people of Quebec should control that body. The citizens of that port desired to construct a graving dock, but finding that they were unable to carry out the work unaided, they applied to Government for assistance to the extent of half a million dollars. While acceding to that request the Government acted in the interests of the Dominion in providing that they should have control of the Board which would have charge of disbursing the money. The Government proposed in the Bill to abolish the Quebec Trinity House which appeared to be an excrescence, and thereby a considerable economy would be effected. They proposed also to make the chairman of the corporation of Pilots an ex-officio member of the harbor commission, which arrangement would meet the views of hon. members from Quebec.

Hon. Mr. CAUCHON-He was an ex-officio member of the Trinity House.

Hon. Mr. SMITH said the Bill did not ignore the interests of Quebec, for the Mayors of Quebec and Levis, and the Boards of Trade of those cities would be represented on the Board, as well as the shipping interests of the Dominion. He hoped all opposition to the measure would be withdrawn as it was absurd to expect Parliament to be bound by arrangements of a private nature which might be made.

Sir JOHN MACDONALD said it was quite true that neither Parliament nor the Government were bound by any private conversation. But in the case referred to the representatives of the mercantile interests at Quebec come to Ottawa aud had a series of discussions with several members of the Cabinet, at which an arrangement was arrived at. The Act which carried that arrangement into effect provided for the establishment of a Board of Harbour Commissioners, comprising nine members, three to be appointed by the Governor, two by the Quebec Board of Trade, one by the Levis Board of Trade, and three by ship owners, shippers and consignees. That arrangement was carefully entered into, and no doubt all the facts were stated to Parliament at the time.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said that, supposing the arrangement was arrived at on consultation with representatives of the general shipping interest, the circumstances were entirely changed, because

Hon. Mr. Smith.

Parliament was voting Quebec half t million dollars for a specific purpose.. That would involve an additional burden not only on the Port but on the commerce of the country, and it was only on the condition that the Government obtained control of the Harbour Commission the Government were prepared to advance the money.

Sir JOHN MACDONALD reminded the hon. First Minister that the other night he stated that the graving dock at Quebec was not going to be a Government work but a local work, and for that reason the Government were not bound to state the location of the dock. But the Government by assuming the controlling power render the dock a Government work in fact, and all the arguments of the hon. Flrst Minister the other night, therefore, went for nought.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE explained that his statement made the other night was to the effect that the Government would exercise control on fixing the location of the dock; but they would endeavour to arrive at a decision in accordance with the views of the Harbour Commissioners of both ports. He was not aware that his statements had not been thoroughly consistent.

The Bill was read the second time, and the House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. FERRIS in the chair.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL replying to the previous remarks of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, said the people of the whole Dominion were interested in the free navigation of the St. Lawrence, but the port of Quebec was only incident thereto.

Hon. Mr. SMITH-Who pays the

dues.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL-The people of the port at first.

The first twelve clauses were passed. without further discussion.

On the 13th clause,

Hon. Mr. HOLTON called attention to the fact that the Harbor Commissioners of Quebec had so construed the powers they enjoyed so as to impose upon property not landing at Quebec at all, but merely passing in transitu to Montreal. They imposed dues on goods transferred in the middle of the stream from sea-going vessels too heavily laden to pass up to Mon

treal to lighters. This he was sure was never contemplated by those who framed the Act on this subject. The effect of these charges was to impose double harbor dues on the same cargoes; first, in the middle of the stream at Quebec, and secondly, in the Harbor of Montreal. He suggested that a clause should be introduced to amend the Act in such a way as to put an end to this manifest injustice. Hon. Mr. CAUCHON said such a clause would enable vessels to evade paying any duties. On one cargo that he knew of there was a difference of $100, 000 between the report of the Harbor Commissioners at Quebec and the Harbor Commissioners at Montreal. A portion of the goods after being transhipped into lighters was forwarded by rail. He objected to this discussion taking place in such an irregular manner. It should be introduced by a resolution declaring that the duty imposed at Quebec should be abolished. Then the matter would be fairly brought before Parliament.

