indeed any discussion at all. It was moved by Mr. CHAPLEAU, the colleague of the hon. member in the representation of Terrebonne, the late Solicitor General. He left the Government for reasons which he would not now dwell upon, but for reasons which were perfectly well understood in the Province of Quebec. He characterized it as a moribund Legislature, and used another term which he need not repeat, as the hon. member had not referred to it. He would only say further that he was quite ready to debate over again this question of the route of the extension of the Pacific Railway if the hon. gentleman desired it. If he desired to renew the sectional conflict which he invited the other night, and which was attended with results to the hon. gentleman and his party, the most signally fatal that he had ever known, he was again prepared to meet the hon. gentleman on broad national grounds, or which he (Mr. HOLTON) desired to consider every question brought before this House. The hon. member, whether he was aware that the question was referred to a Committee of the Legislature, and that it was after they had reported thereon | that the House unanimously adopted the petition. He asked the hon. member if hedid not know that when that "tarnished " and “moribund" Legislature passed the resolutions unanimously, the most distinguished members of the Opposition were present, including MM. JOLY and MARCHAND, whose names were honored by both sides of the House, whether they did not agree to the resolutions. Hon. Mr. HOLTON said the hon. mem ber ought to have made his entire speech when placing the motion in the hands of the SPEAKER, for he (Mr. HOLTON) had no right to reply to these last remarks. He would not put himself out of order by speaking to the motion now. He would nevertheless be gratified to have an opportunity of expressing his opinion of the miserable policy pursued by the hon. member in dragging this question, in season and out of season, before the House, in order to raise, as he believed, in certain constituencies, a sectional agitation utterly unworthy of him-utterly unworthy of any political party which had any expectation of a future in this country. The motion was carried. Mr. LAURIER said the hon. member for Terrebonne had made an attach upon Hon. Mr. Holton. the Government, because it had not followed the advice of the Legislature of Quebec, but he (Mr. LAURIER) did not attach the slightest importance to the advice of that Legislature, for in railway matters that Legislature has shown that it was influenced by political jobbery. Last year the Quebec Government had adopted a policy called the Railway policy for subsidizing all the Railway lines in course of construction in the Province. A certain Railway known as the South Easter Counties Railway was promised a subsidy of some $2,000 per mile, but this year the Government had refused the subsidy to the company, although they had granted a subsidy to certain other companies. What was the reason? No doubt a reason was given, but the real reason was that in the interval between the two sessions the "Tanneries Scandal" had taken place, and the conservative representatives for Brome, Drummond and Arthabaska had refused to follow their party in that scandal. They had seceded from the party; and that was the only reason that could be given for the refusal of the Government to subsidise the company. He considered this was political jobbery, and the hon. member for Chateauguay had properly said the Legislature was a (C tarnished Legislature." He could not blame the Dominion Government for not following the advice of the Legislature for Quebec. The Mr. BABY did not think that because dissolution it deserved the title of a "morithe Quebec Legislature was approaching bund Legislature," and he considered that the expression "tarnished Legislature" should have not been made use of. Railway policy of the Quebec Legislature having been passed unanimously the responsibility, therefore, must certainly belong to the friends of the hon. member who supported his side of politics. He respected Mr. JOLY very sincerely, but he and his friends could not be very proud of the expression thrown in their faces by the hon. member for Chateauguay. There was an English saying to the effect that "It was a dirty bird that defiled its own nest." He would not make any application of the saying in this case. He had never heard within the walls of this House a member from any Province talk of his own Legislature as the hon. members for Chateauguay and Arthabaska had done. Mr. LAURIER-Fortunately for the other Provinces. Mr. BABY said there were things that happened in other Provinces like that which had happened in Quebec, but they had the good sense to wash their own dirty linen in private; but in Quebec they had to expose these little infirmities before the great public. He thought the hon. members for Chateauguay and Arthabaska would regret having used such strong language. Mr. MACKENZIE explained that when he had stated we had not received the address of the Quebec Legislature it had been in the office of the Provincial secretary, though he (Mr. MACKENZIE) had not known it, and it had afterwards come to him. Mr. MASSON said that when he had asked about the petition he had received a telegram from Quebec that it had been sent to Ottawa about ten days before. Hon. Mr. HOLTON said the hon. member had refered to that address in a debate on another subject and had based arguments upon it and had extolled the action of the Province of Quebec. He (Mr. HOLTON) had characterized the legislature of that Province in his own way, and he was prepared to repeat that characterization and stand by it on every hustings in the Province of Quebec. Hon. Mr. POPE said he thought his hon. friend was mistaken, and that it came hon. friend was mistaken, and that it came with ill grace from any member of this House to attack the character of gentlemen in other Legislatures. The South Eastern Counties Railway had not received aid, not because the Government had not received political support from its promoters, but because the railway was in a different position from the others, and did not come within the category of railways that the Quebec Government had proposed to aid. The road had been built previously to the adoption of the railway policy; but still it had a year ago received some assistance. Hon. Mr. HUNTINGTON said Le would not enter into the merits of the South Eastern Railway; nor would he here discuss the question whether the Quebec Legislature was tarnished; but he had an impression that the Quebec Government had been influenced by the amount of support it received. The year before the South Eastern Road, though it was built, had been in the list for Government aid, for all the people having interest Mr. Laurier. in it were supporting the Government; but the hon. members for Brome, Megantic, and Drummond, and Arthabaska had refused to support the Government in the land swap and the objections to aiding the road had been discovered. He agreed with his hon. friend that the relations of the Government and the Province of Quebec should not be discussed here, and he would not discuss them unless forced, because he wished to be complimentary to that Province and it would be impossible for him to speak in any such sense as he would be glad to speak of the authorities of his native Province. It was better to draw a veil over what had occurred there and in order that the small and narrow policy and bigoted disposition in the dispensation of patronage should not be exposed and bring the Province of Quebec into disrepute. If there were a little forgetfulness of the local elections, and of the manufacture here of political capital, with the view of effecting them, it would be much better. Hon. Mr. POPE said the road had received a $1,000 per mile, aid, and others had got a much larger sum. The motion was carried. WHITBY HARBOR. Mr. GORDON moved for an address to His EXCELLENCY the GOVERNOR GENERAL for a Return of the Report and Survey of Whitby Harbor as made by the Government Engineers during the Summer of 1874; with all correspondence respecting the condition of said Harbor and piers, depth of water and general efficiency as a Harbor of Refuge. He said the Government Engineers had made a very careful survey of the harbor and reported; and he wished to have this report brought before the public. He trusted action would be taken at an early day as Whitby Harbor was a most important one, and afforded an outlet to a large section of country; but owing to the shallowness of the water there was considerable difficulty in entering it and if it were improved it would be used by a larger class of vessels than at present. The motion was carried, and the House adjourned to Thursday at 3 o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, 18th March, 1875. The SPEAKER took the chair at three P. M. THE LENGTH OF THE SESSION. Hon. Mr. HOLTON said before the orders were called he would like to invite the attention of the First Minister to a matter in which hon. members of both sides were deeply interested, and that was the probable period at which this session would be brought to a close, and also the manner in which his hon. friend would deal with the Easter adjournment. They had all been exerting themselves to bring the necessary business of the session to a close before Easter if possible, but it must be evident to all now, without any intimation from the Treasury Bench that that was out of the question. In previous sessions it had been customary to adjourn for three or four days at Easter: but as Easter had fallen at an earlier period than this year, three or four days were of less importance than on the present occasion. He, therefore, suggested that there should be an adjournment for Good Friday, and that the House should sit on Saturday and again on Monday. By having an arrangement of this kind there was a strong probability that they could get through during Easter week, whereas if they adjourned for three or four days, hon. members would come back refreshed, and the close of the session might be potsponed indefinitely. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the state of public business was such that it would be utterly impossible to adjourn before Easter. He thought there bad been no delay from any cause whatever on the part of the Government during the session, and while he was anxious to get through the work as soon as possible, it was evident they must give a good deal of consideration to several measures which had yet to go through stages. He had always taken the ground, when not charged with the responsibility with which he was now charged, that with so many members coming from a distance there should be no long adjournment, and these reasons were stronger now at the close of the session. He proposed to continue to sit on Saturday week-after Good Friday—and again on Monday, and he believed there was no objection to doing so. By adopting this course they might reasonably expect to get through business Hon. Mr. Holton. during Easter week, and that, too, without having more than one session each day. Hon. Mr. CAMERON (Cardwell) called the attention of the Government to the propriety of making some change in the "Orders of the Day" so as to put "Private and Public Bills " before "Notices of Motions." A great number of the latter come to nothing, but through their precedence the consideration of Public and Private Bills of great importance was often postponed to a very late period of the session, if they came up at all. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said he would like to have the opinion of the House on this matter. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL did not agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Cardwell. It was true a great many of the motions might come to nothing, but hon. gentlemen did not place them on the paper without some good reason. The adoption of his hon. friend's suggestion would have the effect of postponing almost indefinitely a large number of those motions. Some of them had been on the paper for three or fours weeks already, and some might not be reached this session. Many of them might be dispensed with, but others were important, and if they were place below Private Bills, it might be necessary to drop them. The Private Bills were always reached in some way or other. Hon. Mr. HOLTON thought the object of the hon. member, for Cardwell was to secure a better opportunity than now existed, of pressing Private Bills in the hands of members. His (Mr. HOLTON'S) opinion was that the present order of business secured consideration of all those. It was a very rare thing for such Bills to be left over, the difficulty was with respect to public bills, many of which were introduced late in the session. They should be placed on the table at an early date, when that was done they could be got through in good time. This year the House had yielded one of its days to the Government. Next session they should resist an application of the Government for an additional day at so early a period. By retaining Thursday, and introducing public bills earlier there would be no difficulty in getting over the business in good time, and it would be unnecessary to change the rules of the House. THE TREATY VIOLATION. Mr. JONES (Halifax) brought under the notice of the House and the Government a matter which he considered of sufficient importance to be submitted on the earliest possible occasion for their consideration. It was known to hon. members of this House that the Washington Treaty of 1872 provided for the admission of the products of the British North American Fisheries into the United States on terms equal to those under which the products of the American Fisheries were admitted into the Dominion. It was specially provided that the fish-oils and fish of all kinds, excepting the products of inland lakes and rivers, as fish preserved in oil shall be admitted free of duty. He had within the last few days received a communication which showed that Congress had, at its last session, imposed a duty on an article of commerce in which the people of the Maritime Provinces were largely interested that was canned lobsters. It was quite clear that, under the first article of the Treaty, lobsters merely boiled and not preserved in oil should be admitted duty free into the United States. Congress in order to establish a differential duty in favor of their own products, had imposed a duty on the cans in which the lobsters were packed, of one and a-half cents on each one. These cans cost two and a-half cents each, and consequently the duty was equal to sixty per cent. on the cost of those packages in the Dominion and equal to ten per cent. on the cost of the article when packed in lead for exportation, and the exports of canned lobsters from the Dominion amounted, during the last year—that for which the public can be furnished returns,-to $571,000 and a duty of 10 per cent. on that would amount to over $50,000. That of itself was an amount of considerable importance to one branch of our industry; but when the House considered the fact that if we acquiesced in this decision by the American Government the same principle would apply to all packages of a similar nature, and would be practically a duty in favor of the American fishermen on herrings, mackerel, ale-wives and fish-oil. He held it was a grave violation of the Treaty of 1872 which should be brought before the House in order that the Government Hon. Mr. Jones. might be called upon to make such representations to the United States authorities as would put a stop to legislation, hostile to the commerce of the Dominion. He hoped the question would be considered of sufficient importance for the House and the Government to deal with it at the earliest possible moment. which was Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the subject had not escaped the notice of the Government and representations had been made to the United States Government already. The contention of the Washington authorities was that although lobsters and fish might be entered duty free, they were entitled to charge duty on packages, a most unreasonable course; but so far the Government have been unable to obtain any relaxation from what the United States Government were pleased to call an order within their competency. This Government proposed to make further representations on the subject through the British Minister at Washington. Of course they could do nothing more. If this principle Hon. Mr. BLAKE said