line from a living soul or anything of the kind, and he was quite sure the hon. gentleman was misinformed. Mr. DOMVILLE said he meant to say, if he had not actually stated, that when a tariff was established on commercial principles in order that a railroad might pay, and not that the public might be accommodated, he thought that it did not say much for the tariff when they were compelled by pressure being brought, to alter Hon. Mr. Tupper. it and to give special rates to this man and that man. He was not aware of having made any distinct charge of a special rate being given to political supporters. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said he was glad that the hon. member had made no special charge, but had only insinuated one. Mr. DOMVILLE said he was not one of those who insinuated without carrying out his insinuation. If he wished to insinuate he could turn up one or two cases which he thought it would not be out of the way to investigate. It was not a proper thing for the Finance Minister to do to send the manager of a broken down railroad, who had been removed, to take charge of the railroads in the Maritime Provinces. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said he had not intended to make any observations during the course of this debate, but the constant attacks made from the other side of the House on the late Administration, of which he had been a member, compelled him to make some few remarks, particularly in reply to the Premier. That hon. gentleman had taken occasion to say that after a railway is built the Government policy was to close the capital account, and to charge all subsequent expenditures on the line to the income of the railway. He asked if this was the policy of the Government with regard to the Spring Hill branch, the extension at Halifax, the extension to the wharves at Shediac, and the extension to the harbor of St. John? When the New Brunswick railroad was built by the Government of that Province, it was constructed on a very limited scale. Although it was well built, the Government, of which he was a member, were not able to finish it as elaborately as the requirements of the present day demanded. Was it to be said that because of this the extensions which were now to be constructed at an expense of millions of dollars, were to be charged to income? The idea was preposterous. They might as well say that the expenditure in laying steel rails on the Grand Trunk Railway should be charged to the income of that road. He did not hesitate to say that the treatment the New Brunswick railroads had received from the Administration of the day had been most unfair. New Brunswick when it entered the Confederation prove ation was poor. During the construction | should remember these facts when they of the International Railroad the rolling said that there must be commercial return stock of the railroads of the Province was for the millions expended in the constructaken to that line, and it was only last tion of the New Brunswick Railway. year that they were able to replace it with When Mr. BRYDGES went down and new rolling stock, and to renovate the track established a tariff on a commercial basis with improved rails. It was felt that the he outraged the opinion of every sensible expenditure for this purpose should be man in New Brunswick who knew the charged to capital account, and the appro- way they had been taxed to build that priation for that object was voted by railway. Were the St. Lawrence Canals, the House. If the policy of the Adminis- or the Welland Canals works which had tration of the day was to charge such been managed on a commercial basis ? expenditures to income, they should change Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-Yes. it as soon as possible. He could understand why it was desirable this year that the accounts should show that the past Administration had run the country to a very low ebb, and in order to do this it was advisable that this large expenditure should be put into income and taken out of capital account. He did not mean to say that was the object of the Finance Minister, but it was a very plain conclusion to arrive at as to the policy of the Administration. One word about Mr. BRYDGES. This was not the time, and he was not going to animadvert upon his conduct, or on that of the Administration by whom he had been employed. He believed Mr. BRYDGES to be a very able man, but he also believed that in the course he had pursued in relation to the construction of the Intercolonial Railway if he had given as much attention to that as to the commission with which the hon. Premier had charged him, we would have had the railway running to-day. With regard to the tariff established by Mr. BRYDGES he, (Mr. MITCHELL,) would say that when the railway was built by New Brunswick it was not with the expectation that it would bring a commercial return, but as a great Provincial work for the benefit of the Province; and the tariffs that were fixed were not based on commercial principles, but with a view to the extension of commerce, and the settlement of the colony. When the Province entered Confederation the railway which represented actual cash for every dollar expended on it was handed over to Canada. It was not less remunerative than the Grand Trunk Railway in which Canada had £3,000,000 sterling invested which yielded no return, or than the investment in the Northern Railway which the House had been asked to give up for a mere song. Hon. gentlemen Hon. Mr. Mitchell. K Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said they were not, and challenged the hon. gentleman to his assertion. He, (Mr. MITCHELL,) could show that they paid only two per cent. on outlay, and even that would have been lost if the Reciprocity Treaty which was so nearly forced upon us-which, thank GOD, had been burked-had passed. There had recently sprung up a trade between Montreal and Toronto, and the Lower Provinces. That trade Mr. BRYDGES' tariff was killing. Thousands of barrels of flour, which formerly went by the Gulf of St. Lawrence, would now go by the Boston, and the New York routes, which before could not compete with the Canadian route. Seven years ago only one small steamer was engaged in this interprovincial trade. Last year thirteen steamers were employed in that trade. With these high tariffs the merchants of Montreal and Toronto would not be able to compete with the millers of Ohio. He believed that Mr. BRYDGES had been sent to the Lower Provinces with instructions to place the Railways there on a commercial basis, whether in doing so the country was injured or not. He warned the Premier that the sooner this tariff was altered the better, if he did not want to destroy the trade which was helping to build up Ontario, as well as the Maritime Provinces. He believed he was uttering the sentiments of the people of New Brunswick when he said that the tariff gave universal dissatisfaction. Hon. Mr. SMITH said the hon. member for Northumberland had professed to speak for New Brunswick, he, (Mr. SMITH) knew something of New Brunswick, and he wished to state distinctly that he did not acquiesce in all that had been said by his hon. friend with reference to that Province. At a fit and proper time, when Mr. BRYDGES' report was before the House, he would give expression to the views he entertained on the subject. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the estimates would show that the extensions at Halifax and St. John were beyond the limits at which they had been located, and were therefore very properly charged to capital account. