the support of companies getting the rails. It was said that companies thus favoured would give good security, but such security had been supplied by the Grand Trunk, Great Western, and Northern Railway Companies, yet last year the Northern Railway Company had been forgiven three millions. It was agreed that the other million was to be paid within a certain time; but only the other day the Premier had requested an extension of time touching this matter. The Premier had not always been of the opinion that it was necessary to use steel rails on the Intercolonial Railway. He remembered the time when in 1871, the hon. member for Lanark had moved that it be laid with iron; and the hon. member for Lambton, had voted for this resolution. The purchase of certain steel rails was a monument of the Government's folly; and to hide their blundering they now wished to make it appear, that if these rails were not required for the Pacific, they were needed for the Intercolonial Railroad. He entered his protest against the passage of the resolution which was wrong in principle and would be wrong in practice. Our revenue was not too abundant, and if we did not want the rails in question, they should be sold, after giving proper notice. Mr. MASSON enquired the meaning of the following portion of the resolution, "such rails to be returned weight "for weight to the Government stores "at the junction of such lines when "taken up.' Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE replied that when taken up, they were they were to be returned to the depots at the junction of their lines with the Intercolonial Railway. was Hon. Mr. MITCHELL thought that the wording of the resolution perfectly clear. If transient travel was to be secured, a high rate of speed had to be secured, and to ensure this, the line should be laid from end to end with steel rails. He was surprised to observe the position taken by the hon. member from Hastings, and he heartily approved of the policy of the Government in extending assistance to feeders of the Intercolonial Railway. Mr. WHITE (Hastings) could not see how the rate of speed could be effected by the fact that a portion of the road was laid with iron, and a portion with steel rails; a long delay would take place in the construction of the Pacific Railway if the poliey proposed were pursued. The business of the country should be conducted in a sensible practical way, and these rails, if they were not required, should be sold. Mr. IRVING maintained that the Government proposed to follow the stances by the Great Western, course pursued under similar circumGrand Trunk and Companies. Northern Railway Mr. PLUMB was not aware that in order to properly inaugurate this railway and establish a uniform rate of speed, it should be laid entirely with steel or iron. He was also not aware that such competition was offered by the great central lines as to necessitate the preparations of which mention was made. He thought that the rails in question should be sold to the branch lines. He could not understand exactly how they could be loaned on principles untinged with partizanship that the Government should not be too or favouritism. He was of opinion hasty with regard to the laying of the line with steel rails, as it was conceded that their use was still a matter of experiment, as far as advantage conferred equal to the additional price compared with the price of good iron good ́iron rails was concerned. He considered that the objections raised to the policy of the Government were well taken. House went into Committee on the On motion of Mr. MACKENZIE, the resolution, Mr. Ross (Middlesex) in the Chair. The Committee reported the resolution without amendment. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE moved the resolution be read the second time and concurred in. Mr. BOWELL moved, in amendment:-"That the resolution be not now concurred in, but that it be referred back to the Committee of Whole for the purpose of amending the same so as to provide that the iron rails moved from the Govern- | being over supplied, the price of iron ment railways shall be sold to the rails was only one-half what it was highest bidder, after due notice shall three years ago. If they lent them out now and sold them four years have been given of such intention to sell the same." He moved the mo- hence the price that would be obtained tion because he dissented entirely from for them would be much greater than that which could be got now. the principle and also from the reasons given by the Hon. Prime Minister in moving the resolution. He objected to the loaning out to private companies of rails which were now worth $25, $30 or $35 per ton,and having them returned weight for weight when they would only be of the value of scrap iron. If it was to be the policy of the Government to subsidize local lines that policy should be made applicable to all sections of the country. Mr. FLESHER, in seconding the amendment, said he objected to the motion on the ground that he regarded it as a subsidy of local lines. He thought great difficulty would be experienced in ascertaining when the rails were to be taken up by the local lines. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD said he should certainly vote for the amendment, as he did not approve of the principle contained in the original motion. Property for which the country had no longer any use ought to be sold to the highest bidder in the open market. The principle of the resolution was contrary to the policy the Hon. Premier had advocated both in this House and the Legislature of Ontario. When Mr. Sandfield Macdonald introduced a Bill asking for the sanction of Parliament to a Bill providing for grants to railways, the hon. gentlemen then said that Parliamentary control was a farce unless they had power to vote on each specific appropriation, and the principle of the motion before the House was a complete abnegation of Parliamentary control for the convenience of the Government. If they wanted to make a present of these rails, the companies should be specified. The rails would, most probably, never be returned, for as each rail became worn out it would be thrown aside. Mr. WORKMAN said that it would be a very unprofitable transaction if the Government were to dispose of these rails now. Owing to the market