:LO
ICO
I CM
•CD
"CO
cLiberal Party (Canada)]
Platform of the Liberal
of Canada
Party
F
5081
L5
1895
\TFORM
OF
THE
IBERAL PARTY
OF
CANADA.
Exemplified by Quotations, Tables and Arguments
Based on Census and Trade Eetums,
I
CHARLOTTE TOWN, P. L. I LAND:
.iEO. W. (iARDlNKR, STEAM PRINTFR. ...TFFN STREFT.
180 G.
S-SS-'SS.—'
--.^us cnarges
, investigation was alto-
That the highest interests of Canada demand a removal of this
obstacle to our country's progress by the adoption of a sound fi--.il
jolicy. which, while not doing injustice to any class, will promot
lomestic and foreign trade, and hasten the return of prosperity to or
*-people.
That to that end. the tariff should be reduced to the needs of honest
economical and efficient government;
i — ^Tbat it should be so adjusted as to make free, or to bear as lightly
1 as possible upon, the necessaries of life, and should be so arranged as
i to promote freer trade with the whole world, more particularly with
IjSreat Britain and the United States.
We belieye that the results of the protective system have griev-
ously disappointed thousands ot persons who honestly supported it,
and that the country, in the light of experience, is now prepared to
declare for a sound fiscal policy.
The is^ue between the two political parties on this question is now
clearly defined.
The Government themselves admit the failure of their fiscal policy
and now profess their willingness to make some changes ; but they
say that such changes must be based only on the principle of pro-
tection.
<— ""We denounce the principle of protection as radically unsound and
\ unjust to the masses of the people, and we declare our conviction
\ that any tariff changes based on that principle must fail to afford any
^substantial relief from the burdens under wnicn the country labors.
This issue we unhesitatingly accept, and upon it we await with
the fullest confidence the verdict of the electors of Canada.
2.— ENLARGED MARKETS -RECIPROCITY.
That having regard to the prosperity of Canada and the United
States as adjoining countries, with many mutual interests, it is de-
sirable that there should be the most friendly relations, and broad
and liberal trade intercourse between them ;
That the interests alike of the Dominion and of the Empire would
be materially advanced by the establishing of such relations;
That the period of the old reciprocity treaty was one of marked
prosperity to the British -North American colonies ;
That the pretext under which the Government appealed to the
country in 1891 respecting negotiation for a treaty with the United
States was misleading and dishonest, and intended to deceive the
electorate ;
That no sincere effort has been made by them to obtain a treaty,
but that, on the contrary, it is manifest that the present Government,
controlled as they are by monopolies and combines, are not desirous
of securing such a treaty ;
That the first step towards obtaining the end in view, is to place
a party in power who are sincerely desirous of promoting a treaty on
terms honorable to both countries ;
5
That a fair and liberal reciprocity treaty would develop the great
natural resources of Canada, would enormously increase the trade and
commerce between the two countries, would tend to encourage friendly
relations between the two peoples, would remove many causes which
have in the past provoked irritation and trouble to the Governments of
both countries, and would promote those kindly relations between the
Empire and the Republic which afford the best guarantee for peace
and prosperity.
That the Liberal party is prepared to enter into negotiations with
a view to obtaining such a treaty, including a well considered list of
manufactured articles, and we are satisfied that any treaty so ar-
ranged will receive the assent of Her Majesty's Government, without
whose approval no treaty can be made.
3.— PURITY OF ADMINISTRATION— CONDEMN CORRUPTION.
That the Convention deplores the gross corruption in the manage-
ment and expenditure of public moneys which for years past has ex-
isted under the rule of the Conservative party, and the revelati >ns of
which by the different parliamentary committees of inquiry have
brought disgrace upon the fair name of Canada.
The Government which profited politically by these expenditures
of public moneys of which the people have been defrauded, and which,
nevertheless, have never punished the guilty parties, must be held
responsible for the wrongdoing. We arraign the Government for re-
taining in office a Minister of the Crown proved to have accepted very
large contributions of money for election purposes from the funds of a
railway company, which, while paying the political contributions to
him, a member ef the Government with one hand, was receiving Gov-
ernment subsidies with the other
The conduct of the Minister and the approval of his colleagues,
after the proof became known to them, are calculated to degrade
Canada in the estimation of the world, and deserve the severe con-
demnation of the people.
