were received-not discounted-from the new taxes during that period, because you must know to a dollar what was received. What was the amount received from the new taxes in the Internal Revenue and Customs Department during those two and a half months? Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT-What I stated was that the sum of two millions was due to the direct and indirect effect of the new tariff; to the effect of the new taxes upon customs and excise considerably more than $600,000 was due; and a very much larger sum was due to what was borrowed from the succeeding year. As to what particular amount was paid in on the 14th April, that has not very much to do with the argument then or now, which was that the revenue would have very little exceeded the twenty-two millions estimated by Mr. TILLEY, with the addition of Prince Edward Island, had it not been for the effect of the new tariff, which, as I showed then, and am prepared to show in fuller detail at any time, poured into the treasury at least two million dollars. The other points of difference between us are whether I was right or wrong in refusing to charge the premium on a loan to annual expenditure, and whether I was right or wrong in charging items to income which he thinks should be charged to capital. The arguments on both sides have been fully set before the country, and by its verdict we are prepared to abide. I think that verdict has been tolerably well expressed both in this House and out of it. It is certainly one of the strangest charges ever made against a Minister of Finance that he refused to allow capital account to be improperly swollen by items which should be charged to income. I will take all the responsibility of such a course, and I hope at the end of our tenure of office charges, such as these, will be the only ones that my hon. friend can bring against us. Mr. PLUMB said he had made a calculation which he would submit to the House. The hon. Finance Minister's four per cent. loan netted 881 or $17,700,000. Thirty years' interest at four per cent. would amount to $24,000,000, which added to the principal, $20,000,000, made a total of $44,000,000. Now, a five per cent. loan at 107, would net, say, $17,700.000. Thirty years' interest, at Hon. Mr. Tupper. five per cent., would amount to $24,825,000, which added to the principal, $16,550,000, would make a total of $41,375,000, leaving a difference in favor of the five per cent. loan at 107, of $2,625,000. That calculation was as correct in its way as the calculation of the Minister of Finance. would not say that a four per cent. loan at 881, was not a good one; but he did say that the hon. Finance Minister was not entitled to any special credit for negotiating it. He Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT-I would just point out to the House that any calculation of simple interest for 30 years is not worth the paper it is written on. calculation is one which is quite worthy the hon. member for Niagara. The Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-Ido not propose at this late hour to go into any exhaustive criticism of the speech of the hon. gentleman opposite-a speech that I must say was not worthy of him or his position in this House. He chose to attack an employee of the Government with a violence and a virulence quite unprecedented even with the hon. gentleman. He has endeavored to show that Mr. BRYDGES and myself and the gentlemen associated with me in the administration were long bitterly hostile to each other. He was pleased to say that we had loaded him with every term of opprobrium that could be thought of, that we questioned his integrity, his political opinions and his management of public affairs; and he was pleased. to refer to a motion made by me in reference to the Intercolonial Railway. Now, I ask the hon. gentleman to read that motion. He will not find one word reflecting on Mr. BRYDGES. That motion was simply a statement of facts. It reflected on no person. It was simply a statement of figures laid down by the engineers, and the hon. gentleman and his colleagues were the men who were responsible for the over payment in that case, and not Mr. BRYDGES. And yet now the hon. gentleman turns round and casts the blame for his own action upon the man he had employed. A more unfair, more ungenerous, I would say a more scandalous attack was never made upon any man than that made to-night upon Mr. BRYDGES by the hon. gentleman opposite. Now, I may tell the hon. gentleman that I never had any difference, personal or political, with Mr. BRYDGES. I have had the honor of his friendship since I knew him, and I never had the slightest personal or political difficulty with him. I knew him first as manager of the Great Western Railway, and I always admired his ability. I admire it now as much as I ever did, and the mere fact that a newspaper correspondence might be carried on hostile to that gentleman cannot be cited as evidence that I or those acting with me ever entertained any opinion of him which would cause us to hesitate to employ him in the public service. But we did not employ Mr. BRYDGES. We found him there when we went into office, and we continued him in the position he was in, and I have no hesitation in saying that but for his ability as chairman of the Intercolonial Railway Commissioners, that work would not have been managed even as well as it was. Hon. Mr. TUPPER-He was not chairman. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-It is quite true he was not nominally the chairman. Another gentleman of whom I will not speak in his absence as the hon. gentleman has spoken of Mr. BRYDGES in his absence -and he would not have dared to speak so of him except under the shelter of the House--I shall not follow his example, and will, therefore, not say one word of the gentleman who was chairman of the commission ; but we all know who was the real managing chairman. Hon. Mr. TUPPER-He was responsible for the payment of $44,000 on No. 5, according to the hon. Premier. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE—I hold the gentlemen opposite responsible for that. Hon. Mr. TUPPER-Mr. BRYDGES took the entire responsibility upon himself before the committee. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-I defy the hon. gentleman to show that I held Mr. BRYDGES responsible for that matter. I invite any person to read the motion I made. I made quotations of all the entries made by the engineer of the value of the work done, and my motion was simply a logical and necessary deduction that the hon. gentleman opposite did not venture to dispute, and Mr. BRYDGES is never mentioned in the motion at all. Hon. Mr. TUPPER-Who paid the money? Hon. Mr. Mackenzie. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-The hon. gentleman and his colleagues paid the money. Hon. Mr. TUPPER-Not a dollar of it. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE--Mr. BRYDGES had no authority to pay a single dollar till it passed the Privy Council. The hon. gentleman knows that no payment was made till it was sanctioned by the Privy Council, and yet he would endeavor to throw all the odium of over-paying contracts upon Mr. BRYDGES. Hon. Mr. TUPPER-No odium at all; it was right. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-It is not my business to defend Mr. BRYDGES; he is able to defend himself. But look at the manner in which the hon. gentleman attacked him. He says if Mr. BRYDGES would remove the seal of secrecy from a certain letter he would be able to prove certain things, and then he went on to state what the letter would prove. He speaks of removing the seal of secrecy and then goes on to disclose the contents of the letter. I appeal to the House to say whether that is generous or fair treatment of any person. There was a vein of unfairness all through the hon. gentleman's remarks. The report of Mr. BRYDGES, he says, was made in his own interest, because he was an applicant for office, that he set to work to undermine the former Superintendent. Hon. Mr. TUPPER-Hear, bear! Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE The hon. gentleman is not ashamed to cry "hear, hear!" but I tell him that such imputation of motives will not commend itself to the good sense of this House or this country. Strong language may be used by any person, but it ought never to be used under the shelter of the House of Commons in reference to a man who cannot be present to answer it. Now, I tell the hon. gentleman, and the House, that Mr. BRydges was never an applicant for that office. He told me from the first that he never would take the office, and he recommended two or three other gentlemen to me to fill that position after Mr. CARVELL had sent in his resignation, and he has only taken charge of the road provisionally till we are able to obtain the services of a Superintendent in the place of Mr. CARVELL. And yet the hon. gentleman insinuates that Mr. BRYDGES set to work to undermine Mr. CARVELL in order to get his place. A more unfair attack I can hardly imagine. Why does he attack Mr. BRYDGES SO vehemently? Why does he feel so intensely interested in this report? He says he is not to blame for all that is spoken of in that report. I do not say he is, but why does he show this excessive partizanship, this utter want of any judicial spirit which every member of the House is supposed to possess in discussing public documents, and especially in discussing the report of a public servant who cannot be here to defend himself. The hon. gentleman all through his speech has acted in the spirit of an advocate pleading the case of a person who might be prosecuting Mr. BRYDGES for libel or some other offence. Hon. Mr. TUPPER-I am not prosecuting him. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-The hon. gentleman has endeavored, with the ingenuity of an advocate and the intense hatred of a personal enemy, to insinuate everything he thought would militate against the character of Mr. BRYDGES. After making all the charges he could conceive against Mr. BRYDGES in connection with this report he says, "Of Fraser, Reynolds & Co.'s accounts I shall say nothing, because they are under examination.” It is quite right, according to the hon. gentleman, to mention everything that might tell against Mr. BRYDGES, but it is altogether wrong to say a word that tells in his favour. There is another little matter, Sir, that the hon. gentleman must be aware of already. It will be observed in Mr. BRYDGES' report he calls attention to the extraordinary circumstance that Mr. CARVELL, in the months of December, 1873, and January, 1874, ordered 3,750 tons of steel rails from England without any communication with the Department, and without any authority whatever. I look upon that as one of the most serious allegations against that officer. But then it would not be fair to discuss these matters, for they are before a Committee of Investigation. Now, Sir, there is still another purchase, in regard to which the company refused to tell us at what price they actually sold, and I am taking legal proceedings to compel them to do so. I do not say where this money went. I do not know where it went or how it went, and therefore I make no charge; but Mr. BRYDGES very clearly shows in dealing Hon. Mr. Mackenzie. with the subject that the country lost in this transaction somewhere between £9,000 and £10,000 sterling, and yet the hon. gentleman refuses to give him credit for it. Now, Sir, we find that Mr. Brydges develops another transaction in reference to this firm at Halifax. Government had to pay at the rate at 21 He says the cents per pound for steel springs; and we find from the correspondence in the office in relation to this matter that Mr. SADLER, who was the store-keeper, in the first instance refused to certify to these. Mr. CARVELL was in Halifax sometime afterwards, and made representations to this firm as to the price. They told him in reply that if he would prefer it they would make out an account and charge a regular commission, He did prefer it, and we find that while the real invoice price of these springs was £429 sterling and some odds, in order to make up the sum they had already charged they put it down at £852 sterling some odds, and, Sir, by a most extraordinary process, they manage, between one charge and another, to make up the exact amount of their first account, which was charged at so much per pound. It would have puzzled even the member for Niagara, with all his ability in calculations, to make up a statement so that it would reach the exact fraction. I do not intend to discuss this report or Mr. BRYDGES' position. As to Mr. CARVEL, I know nothing whatever to his prejudice, further than his mismanagement. the enquiry may develop I cannot tell. I have always had great respect for him personally, and I always found him pleasant to do business with; but after the admissions he has made in his own report, and the fact that he his position known to me, but purchased never made so extensively without consulting the Department-so extensively, indeed, that no member of the Government would have dared to do it, without an Order in Council What very I felt it was neither desirable nor possible in the public interest that he should remain in his position. That was my sole ground of reference to him, and as he is not here, and cannot defend himself, I shall say nothing regarding him with which it would be possible to find fault. The hon. gentleman says that, notwithstanding all Mr. BRYDGES' representations, political influence cannot have done so much injury to the road after all, because all these men, however incapable, were continued in the employment of the Government. If there is anything I abhor, it is the dismissal of a public servant without good cause having been shown, and I felt that it would neither be just nor generous to remove any of them until we had proof of their incapacity or something worse. I gave orders to remove one or two of them, because I found that their incapacity and inefficiency were so thoroughly established, that it was impossible they could be retained; but my direct instructions to Mr. BRYDGES-and he quite agreed with me—were that there should be no persons taken from a distance to do the work, if men were to be found on the road capable of the duties. The hon. member for Cumberland, with that remarkable tendency to exaggeration which characterises him, says Mr. BRYDGES alluded to Mr. WHITNEY with every term of opprobrium the English language could furnish. Hon. Mr. TUPPER-Yes, and I gave the evidence. independently, and spending, therefore, in the aggregate very much more money than ought to be spent. I do not consider that Mr. WHITNEY has the necessary experience or force of character for the position which he fills. He is not a mechanic; has never gone through the shops, in the proper sense of the word; and is, in fact, learning his business at the expense of the railway. Nor does he appear to me to have the necessary qualifications for a superintendent, and I am satisfied that a different class of man, brought up to the business, and having regularly served his time, both in the drawing office and in the shops, who had filled the position of locomotive foreman, would make large reforms in the department, have the work better executed, and at a considerable saving of expense. Now, Sir, is there a single term of opprobrium in all this? For my own part, I see nothing in it but the fairest of criticism. Hon. Mr. TUPPER-I cannot understand anything disparaging to the occupant of a position such as Mr. WHITNEY'S that has not been mentioned. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-Now, Sir, I am confident the hon. gentleman knows that this statement is not correct—that Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-But my Mr. BRYDGES did not use every term of hon. friend cannot surely assert that this opprobrium the English language fur- would bear out his assertion that every nishes. For instance, he did not say term of opprobrium in the English that Mr. WHITNEY was a follower of language was made use of. It is nothing the hon. member for Cumberland. I shall more than a fair criticism of the gentleread the whole passage, and I think when man's ability to fill the position. I do not I have done so I can appeal to the House, propose to-night to discuss several of the yes, I can appeal to my hon. friend him- matters into which the hon. gentleman has self, if he did not needlessly and absurdly entered. He rarely alludes to anything exaggerate the passage. I venture here affecting the financial relations of the Govto read him a little lesson, and to assure ernment to any undertaking without him that if he persists in exaggerating endeavoring to inflame sectional feelings with regard to these trivial matters people and prejudices. I shall not follow his will make allowances for extravagances example, but if he desires a discussion upon in greater matters, and they will boil down that point, we can have it. I may menhis speeches until the residuum left will tion that during the last six months, the scarcely be worth looking after. Here is increase in receipts for traffic on the Interwhat Mr. BRYDGES says of Mr. WHITNEY: colonial Railway was $21,346, and the "I am bound to say that, having very decrease in expenses for the corresponding carefully considered the question of the period was $72,348.30. The costs of organization of the mechanical department renewals amounted to $278,466.29 as at present, I consider it to be both expen- against $277,619.48 last year, being an sive and inefficient. The mechanical increase of $846.81. At the same time superintendent, Mr. WHITNEY. although the train mileage was 536,824 miles, and at the head of the entire establishment, for the corresponding six months of 1873, has apparently but very little, if any, con- it was 571.224 or a decrease of 34,400. trol over what is going on at Richmond The car mileage for the two periods was and other places. There are practically 3,786,696, and 3.591,482 respectively, two superintendents at work, each acting being an increase in favor of 1874 cf Hon. Mr. Mackenzie. 195,214. The result of these figures is to they feel that the sympathy of those in Such was the state of affairs when Mr. Hon. Mr. TUPPER-That is impossible, for the hon. gentleman (Mr. MACKENZIE) legislated all the Commissioners out of Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-The hon. gentleman must not try to push me aside on a technicality. The difference is that I did with one man what the hon. gentleman Hon. Mr. TUPPER-It is higher. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-The hon.office. gentleman knows that it is not, and with all his capacity for misunderstanding and misconstruing figures, which I admit is extensive, it will defy him to prove the contrary. I may may further say that representations were made to Mr. BRYDGES that it was quite impossible for Mr. MCNAB to work the road properly if he did not have the control of his assistants. The hon. gentleman said that Mr. BRYDGES would not allow Mr. FLEMING to employ an engineer without his permission. Hon. Mr. TUPPER-I said that he insisted on the Commissioners employing the engineers. and his colleagues employed three to do. The difference, however, is a material one, as the country will testify. Acting in this capacity, he was the best man the Government could have got to thoroughly investigate the affairs of this railway, and he overhauled the whole system from Halifax to St. John. That it is now in a better condition than when he opened that investigation, there can be no doubt, and it will be the business of this He administration to conduct it for the future in as just, and correct, and fair a manner as possible. One word inore about the relation of the Government to the public service. Sir, in this very investigation that the hon. member has alluded to, we had two prominent witnesses on the witness stand, Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING and Mr. BRYDGES; and the only thing, I ever said, that would in the slightest degree reflect on Mr. BRYDGES, was my checking Mr. BRYDGES when he was giving his opinions on outside matters, instead of giving evidence. But I had reason to find fault in my character as a member of this House with the way in which evidence was given Hon. M. MACKENZIE referred to the necessity of having power to discharge trackmen, when they misdirected their efforts. He has absolute control over them now, and the result has been a great saving. As long as trackmen knew they were independent of the engineer, and that political influences were sufficient to sustain them in their places, so long would they manage the road precisely as they pleased. Mr. CARVELL says: "The difficulties at St. John station arose out of, and are altogether due to political influences, and the natural dislike of men in charge to be brought into conflict with members of Parliament, when Hon. Mr. Mackenzie. |