districts were less able to pay the postage Hon. J. H. CAMERON quite con- Hon. J. H. CAMERON-No, not to foreign. For instance, the 13th section was as follows: The thirtieth section of said Act is hereby amended by striking out all the words after the word "delivered" in the sixth line thereof, and inserting the following instead thereof, as part of the said Section : exact value of current coin as respects postage country sections, and even those in the Mr. Oliver, This related to postage within the Then Now, it was very true that the provision in the United States law on this subject was more stringent than this was in one sense, because it made the offence a misdemeanor, but it must be tried first. Under this clause, however, the Postmaster General was given the very great power to stop mail matter, upon the ex : parte statement of any one, open letters and packages and hold their contents. Then the clause with regard to a guarantee was one which deserved careful consideration. While it held officials responble for losses which might occur in the transmission of mails and empowered the Postmaster General to prosecute and recover the amount of the penalty stipulated in the bond, the clause contained the following proviso: But nothing herein contained shall be held to create any liability on the part of HER MAJESTY or the Postmaster General, to any person or parties whomsoever, to indemnify or hold harmless, pay or reimburse such person or party for the loss of any such money, goods, chattels, or valuables or effects. General to carry newspapers free of postage. He regarded the Bill as a very valuable one, and he was sure it would be received with great satisfaction by the country. It was really absurd the condition of our postal laws in so far as connection with the United States was concerned. He had the honour of calling attention to this on a former occasion, and he was sure that, although there would be a small decrease of revenue by the new arrangement, the public would heartily approve of what the Postmaster General had done. He had practically thrown aside newspaper postage, but had left the fag end of it on the proprietors of country newspapers. He should have made the reform complete. The total amount received from newspaper postage last year was $72,000. Two years ago, as shown by return that he (Mr. YOUNG) had called for, it was $60,000, and it was stated by the Deputy Postmaster General that $30,000 of that amount was supposed to have been received from newspapers sent direct from the office of publication. The total amount received from the same source last year, therefore, could not have been more than $36,000. If the reduction in postage proposed by the Bill were applied to this amount, it would reduce it to such an extent that it would not be worth keeping an account of it. Twelve ordinary newspapers would weigh one pound, the postage of which would be one cent. The postage on weekly newspapers at present was about one-half a cent per newspaper. The reduction would, therefore, be about one-sixth, which would yield a revenue of some six thousand dollars. For such a small amount it was hardly worth while to keep accounts. newspaper having a circulation of one thousand would pay about $50 a year in Yes, par- postage, which would fall upon the publisher The Government might recover the money, but need not distribute it to those who had sustained loss. Without going into such a statement at all, the Government could deal with such cases. There were two or three other clauses to which he would refer at another time. With reference to the report, he considered that the information it contained was exceedingly valuable to the public. It was all very well to say that any one desiring information not contained in the report could get it on application at the Department, but the country at large could not obtain it in that way, and should have it in the report. He did not believe free delivery in cities was necessary. If it was to cost $45,000 annually, and the revenue from newspaper postage was only $25,000, he would prefer to bave newspapers free. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE—It is the law now to have free delivery. Hon. J. H. CAMERON It is not carried out, then. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE tially. A because it was simply impossible to get it Hon. J. H. CAMERON said it was in from the subscribers. He was extremely Montreal, and the House was now officially doubtful, from his experience in the newsinformed that it was to be carried out in paper business, whether publishers would other cities. This Bill was a step in the be able to increase their circulation suffiright direction. For making intercourse ciently to make up his amount. Every one by mail easier and freer, the Postmaster was interested in the improvement of our General was entitled to the thanks of the newspapers. This postage would have a country. If the Government had a teeming tendency to induce publishers to use lighter surplus and could afford to give free paper which through weighing less would delivery in cities as well as to carry news-not have such a neat appearance as better papers free, so much the better, but he and heavier qualities. He hoped the Postwould prefer the latter to the former. master General would remove the postage Mr. YOUNG urged the Postmaster on newspapers altogether. Hon. J. H. Cameron. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE laid on the, the increase in the amount of literature of that kind introduced into Canada from the United States was astonishing. Our table the sentence of outlawry on Louis RIEL. It being six o'clock the House rose for newspapers, therefore, would have to recess. AFTER RECESS. Mr. COLBY said he had not had the opportunity of listening to the explanations of the Hon. Postmaster General nor had he the opportunity of giving the Bill more than a cursory reading. He could not, however, refrain from expressing the satisfaction he felt in common, he believed, with perhaps every member of the House with the main features of the Bill. It was one he believed which would give great satisfaction to the country. At the same time he was inclined to agree with the suggestions of the members for North Oxford and South Waterloo with regard to postage on newspapers. There were special reasons why this matter should receive the favourable consideration of the Government at the present time. In consequence of the recent convention with the United States our newspaper and magazine publishers had to encounter an opposition which they had hithereo never met in their business. It was well known that the leading magazines and newspapers of the United States were conducted in a very enterprising manner, and having large circulations they were able to have a large amount of capital at their command. At Chicago the other day he was told that one newspaper proprietor paid no less than $400 to $600, a day for a verbatim report of the testimony in the celebrated Beecher case, and either that proprietor or another newspaper proprietor ran a special Sunday morning train between Chicago and Milwaukee for the delivery of its Sunday edition. This spirit of enterprise was not confined to Chicago, but existed in the management of all great newspapers in New York, Boston and other cities. While we in this country had very many valuable magazines and newspapers, yet some of them had a hard struggle for existance, and in many instances proved to be disastrous to their promoters. Now the practical effect of this convention would be to cause an inundation of newspapers and magazines from the United States into Canada. He was told by a mail-conductor that since that convention Hon. Mr. Mackenzie. 0 encounter this kind of competition. Moreover, the American publishers having a large field for their papers, and being able to command the highest talent were able to produce very valuable and readable papers-papers which from a mere money point of view were better than any that could possibly be produced in this country. While our newspapers generally would have to encounter this kind of competition, it would fall with special force upon the local press of the country. The country newspaper not only contained the local news of its constituency, but required to have a certain amount of what may be called domestic reading, and in this respect it would be affected very seriously by the competition of a large class of family newspapers in the United States. The amount of revenue which would be derived from the postage of newspapers under the present Bill would be very small, and he trusted that the postage on newspapers would be entirely removed. Mr. MILLS said he did not propose to enter into any lengthened discussion on this Bill. It seemed to him that it had generally met with the approval of the House, and he thought deservedly so. With the exception of the objection made by the hon. member for Cardwell all the objections to the Bill were as to mere matters of detail, and not to the principle of the Bill. He was one of those that were opposed to the abolition of newspaper postage. He had never been able to understand upon what grounds its abolition could be defended. The Government in undertaking to carry letters and newspapers undertook in so far the work which belonged to common carriers, and he was sure that if any private parties were to undertake to perform the work now being done by the Government it would seem a very extraordinary proposition that they should do work free for the parties receiving the papers, and be paid for doing it out of the public treasury. He could see no difference whatever between the public treasury paying for the transmission of newspapers or letters and the removing of the postage altogether from newspapers. The people of this country were not so indifferent to newspaper literature as to give up their subscriptions ask the hon. gentleman to postpone it. to newspapers unless they were carried free. This question was one simply of demand and supply. Those who required newspapers would subscribe for them, and they would make no more objection to paying the Government for carrying their papers than they would to paying the editor or publisher the subscription price. He could therefore see no ground for the demand that newspaper postage should be entirely abolished. It was not a tax. It bore no resemblance to a tax. It was not something imposed upon parties for the purpose of enabling the Government to do something else, but it was simply a charge, and a very small charge indeed, considering the amount of labor involved in carrying newspapers from the place of publication to the parties wishing to receive them. Another observation he would make was this: He believed that if they did away with newspaper postage altogether the result would be to close up a considerable number of small post offices throughout the country. He himself had experienced very considerable difficulty in getting post offices established where he thought they were necessary, and he was quite sure if the postage on newspapers was abolished, and that source of legitimate revenue taken away from the Postmaster General, he would find very great difficulty in extending facilities for the distribution of postal matter to the people of sparsely populated rural districts. He apprehended that people who would have to go four or five miles instead of one or two for the purpose of receiving postal matter, would be much more likely to discontinue their subscriptions to news papers than they would on account of having to pay 20 or 25 cents postage. He was, therefore, entirely opposed to the principle of the abolition of postage on newspapers, and held that there were no grounds upon which it could be justified. The money required for carrying on the Post Office Department must be had somewhere. It must come out of the pockets of the people in some form or other, and he could see no fairer way of getting the money than by requiring people who received newspapers and letters to pay the small charge imposed for carrying them. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD said he did not rise to continue the debate, but to Mr. Colby. The House had now heard the explanations of the Postmaster General, and the hon. gentleman would see from the remarks of various members that his Bill would be treated on its merits, and not in any way as a party measure. He would also suggest that in the meantime the hon. gentleman consider well the point taken by the members for South Oxford and Cardwell respecting the advantage of consolidating the postal law rather than passing a Bill in amendment. If there were two large Acts in force Postmasters and others would have great difficulty in ascertaining exactly what was the law, and it would be a great advantage to the public to have all the law on the subject embodied in one Act. He would also suggest to the Postmaster General that he introduce his resolutions relating to the rates and prepayment of postage without delay, as it was irregular to discuss these matters in the Bill. Hon. Mr. MACDONALD said, as there appeared to be a general desire to have the debate adjourned, he would not raise any objection, though, as the objections were principally to details, he had supposed they might better be considered in Committee. On motion the debate was adjourned. PRESERVATION OF PEACE IN VICINITY OF PUBLIC WORKS. On motion of Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE, the Bill to amend the Acts for the better preservation of peace in the vicinity of public works was read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole forthwith, and reported with amendments. PROTECTION ON RAILWAYS. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE moved the second reading of an Act for the better protection of persons and property conveyed by railways. He said the bill would be referred to the Committee on Railways and Telegraph Lines. Right Hon. Sir JOHN MACDONALD said he was glad to hear it. The measure was one requiring to be well considered by the Minister of Justice before it became law. The bill was read a second time and referred to the Committee on Railway and Telegraph lines. SUPPLY. the purpose of relieving the distress which The House went into Committee of Sup- would be much better if the hon. gentleprevailed this winter among them. It ply, Mr. SCATCHERD in the chair. The estimates for the Indians were first taken up. On item $2,200 for the Indians of Quebec, Mr. JONES (Leeds) asked why there was an increase of $950 over the approp riation of last year. Hon. Mr. LAIRD regretted that the Indians of Quebec were not so well situated as the Indians of Ontario. Their lands were not so good, and they were not realizing anything like fair prices from them. They were, generally speaking, in very poor circumstances indeed, and this increase was to supply their real wants. The item passed. Items 150 and 151 were passed without discussion. On item $4,500 for the Indians of New Brunswick, Hon. Mr. MITCHELL asked the Minister of the Interior if he could give the relative number of Indians in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It appeared to him there was a large number of Indians in New Brunswick, and this sum was not sufficient to meet their wants. Hon. Mr. LAIRD said he had not the statistics by him that were asked for. Last year the Government had increased the vote for the Indians in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and as they were not increasing fast in numbers this estimate might be considered fair now. He believed there was a larger number of Indians in Nova Scotia than in New Brunswick, but in the latter province a good deal of the money that should have gone to the Indians had been lavished on two officials. He was thinking of reducing their salaries and giving more of the appropriation to the Indians. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL doubted the correctness of the hon. gentleman's information. With reference to the two officials the hon. gentleman was entirely misinformed. They discharged their duties very efficiently. He (Mr. MITCHELL) thought there had not been sufficient attention given to these unfortunate people, and his object in rising now was to ask the Minister of the Interior to increase this appropriation for Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald. man would turn his attention to relieving these unfortunate Indians, than attacking Administration that had passed an away. Hon. Mr. LAIRD said the Indians in their own. They had timber lands and some parts of the Province had funds of received a revenue from them, over and above this Parliamentary grant. This was not the case in Nova Scotia, where the Indians had no funds or lands, and in this respect were less favourably situated than The hon. genthose of New Brunswick. tleman was correct in saying that there had been some hardship among them this winter in consequence of the great depth of the snow, but this was an exceptional Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said what he meant was that the Indians of New Bruns · wick, though they held lands_and_were more numerous than those of Nova Scotia received only $4,500—no more than the Indians of Nova Scotia, who were fewer in number and who had comparatively no lands. He did not object to the amount given to the Indians of Nova Scotia ; what he did say was, that this appropriation was not enough for the Indians of New Brunswick, who were in great distress, and could scarcely keep themselves from perishing. He hoped that the Minister of the Interior would take steps to relieve their distress. Hon. Mr. LAIRD said the Government could not be supposed to feed and clothe all the Indians. These appropriations were |