4.-DEMAND STRICTEST ECONOMY.-DECREASED EXPENDITURE.
We cannot but view with alarm the large increase of the public
debt and of the controllable annual expenditure of the Dominion and
the consequent undue taxation of the people under the Governments
that have been continuously in power since 1878, and we demand the
strictest economy in the administration of the government of the
country.
5— FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT— INDEPENDENCE OF
PARLIAMENT.
That the Convention regrets that by the action of Ministers and
their supporters in Parliament, in one case in which serious charges
were made against a Minister of the Crown, investigation was alto-
gether refused, while in another case the charges preferred were
altered and then referred to a commission appointed upon the advice
of the Ministry, contrary to the well settled practice of Parliament ;
and this Convention affirm :
That it is the ancient and undoubted right of the House of Com-
mons to inquire into all matters of public expenditure, and into all
charges of misconduct in office against Ministers of the Crown, and
the reference of such matters to royal commission created upon the
advice of the accused is at variance with the due responsibility of Min-
isters to the House of Commons, and tends to weaken the authority
of the House over the Executive Government, and this convention
affirms that the powers of the people's representatives in thi§ regard
should on all fitting occasions be upheld.
6-THE LAND FOR THE SETTLER-NOT FOR THE
SPECULATOR.
That in the opinion of this Convention the sales of public lands of
the Dominion should be to actual settlers only, and not to speculators,
upon reasonable terms of settlement, and in such areas as can be
reasonably occupied and cultivated by the settler.
7.— OPPOSE THE DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT— FAVOR THE
PROVINCIAL FRANCHISE.
That the Franchise Act since its introduction has cost the Do-
minion Treasury over a million dollars, besides entailing a heavy ex-
penditure to both political parties.
That each revision involves an additional expenditure of a further
quarter of a million ;
That this expenditure has prevented an annual revision, as origin-
ally intended, in the absence of which young voters entitled to the
franchise have, in numerous instances, been prevented fr^m exercis-
ing their natural rights.
That it has failed to secure uniformity, which was the principal
reason assigned for its introduction ;
That it has produced gross abuses by partizan revising barristers
appointed by the Government of the day;
That its provisions are less liberal than those already existing in
many Provinces of the Dominion, and that in the opinion of this Con-
vention the Act should be repealed, and we should revert to the
Provincial Franchise.
8.-AGAINST THE GERRYMANDER-COUNTY BOUNDARIES
SHOULD BE PRESERVED
That by the Gerrymander Acts, the electoral divisions for the re-
turn of members to the House of Commons have been so made as to
prevent a fair expression of the opinion ot the country at the general
elections, and to secure to the party now in power a strength out of
all proportion greater than the number of electors supporting them
would warrant. To put an end to this abuse, to make the House of
Commons a fair exponent of public opinion, and 10 preserve the his-
toric continuity of counties, it is desirable that in the formation of
electoral divisions, county boundaries be preserved, and that in no
case parts of different counties should be put in one electoral division.
9— THE SENATE DEFECTIVE— AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.
The present constitution of the Senate is inconsistent with the
Federal principal in our system of government, and is in other respects
defective, as it makes the Senate independent of the people and un-
controlled by the public opinion of the country, and should be
so amended as to bring it into harmony with thefprinciples of popular
government.
10— QUESTION OF PROHIBITION-A DOMINION PLEBISCITE.
That whereas public attention is at present much directed to the
consideration of the admittedly great evils of intemperance, it is de-
sirable that the mind of the people should be clearly ascertained on
the question of Prohibition by means of a Dominion Plebiscite.
A PRIMER OF TARIFF REFORM.
Q. What is a tariff?
A. A tariff is a tax imposed on commodities imported from
foreign countries.
Q. What is a tax?
A. A tax is the portion'of property or product whichjthe Govern-
ment takes (by compulsion) from every citizen— not a pauper— for
public purposes.
Q. VVhat are public purposes, in the sense^of this definition?
A. A definition given by the Supreme Court was as follows :
"For the purpose of carrying on the Government in all its machinery
and operations."