if the American Government persisted in such a course it would destroy the whole benefits of the Washington Treaty, in so far as it related to any articles contained in packages. Take for instance the barrels in which the articles were packed. were correct, the duty on them might be made even more extortionate than on the cans containing lobsters which was ten per cent. on the whole products. They might as well make a hundred per cent. and turn it into an actual prohibitory duty. He held it to be a good law that if we were entitled to send fish free of duty we were, also, entitled to send that which contained the fish free of duty; otherwise there was no protection at all under the Treaty. Of course the Premier was right in saying that his Government could do no more than make representations to the British authorities. would not go to the tests were unavailing. He could not believe that the great nation with which that Treaty was made would persist in violating the very letter of it as well as the spirit. But he hoped it world that our pro Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the Treaty had been violated in another particular. It was held by the Treasury Department at Washington that it did not apply to British Columbia at all, and the Minister of Justice had given his opinion that we were entitled to the benefits of the Treaty in British Columbia as well as in any other parts of the Dominion; still we had not been able to obtain a recognition of that fact. With reference to the duty of 11⁄2 cents on each can containing lobsters the Government had given a drawback on tin entering into the manufacture of these cans, but it was not nearly equal to the amount of the duty imposed on them by the United States. Right Hon. Sir JOHN MACDONALD said the doctrine laid down by the hon. member for South Bruce was a true one. If any manufactured articles could be sent free, the package, without which it could not be exported, should go free also. The duty could only be imposed when the package could be made a cover for introducing an article of commerce which was not admitted free, which often happened when lead was run into busts and statuettes in order to avoid duty, but this was a different case. With respect to the other branch of the subject in which it was alleged that the products of the British Columbia fisheries could not be admitted free of duty into the United States, he had no hesitation in saying, so far as his humble judgement went, they should be allowed to go free as well as similar products on the Atlantic coast. British Columbia was not a portion of Canada when the Treaty was made, but it was now by addition; and all treaties affecting Canada would affect British Columbia precisely as all treaties of commerce between the United States and England applied to Texas, as if it had formed a portion of the Republic at the time those treaties were made. Mr. FLYNN said that this was a very important matter. If the principle upon which the American Government justified the taxing of fish-because it was nothing more or less than putting a duty on fish was recognized, they could tax the whole of the products of our fisheries, for the only kind exported without packages was dried fish, and that was principally sent to the West Indies. Mackerel, herrings, and ale-wives must be sent in packages, therefore, if the American Government could tax lobsters on the plea that they could tax cans, then they could tax the Hon, Sir Jo1n A. Micio aid. barrels in which the fish were contained, so that would go for nothing. He trusted that something more than mere remonstrances from this Government would be made. Mr. MCKAY said the industry of packing lobsters was almost in its infancy in the Lower Provinces, and if a differential duty were imposed on it, it would seriously affect this industry in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, for the export amounted to some $500,000 during the last fiscal year. He had no doubt whatever, that in the course of four or five: It years it would increase fully 200 per cent. cent. This duty could not be imposed on lobster cans because they were of no possible commercial value in the United States after having been used once. was certainly desirable that we should know the position in which we stood, and whether this Legislature was to be followed up by the imposition of similar duties on all the products of our fisheries. We could not allow the principle to be recognized in this treaty, and permit the imposition of such a tax. INSURANCE BILL. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT moved the third reading of the Bill respecting Life doing an insurance business other than Insurance Companies, and Companies Fire and Inland Marine.-Carried. CULLING OF TIMBER CUL On motion of hon. Mr. GEOFFRION, the House went into Committee of the Whole to consider further amendments to the Bill to amend the Act respecting the culling of timber. Mr. PELLETIER in the chair. After the Bill had been amended in certain particulars, Hon. Mr. MITCHELL inquired whether the Bill precluded merchants and lumberers in country places, for example at Chicontine, from employing their own cullers, or compelled them to obtain the services of Quebec cullers. Hon. Mr. GEOFFRION said the Bill had no such intention. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL -It is entirely voluntary? Hon. Mr. GEOFFRION-Certainly. CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS. Hon. Mr. FOURNIER moved the House into Committee to further con |