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL To what account is the Spring Hill Branch chargeable? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-That is a mere siding. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL — It is five miles long. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the Spring Hill branch, in fact, did not belong to the Dominion at all. The improvement which was to be made was to facilitate the traffic of the road, and therefore came under the ordinary expenditure chargeable to income. He was not aware that he had said anything to provoke the hon. member for Northumberland, but the late Administration could not expect immunity from criticism any more than the present Government. He had no intention to say anything offensive. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said that the Finance Minister had brought the name of Mr. BRYDGES into this debate. He assured the hon. Premier that though he spoke more feelingly than more coldblooded men, he was not out of temper. warehouses and stations by the merchants who, in many cases, did not know they were in bond. The department had been obliged to provide warehouses in many places, and also checks to show that the goods were in bond. The old system had been going on for years, and it was found that some $70,000 or $80,000 in duties had been lying over since 1868, uncollected. This would add to the expenses of the department. He would submit a detailed statement when the estimates were before the House. over Mr. PLUMB complained of the manner in which the public accounts were submitted. They were calculated to mislead any one who did not examine them very carefully, and create an impression that a saving had been effected where there was none. When it was remembered that the late Government had expended. $11,000,000 in works which were usually chargeable to capital, it showed that through their management that they had a surplus and chose to use it in that way. In regard to the loan negotiated by the Finance Minister, he (Mr. PLUMB) believed it was a very successful transaction, because under the circumstances, after the damaging budget speech of the Finance Minister last year, it was surprising that he could have negotiated a loan of that magnitude at all. It showed that the financiers and capitalists of Great Britain had more confidence in Canada and in its resources than the hon. Finance Minister. That our credit was so good abroad was due to the able speech Hon. Mr. BURPEE explained with re- of the hon. member for Cumberland. ference to the increase in the expenditure had shown that there would be no deficit, of his department that it had been going and though he was laughed at by the on for the past five years. In the four Ministry and their supporters, the stateprincipal ports of Ontario and Quebec, ment at the end of the financial year merchants had been charged for the proved the accuracy of his prediction. examining of their goods, for carrying goods With regard to this loan it was rather from their vessels to the warehouses, and peculiar that there was another Canadian so much per package før examining them loan on the English market at the same afterwards. To remove such charges, as time-that was the Ontario Loan. The in other ports, would require $16,000. contrast between the statements of the Another warehouse in Toronto would cost Finance Minister of the Dominion and the $1,000 a year. In the Gauging Depart- Treasurer of Ontario was striking. One ment it was found that a great deal of endeavored to show that the country was bonded goods had been passing through in a very depressed and deplorable condifrom the cities to the smaller tion, while the other brought every device towns and villages in the interior, of book-keeping to bear to make a flourishwithout any proper checks to pre- ing statement. He concluded by saying vent them from being taken from the he was willing to rest the case on the Ilon. Mr. Smith. He Opposition side on the figures of the hon. | went into Committee of Supply, with Mr. member for Cumberland. That they SCATCHERD in the Chair. could be successfully controverted he would be very much surprised to learn, and he did not envy the man who attempted to match himself against the truth of these statements. Mr. GOUDGE said he did not rise with the intention of addressing the House at any considerable length to-night,for after the very clear and succinct statement of the Prime Minister, as well as the able criticism of the hon. member for Cumberland, the House would be in possession of all the facts which was necessary and desirable connected with the administration of the financial affairs of the Dominion. He was happy as a supporter of the Government to say that he had been perfectly satisfied with the statement, and also with the supplementary statement of the Finance Minister,in answer to the hon. member for Cumberland. But as the subject of the Intercolonial railway had been introduced into the debate, which was one in which Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were very much interested, and as he represented a county through which the railway runs, he felt that he could not allow the present opportunity to pass without expressing the hope that when this question came up, as it would come up, it would receive due consideration at the hands of the Ministers, and he trusted they would be prepared to concede the views of the members of Nova Scotia with respect to this subject. He knew it was a grave question, and one that had given the Government much trouble, but it was one which the people of the Maritime Provinces thought should receive due consideration from the hands of the Government, which he believed it would receive. His only object in mentioning this matter was to put himself, as a representative of Nova Scotia, right on this subject, and to show to the people of Canada and this House that this was a question in which the people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick felt they were very much interested, and one with which they would be prepared to deal when it came before the House in its proper order. He felt that the present was not the proper time, and he would not therefore fur ther discuss the subject, The Committee passed some formal items, and then rose and reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE moved the adjournment of the House. The House adjourned at 11.45 p.m. Hon. J. H. CAMERON introduced a In one He Bill to amend the law relating to bills of exchange and promissory notes. particular the law relating to Bills of exchange was in a very anomalous condition. In the various Provinces the rate of damages on protested bills of exchange varied from four to ten per cent. varied from four to ten per cent. believed very recently the Dominion Board of Trade had passed a recommendation that there should be an entire change respecting the question of damages on notes, placing it in the same position in Canada as that in which it stood in almost all commercial countries. He proposed by this Bill to do away with all the laws existing in the several Provinces on the subject of damages, and place them all on a uniform footing, and make the amounts recoverable on a bill of exchange, in addition to the amount of the Bill itself— the interest on it, the expense of noting and protest, and the amount necessary for exchange and re-exchange-the same in On the motion being carried, the House all the Provinces of the Dominion. Mr Plumb. |