Q. What is free trade?*
A. Free trade is the right of every man to freely exchange the
products of his labor and services in such a way as seems to him
most advantageous, subject only to such restrictions as the State may
find necessary to make for the purposes of revenue or for sanitary or
moral considerations. Conversely, it is the denial of the right of a
free government to arbitrarily take from any person any portion of
the product of his labor for the benefit of some other man who has not
earned or paid for it.
* The following definitions of free trade and protection appeared in the
Philadelphia Anifrirnn, of August 7th, 1884. a representative protectionist
paper :
" The term Free Trade, although much discusse.1, is seldom rightly defined.
It does not mean the abolition of custom houses. Nor does it mean the substitu-
tion of direct for indirect taxation, as a few American disciples of the school
have supposed. It means such an adjustment of taxes on imports as wtll
cause no diversion of capital from any channel into which it would otherwise
flow, into any channel opened or favored by the legislation which enacts the
customs. A country may collect its entire revenue by duties on imports, and
yet be an entirely Free Trade country, *</ lony as it does not lay those duties in
xurh a way as to Imd anyone to undertake nny employment or make any investment
he would avoid in the absence of such <iutie*. Thus, the customs duties levied by
England — with a very few exceptions — are not inconsistent with her profession
of being a country that believes in Free Trade. They either are duties on
articles not produced in England, or they are exactly equivalent to the excise
duties levied on the same articles if made at home. They do not lead anyone
to put his money into the home production of an article, because they do not
discriminate in favor of the home producer. It is therefore no concession to
the protective principle when the Democratic platform says that ' since the
foundation of the government custom house duties have furnished its main
source of revenue,' and that ' this system must continue.'
"A protective duty, on the other hand, has for Its object to effect the
diversion of a part of the capital and labor of the people out of the channels in
which It would run otherwise, into channels favored or created by law."
9
Q. What is protection ?
A. Protection, on the ground of advantages accruing directly or
incidentally, advocates and defends the imposition of taxes on imports
for other purposes than those of revenue. The protective system is
opposed to the revenue system because the Government collects
revenue on what comes in, while protection is secured only to the
extent to which commodities are kept out.
Q. What is the idea underlying each ?
A. Free trade assumes that a people like those of Canada might
be left to themselves to decide what is to their own advantage;
Protection assumes that Parliament can better decide what business
the people shall do than the people themselves.
Q. What is a tariff for revenue only?
A. A " tariff for revenue only " is one so framed that all the
taxes which the people pay, the Government shall receive.
Q. What is meant by a tariff for revenue with "incidental
protection?"
A. The adjustment of a tariff for revenue in such a way as to
afford what is termed " incidental protection" is based on the sup-
position that by arranging a scale of clutie < so moderate as only to
restrict and not prevent importations, it is possible to secure sufficient
revenue for the State, and at the same time stimulate domestic
manufactures by increasing the price of competitive foreign products.
Q, Is this double object capable of attainment ?
A. Undoubtedly; but it is also one of the most costly of all
methods of raising revenue. For while revenue to the State accrues <
only from the tax levied on what is imported, another tax, arising
from an increase of price, is also paid by the nation upon all domestic
products that are sold and consumed in competition with the foreign
article. A tariff for revenue so adjusted as to afford incidental pro-
tection, is therefore a system which requires the consumers, who are
the people, to pay much in order that the State may receive little.
PROTECTION INVOLVES THE PRINCIPLE OF SLAVERY.
Q. What is the highest right of property ?
A. The right to freely exchange it for other property.
Q. Bow do you prove this ?
A. If all exchange of property were forbidden, each individual
would be like Robinson Crusoe on his uninhabited island. He would
have to live on what he individually produced or collected, and would
be deprived of all benefits of co-operation with his fellow-men, and
of all the advantages of production that come from diversity of skill
or diversity of natural circumstances. In the absence of all freedom
of exchange between man and rnan, civilization would be impossible; ,
and to the degree in which we impede or obstruct the freedom of ex- 1 , ' n J-,
change -i. e., commercial intercourse,— to that same degree we opposeJH '
the development of civilization.
Q. Is it the intent and result of a "protective "tariff to restrict
exchanges ?