Hon. Mr. HOLTON did not think it could be brought up on a more fitting occasion than this. The public policy of the country was involved in the proper distribution of burdens on commerce passing Quebec and Montreal. He would not move an amendment to-day, but would bring the matter before the House on the third reading It was only quite recently that the Act had been so construed by the Harbor Commissioners of Que

bec.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said the point was a most important one in the interests of the trade of the West, and there was also something in what the hon. member for Quebec Centre had said. His (Mr. MITCHELL'S) idea was this, that ships transferring a portion of their cargoes in the middle of the stream to lighters, and did not avail themselves of the Port of Quebec should not pay dues ; but ships that used the wharves at that port could hardly expect to escape paying the tolls. It would be advisable to have a statement from the Minister of Customs showing what portion of goods was transhipped in that way at the Port of Quebec. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said whoever proposed to bring this question up again should be prepared to show in what way this grievance complained of affected the revenues of the Port of Montreal. The Hon. Mr. Holton.

A

point, as he understood it, was this : vessel anchoring in the middle of the stream at Quebec and transhipping some of her cargo to lighters, was afterwards charged for the entire cargo on its arrival at Montreal, whether in the vessel itself or in the lighters. There was one point about this which should be understood. The Harbor Commissioners contended that vessels had the right to use the middle stream opposite Quebec, just as well as they would the middle of the stream at any other point between Montreal and the sea. That was plausible on the face of it, but it must be remembered that the Harbor Commissioners of Quebec were obliged to keep the river clear opposite the city. They were obliged to pay a large price every year for removing anchors and chains from the bottom of the river. At present there was not one chance out of every twenty that a vessel anchoring in the middle of the stream could recover her anchor, in consequence of the state of the bottom of the river. The Harbor Commissioners of Quebec claimed that, being obliged to expend a large amount of money for removing anchors and chains lost in the middle of the river, they should be entitled to more returns in the shape of charges on vessels anchoring there. He did not pretend to understand, precisely, the state of the case, but merely referred to this matter in order that it could be discussed when this subject was before the House again.

Mr. DEVLIN said he would be prepared to-morrow to lay before the House any statement that might be necessary under the circumstances.

Hon. Mr. CAUCHON said this was a public question, and should be dealt with as such. However, he had no objections to delaying the measure in order that the Montreal Harbor Commissioners might be heard, provided that time be given to enable the Quebec Commissioners to be heard also.

Mr. DEVLIN said it was manifestly unjust to impose duties upon ships that did not use the Harbor of Quebec, but merely transhipped in mid-stream.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL pointed out that under the Act of 1873 power was given to the Quebec Harbor Commissioners to impose charges upon goods transhipped at Quebec whether at the wharf or in the stream.

Hon. Mr. HOLTON said the working of the fourth clause was ambiguous. He wished to know whether it was intended to give the Harbor Commissioners power to levy tolls generally on all vessels, or only on vessels using the Graving Dock. Mr. DEVLIN said he had sent a copy of this Bill to the Harbor Commissioners of Montreal, but it could only have reached them yesterday morning: He would therefore ask the Premier not to take the final stage at present, but to leave the door open for representations from the Montreal Harbor Commissioners if any should be made. He would be in a position to-morrow to say whether they had any representations to make or not.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said he did not know what the Montreal Harbor Commissioners could have to say in the mat ter. They had agreed with the Quebec Harbor Commissioners to pay $5,000 a year, and that was all the interest they had in the matter. The acting Chairman of the Montreal Commission was here last week, and wished to obtain for his Board some share in the management of the Graving Dock after it was built. That was out of the question. That could not be done without creating a separate corporation, composed of members from both the Harbor Commissions. He had, how ever, told the acting Chairman that the Montreal Harbor Commissioners would be consulted as to the location of the dock, and the adoption of plans, and the tolls to be imposed upon vessels using the dock would be imposed with their knowledge and concurrence. He believed tho acting Chairman was quite satisfied with that statement. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Chateauguay, the intention of the Bill was that the public should not be burdened with any payment on account of this dock. That being the case they had to consider what the proHon. Mr. Holton

dock would not produce $25,000 per annum in addition to the ordinary cost of its maintenance. The Quebec and Montreal Harbor Commissions agreed to pay out of the general revenues $5,000 each annually, and it was expected that the revenue of the dock would produce the other $15,000. He was not quite sure it would produce that amount, but for the purpose of this Act it was assumed that it would do so. It was intended, therefore, by this Act simply to impose dues upon vessels that would derive a direct benefit from the use of the Graving Dock. He was willing that the clause should be modified, so as to make that point plain.

The modification in the fourth clause in the direction indicated having been made, the various clauses of the Bill were adopted, and the Committee rose and reported the Bill, which was read the third time and passed.