Hon. Mr. HOLTON said it was a question of public policy whether it was fit and proper to aid these connecting local roads which served as feeders to the Government roads, and whether they should not, in the least expensive and least objectionable manner, aid these lines. He was prepared to vindicate his vote on that ground. Mr. MILLS did not see a very great deal of force in the observations made by the right hon. member for Kingston. All the railways of this country might be regarded more or less as public corporations. They were granted powers which were not conferred on any other companies. They were authorized to take away the property of private individuals in the same way as the State. What the Premier proposed to do in this case was to take iron rails and loan them to coriron rails and porations whose existence was only justified on public grounds. Those rails would cost the public nothing, since the Government were to receive the same quality in return, country would be the gainer. while the Mr. WALLACE held that if these rails were of any good they could be used where they were, and the country would have the advantage of them for some years. This resolution was for the purpose of subsidizing local railways. In Ontario the way railroads were built was by private companies which were aided by municipalities and the Local Legislature. The same principle should be adopted in the Lower Provinces. Mr. PLUMB said there could be no objection whatever to granting aid to the lines which would be feeders to the Government railways; but before any such subsidy was granted, no matter how much it was, the names of the lines thus aided should be given. together with the amount of rails they were to receive. He had no doubt such a proposal would receive every consideration if rightly presented to subsidies Caron, Orton, Daoust, Pettes, Platt, Plumb, Parliament, but it was too much to ask the House to vote these subsidies blindly. Hon. Mr. ROBITAILLE wished to know the railways to be subsidized. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said he would give the names of all the railways that could in any sense be considered as feeders. There was the branch which might be necessary to reach deep water at Dalhousie, six or seven miles long; the road starting from Chatham, crossing the Intercolonial, and running towards Fredericton; the road from the harbour of Richibucto to the main line; the road from the main line crossing the counties of Queens and York to Fredericton; the St. Martin and Upham road, and the road from Parrsboro' to Pugwash. These were the whole of the roads he know of that had connection with the Intercolonial by crossing it. Hon. Mr. ROBITAILLE said there was the Baie de Chaleurs Railroad, which was intended to be a feeder of the Intercolonial, and was intended to open up the whole district of Gaspé, with a population of 36,000 souls and an immense trade. The hon. gentleman seemed to know nothing about that road. He (Mr. Robitaille) wished to inform the hon. gentleman about it, so that he could furnish a few of those rails to the Company. Mr. ROCHESTER was of opinion that the mode of disposing of those rails proposed by the Premier was a When they were worn to a good one. certain extent they must be removed, and if laid on the feeding lines the Government roads would indirectly have the benefit of them. It could hardly be expected they would be taken from that country and loaned to railroads in Ontario. Mr. WHITE (Hastings) thought it would be better to sell the rails to the companies for old iron. The House then divided on the amendment, which was rejected on the following division: Desjardins, Farrow, Flesher, Gaudet, Haggart, Harwood, Jones (Leeds), Langevin, Little, Macdonald (Kingston), White (Renfrew) and McDougall (Renfrew), Wright (Pontiac).—37. Macmillan, Archibald, Aylmer, Bain, Barthe, Bertram, Biggar, Blackburn, Blain, Borron, Bowman, Brouse, Buell, Burk, Burpee (St. John), Cartwright, Burpee (Sunbury), Casey, Cauchon, Cheval, Christie, Church," Cockburn, Coffin, Delorme, De St. Georges, DeVeber, Dymond, Ferris, Fiset, Fleming, Fréchette, Galbraith, Gillies, Gillmor, Gordon, Goudge, Hagar, Hall, Higinbotham, Holton, Horton, Huntington, Irving, Kerr, NAYS: Messieurs Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD-Does the hon. gentleman intend to found a Bill on that resolution? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE—No, I do not. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD —This will be a breach of the Constitution. NEW BRUNSWICK FISHERIES. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT having moved that the Speaker do leave the Chair, and the House go into Commit- | At the same time he might say that the tee of Supply, proposition would probably be accepted; but if it turned out that they could not agree on the statement of facts to be submitted to the Court for decision, it was to be understood that this ar rangement would go for nothing. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL observed that he had been frequently consulted by the fishermen in this connection. He had been present at four large meetings; and he had advised them to secure the best legal counsel. He was satisfied that if his proposal was accepted, as it was proposed-in good faith-it would be accepted by the people of his county. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL stated, that before the motion was carried he wished to call the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the question of certain rights and privileges claimed by fishermen of his County and Province, in connection with the enforcement of certain rules and regulations issued by the Government. He had allowed the matter to stand over to so late a period in the Session, owing to the absence of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom he had a suggestion to make which, if accepted, would save a great deal of ill-feeling and bad blood, and Mr. POULIOT urged that fishermen perhaps more serious results, as feeling living on the banks of the St. Lawran very high in this relation. The rence, in his county, possessed in this fishermen had enjoyed these rights for connection a stronger claim for conseventy-five or eighty years—in some sideration than the fishermen whose instances longer-and they believed