A. It invariably amounts to the same thing, whetner we make
the interchange of commodities costly and difficult by interposing
10
deserts, swamps, uribridged streams, bad roads or bands of robbers
between producers and consumers, or whether, for the benefit of some
private interests, that have done nothing to merit it, we impose a toll
on the commodities transported, and call it a tariff In both cases
there is a greater effort and an increased cost required to produce a
given result, and a diminution of the abundance of the things which
minister to everybody's necessities, comfort and happiness. A twenty
per cent duty is like a bad road; a fifty per cent., like a broad, deep
and rapid river, without any proper facilities for crossing, a seventy-
five per cent., like a swamp Hanking such a river on both sides; while
a hundred per cent- duty, such as is levied upon kerosene oil, is as a
band of robbers, who strip the merchant of nearly all he possesses,
and make him not a little grateful that he escapes with his life-
Q. How does a tariff, enacted for so-called "protection," involve
the principle of slavery ?
A. Any system of law which denies to an individual the right
frp>>1y to exchange the products of his labor, by declaring that A, a
citizen, may trade on equal terms with B, another citizen, but shall
not under equally favorable circumstances trade with C, who lives in
another country, reaffirms in effect the principle of slavery. For both
slavery and the artificial restriction of exchanges deny to the indi-
vidual the right to use the products of his labor according to his own
pleasure, or what may seem to him the best advantage. In other
words, the practical working of both the system of human slavery
and the system of protection is to deprive the individual of a portion
of the fruits of his labor, without making in return any direct com-
pensation.
Q. What is the argument generally put forth by protectionists
to justify the restriction of freedom of exchanges ?
A. That any PRESENT loss or injury resulting from such restric-
tion to the individual will be more than compensated to him
INDIRECTLY, as a citizen of the State.
Q. Was not this essentially the argument used to justify
slavery ?
A. Yes. The plea for slavery asserted that the system was
really for the good of the slaves, and that any deprivation endured bv
them for the good of society — meaning the masters— would be fully
compensated to them, through moral discipline, if not in this world,
certainly hi the world to come. It made the slave owners, who
enacted the laws, the sole judges of the question.
Q. Have not the same arguments employed for the restriction of
exchanges— i. e.. indirect or future individual or social benefit as a
justification for present personal restriction or injury— been always
used to justify every encroachment by despotic governments on the
freedom of the individual?
A. Yes; and especially in warrant of State persecution for heresy
or unbelief; of enforced conformity with State religions; of abridging
the liberty of speech and of the press and of restricting the right of
suffrage. In short, the restriction of freedom of exchange for the
purpose of subserving private interests, is one of those acts on the
part of the State which are utterly antagonistic to the the principles
of free government; and which, if fully carried out, would be
absolutely destructive of it.
11
THE TWO POLICIES.
What are the broad distinctions dividing the two great political
parties in Canada ?
FREE TRADE as against PROTECTION, RECIPROCITY as against
RESTRICTION, and Honest Economical Government as against the
-Extravagance, Mismanagement and Corruption which has charac-
terized Canada's Government for years past!
Other important issues relating to The Senate, Prohibition and
other matters also divide the parties, but at present the great Trade
Question over-rides all else.
The policy known as the N. P., which has been in force sincti
1878, is sought to be still longer retained by the Conservatiyes.
Its basic principle is the imposition of duties so high that foreign
manufactures will be excluded, and their manufacture in Canaqa
encouraged and promoted, and the argument used is that domestic
competition will be sufficient to ;keep prices down and prevent the
consumer being fleeced.
The Liberals object to this policy as being unjust to the State,
unjust to the consumer, and calculated to promote extravagance and
to diminish instead of enlarge our commerce
They contend that the experience of the sixteen years past has
confirmed their predictions, and that in the words of the Ottawa
platform the N. P. has
1. Decreased the value of farm and other landed property.
2. Oppressed the masses to the enrichment of a few.
3. Checked immigration.
4. Caused great loss of population.
5. Impeded commerce.
6. Discriminated against Great Britain.
The taxes collected under the N. P. and paid direct to the
Treasury have since the year 1878 amounted to nearly ONE
HUNDRED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS more than would have
been taken out of the people had the McKenzie revenue tariff been
maintained instead of the N. P. tariff.