CAPE RACE LIGHT HOUSE.

Bill to repeal an Act of the Legislature of Prince Edward Island for the collection of the Cape Race Light House tolls, was read a second time.

BILLS DISCHARGED.

The following Bills were discharged Act respecting certificates to Masters of Inland and Coasting Ships.

To amend the Act respecting certificates to masters and mates of ships.

SHIPPING OF SEAMEN.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on Bill respecting the Shipping of Seamen in the inland waters of CanadaMr. ARCHIBALD in the chair.

Hon. Mr. HOLTON said as he understood the Bill it was to subject mariners employed on vessels on inland waters to all the provisions now applicable to seamen on ocean-going ships. He did not desire to raise any objections to the Bill, but he doubted whether it would be adapted to the habits of our people engaged on vessels. on the inland waters of Canada.

Mr. NORRIS said some amendments: would be necessary, but he thought the trade of the country required this Bill.

Hon. Mr. SMITH said the Bill did not include all the provisions applicable to seagoing ships, but merely those suited to the inland waters.

mediately let for the enlargement of the Welland and Lachine Canals, and it would be impossible, without delaying the execution of these works, to submit those contracts to Parliament. The rule could not very well be applied to ordinary contracts. The contracts for the Pacific Railway were not ordinary contracts, because they provided for the road becoming, ultimately, the property of the company. On the other hand, the works on the canals were for the country, and the contracts were given to the lowest tender, when sufficient security could be obtained, and there was not, therefore, the same opportunity for intrigue with contractors, The contracts now being let for the grading of certain portions of the Pacific Railway were merely for the preliminary part of the work, and whatever was done would be taken by the ultimate contractors as part payment. He was not sure, therefore, that the consent of Parliament would be required to these contracts, because they were merely for the preliminary part of the work and the same principle was not involved as in involved as in the larger contract, where the parties were to accept certain quantities of land upon certain conditions, obtain a guarantee for a gertain amount, and to have the road become their property upon certain conditions. If they attempted to carry out the principle that all contracts should be submitted to Parliament, there would be most serious difficulties with regard to many of our public works; and he had never advocated that principle, because he knew it would be quite impracticable.

Mr. CURRIER said, in the first place, he hoped the Government would not find it their duty to construct this railway at all: and, in the next place, he hoped if they did go on with the work, they would not let the contracts. without first submitting them to Parliament.

Mr. PLUMB said he was surprised at the statement of the First Minister that he had not, when in opposition, advocated the policy of submitting all important contracts to Parliament. He believed statements directly contrary to that had been made throughout the country, and the late Government had been condemned for not adopting that policy. Not many years ago, the Local Government was attacked and condemned chiefly on that very ground. It seemed to him Hon. Mr. Mackenzie.

that gentlemen opposite took took a Ter different view of this matter from tha which they held when in opposition, The country would be very much surprised at the declaration of the First Minister. Certainly, if any contracts should be submitted to Parliament those for the construction of this work should be.

Mr. IRVING wished to say one word of an explanation. He did not mean to reflect upon the propriety of any contracts that had been given out, nor to express any doubt that what was fair would be done. That was not the point. The point was that the country had been led to expect that such contracts would be submitted to Parliament. If the question of expediency or delay was permitted to prevail in any particular case, it would apply in every case. All large contracts, he held, should be submitted to Parliament.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said he was quite sure he had never led the country or any one to expect that all important contracts would be laid upon the table of the House. He never said a word that could imply such a course because he knew it would be utterly impracticable. But there was a particular class of contracts which should be submitted to Parliament and which should be specified in the Bill authorizing such contracts-such as contracts for the Pacific Railway and with the Montreal Ocean Steamship Company. Such was not the case in the Act authorizing the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, and many other public works. Take for instance the Examining Warehouse at Montreal, an important work, costing two or three hundred thousand dollars. Any one could see that vexatious delays would arise if the contract for a work of that kind could not be let till Parliament assembled. He was quite certain the hon. gentleman was mistaken if he supposed that he (Mr. MACKENZIE) ever led the country to expect he would pursue such a policy. It would be utterly impossible to do so.

Mr. WHITE said one of the most formidable difficulties he had to contend against in his canvass was the charge that the late Government had given out the contract for the Pacific Railway without the consent of Parliament and the assertion that the then Opposition were opposed to such a policy. Mr. RATHBURN, a large mill-owner, and a very influential man in