case was advocated by the hon. memthat they ought not now be deprived ber for Northumberland; he strongly of them, and it would be impossible to recommended this matter to the faremove this impression from their vourable attention of the Hon. Minisminds unless a decision contrary toter of Marine and Fisheries. their views was rendered in a court of law. His proposition was that a case should be selected for submission to the Judges of the Supreme Court, whose ruling would be binding. He made this proposal in the interests of peace and order, right and justice, and he trusted that it would be accepted. In case it was not considered favour ably he would move, "That it be resolved that the Speaker do not now leave the chair, but that this House do take into consideration the regulations made by the Government in May last, with relation to the fishery question, and the fishermen's interests in New Brunswick.” Hon. Mr. SMITH presumed that his hon. friend had authority to speak for the fishermen of his country regarding this matter. In framing the resolu tions, there was no intention and no desire to interfere with any of the riparian rights in question; and he still held that these regulations did not contravene any such right. He would be glad to solve the difficulty in any reasonable manner; and he would request his hon. friend to postpone the matter until to-morrow, in order that he might cousult with his colleagues. i THE BAIE VERTE CANAL. Mr. BURPEE (Sunbury) proceeded to resume his speech on the question. of the Baie Verte Canal. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL wished to be understood that if the hon. gentleman proceeded he should claim the right of reply. Several members objected to the hon. gentleman proceeding with his remarks. Mr. SPEAKER ruled that the hon. gentleman was out of order in speaking on a motion to go into Committee of supply on a subject of which notice had been given. Mr. BROUSE moved the adjournment of the House in order to put matters right. Mr. SPEAKER ruled that it was irregular to speak on a motion for the adjournment of the House on a subject of which notice had been given. Hon. Mr. VAIL said the matter was of considerable importance, and that if the hon. gentleman was allowed to go on, a full discussion should be permitted. He regretted that it had been brought up at so late a period of the Session, as the subject was of a | Annapolis Railroad altogether was character that entitled it to full and $926,000, of which $126,000 was yet earnest consideration. to be voted, but the 80,000 was to be taken from that amount for old material. They had obtained 37 new engines, and other new stock of the very best description, and he supposed there was no road on the continent Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said that as the discussion of the subject was likely to develope into a long debate, he would ask the hon. gentleman not to proceed now, as a long debate could not be indulged in without blocking the pressing business of the House. Mr. BURPEE consented not to proceed with his speech, and the matter dropped. THE AMBROSE SHEA CLAIMS. On motion of Mr. Cartwright, the House then went into Committee of Supply. On item 37, appropriating $11,866 for the purpose of meeting the probable claims of Hon. Ambrose Shea, Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT explained that this item was put in the estimate to meet the possible expenditure which might be necessitated by the report of the Committee of the House which considered the matter. Of course the Government would consider it their duty to enquire into the grounds on which the claim was based. The amount in the Supplementary Estimates was the exact amount without either interest or commission on the sum claimed by that gentleman. The item was passed. CHANGE OF GUAGE ON RAILWAYS. Items 39 and 40 were passed. On item 41, to pay for balance of cost of change of gauge on railway lines, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick ($38,758.12 from 1874-75) $168,768.12. Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN asked what the change of gauge would cost altogether? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said there had been expended up to the present time $821,124, but there were credits for old material sold, which would make a considerable reduction on this amount. There was expended on the Windsor and Annapolis Railway in repairs as well as in change of gauge, very nearly $105,000. The reduction in the expenditure would be about $80,000, by the sale of old material. The expenditure on the Windsor and better supplied with rolling stock and other material. The item was passed. Item 42 was passed without discussion. WHARVES ON LOWER ST. LAWRENCE. On item 43, $124,777 (Vide public accounts 1874-5, part 2, page 398), Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN said he did not see in the details of this amount anything about the surplus sum required for the wharves on the Lower St. Lawrence. The amount voted by Parliament was $23,000; the amount expended, $36,383, making a surplus expenditure of $12,883, or more than fifty per cent. If the Premier would investigate this matter he would see the money had been squandered. There were too many clerks, overseers and foremen for the number of men employed. The reason was the work had been done by days' labor. The Premier must have been deceived or he certainly would not have allowed the work to be done in that way. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said he was obliged to the hon. gentleman for the manner in which he had called attention to the matter. He promised to look into it. He was desirous to have the work of the Department done most carefully and economically. Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN said if the work had been done by contract the appropriation would not have been exceeded. When other work was to be done down there and he hoped the Premier would see his way to making some needed improvement in that direction-he hoped it would be performed by contract. Mr. SMITH (Selkirk) said he would not be present when the vote for boundary surveys would be reached. He wished to ask if it was intended to have the boundary line surveyed and defined between Alaska and Canada. A good many Americans were en |