Notwithstanding this enormous increase of taxation there was a
DEFICIT
last year of $1,000,000 odd, and this year it is very much greater. Th«
DEFICIT, as the returns up to end of January, 1895,ishow, will
at the end of the fl8cal}year,;Five Millions of Dollars.
12
But the './•" >•.«/'•' laid upon the people and i»n<i <nfo the
'/•// is only a small proportion of the /•"// tn.>-ttts<ni, the greater
part of which the people are compelled to pay to t/te protected
industries.
The -best authories place this at $2 for every $ 1 paid to the
Treasury.
Even if it were only equal to that paid into the Treasury it would
be enormous.
The question arises right on the threshold of the argument, why
should a law be passed enabling one man or several men formed into
a company, to compel people to pay him or them a much larger sum
for the goods they bny than they would be obliged to paj in the open
market.
If any particular man, sa> John Smith, was able to get a law
passed at Ottawa saying that he should have a monopoly in Canada
of the sale of any particular article, whether rope, cotton, iron,
woolens, oil, rice, sugar or any other article, and should have the
right to charge what price he pleased up to a certain fixed price far
beyond that for which it could be purchased abroad, every elector
would at onee say: Why, that's an immoral and unjust and an unfair
law.
And yet the N. P. tariff is just such a law and has just such an
effect, the only difference being that its favorites are as a rule
COMPANIES and not individuals.
THE N. P. MONOPOLY.
Experience has shown tkat when foreign goods are excluded
and the Canadian market kept close for Canadian manufactures,
unrestrained by foreign competition, the result is the formation
of COMBINES AND MONOPOLIES, which control the market,
buy up all Canadian competition and charge the consumer for
his goods the utmost Jimit the law (N. P.) allou's.
Such to-day is the case with CORDAGE, COTTONS, WOOLENS,
SUGAR, ETC., ETC., ETC.
For a few years internal competition had the effect of keep-
ing down the prices, but as the Canadian market was a limited
one,' the factories soon cut each other's throats, and now either
by a MONOPOLY, such as exists in the cotton and cordage trade,
or by a monopoly as in the iron trade, competition does not exist,
the ordinary laws regulating prices, are ignored, and these pet
industries are enable to fleece the consumer at their own sweet
will, and all by virtue of a law passed by the people fleeced.
THE LIBERAL POLICY.
The policy of the Liberal party is in the first place:
1. To reduce the annual expenditure to the lowest sum
compatible with honest economical government.
13
2. To abolish all unnecessary expenditures and curtail and
reduce those which, though necessary, are extravagant.
3. To raise by taxation only just so muck money as is
absolutely necessary to carry on the government.
4. To so adjust the customs tariff that ALL THE TAXES
PAID THROUGH IT SHALL GO INTO THE TREASUEY
AND NOT INTO THE COFFERS OF A FEW FAVORED
INDUSTRIES.
The present Government say they cannot " run the
machinery" for less than the present expenditure, and that the
present customs tariff (which collects $20,000,000 for the
Treasury and more than $20,000,000 besides for the combines,
trusts and other protected industries) is the best they can devise.
Mr. Foster, in his Budget speech of 1894, expressly and
deliberately stated THAT THE MAIN OBJECT IN FRAMING
A TARIFF OUGHT NOT TO BE TO RAISE REVENUE
FOR THE COUNTRY, BUT TO DEVELOP THE INDUS-
TRIES OF THE COUNTRY.
His,exact words were : "So far as the revenue aspect is
" concerned, it is OF INFINITELY LESS IMPORTANCE than
" the effect and details of the tariff upon the trade and develop-
" mentof a country."
As opposed to all this
The Liberal party says that several millions may be lopped
off the present expenditure without injuring the public service.
(Hon. D. Mills estimates the possible saving at $4,000,000.)
The Liberals further say that while all citizens according to
their means should be taxed for the support of the national
government, to tax them for the support of private enterprise^,
and under cover of law to take money from one citizen's purse
to enrich another, is a gross injustice and "legalized robbery."
Now in order properly to understand the workiug of the
N. P. we ought to consider carefully how we stood financially in
1878, how we stand financially to-day, and how our present
DEBT, TAXATION AND EXPENDITURE compares with that
of the revenne tariff period of Mr. McKenzie, and how that great
test of national wealth and progress, viz.: the population of the
country stands and compares with former periods.
-At the end of the financial year 1878, when Mr. McKenzie
went out of power, the nett debt of the Dominion was
$140,362,069.91.
DEBT AND EXPENDITURE LARGELY INCREASED.
The Conservative Government has increased this debt since
then nearly $110,000,000, until, as shown by the Canada
Gazette of February 7, it stood, .31 January, 1895, at close upon
$250,000,000. equal to**50 for every man, woman and child in
l lie Dominion.
N o w i t may well be asked by any man in the Maritime Provinces
How much of this $110,000,000 increased public debt has been
spent in the Maritime Provinces! (y course a large sum went to
pay for the Canadian Pacific Railway and other large snms in
building new canals and deepening others, but after making
every reasonable allowance for important and necessary PUBLIC
\vn»Ks, it is evident that there must have been GEOSS AND
UNBOUNDED EXTRAVAGANCE, while in many cases the
country was DEFRAUDED AND ROBBED.
Taking each ten years and starting at Confederation we find
the nettdebt as follows: (See Public Accounts, 1894, p. xxx.)
1867.. . $ 75,728,641.37
1877 132,235,309.00
1887 227,314,775.44
1*94 246,183,029.48
1895, Jan. 31 249,407,462.55
Now look at our nett taxes paid to the Government during
same periods. These taxes consist of customs and excise duties
aloae.
In 1867 we paid in taxes, - $ 11,700,681.08
" 1877 •< 17,697,924.00
" 1887 " 28,687,000.00
" 1894 " " 27,579,203.00
(See Public Accounts, 1894, p. xxxii.)
In the intervening years of 1889, 1890 and 1891 we paid
respectively $30,613,522, $31,587,071, and $30,314,151.
Now while the public debt and the taxes have increased as
shown, how has the annual expenditure been maintained?
We give the figures taken from the Public Accounts as
follows:
TOTAL EXPENDITURE.
1867-8 , . .$ 13,486,092.00
1877-8 L'3,503,158.25
3887-8 36,718,494.79
1893-4 37,585,025.52
15
INCREASED THE TAXES.
It will thus be seen that while the Conservatives have
INCREASED the people's taxes ACTUALLY PAID INTO THE
TREASURY by over $10,000,000 each year since they came into
power in 1878, they have also increased the annual expenditure
over that incurred in Mr. McKenzie's time over $14,000,000
yearly, and at the same time have added to the public nett debt
$110,000,000. The following figures show the comparison be-
tween 1878 and 1894.
1878. 1894.
Customs taxation, - $ 12,782,824 $ 19,198,114
Total taxation, 17,841,938 27,579,203
Expenditure, 23,503,153 37,585,025
Nett debt, 140,362,069 249,407,462
These enormous sums can hardly be fully appreciated by an
average man. But comparisons with other countries may assist
in enabling one* to grasp their meaning.
Great Britain has for more than a century past beeii
engaged in costly wars by land and sea and in all parts of the
world. She has had necessarily to pile up an enormous public
debt. Yet to-day the annual charge for the PUBLIC DEBT OF
GREAT BRITAIN is only 31 per cent, of its revenue, while
that of Canada is not less than 41 per cent. In other words.
Great Britain has, out of every $100 of revenue collected by
customs and excise taxes, to put by $31 to defray the aunual
charges of it public debt; while out of every $100 Canada collects
by customs and excise taxes she has to put by $41 to defray the
annual charges of her debt. These charges embrace the interest
on the debt and the sinking fund which we are obliged by law
to keep up.
Now look at the UNITED STATES. Their debt practically
speaking is paid off. It is now only $12 per head of the
population and it only takes $7 out of every $100 they collect by
customs and excise taxes to pay the interest and charges upon it.
So that while CANADA has to take $41 out of every $100
she collects by customs and excise taxes to pay the interest and
charges on her debt, GREAT BRITAIN only has to take $31 for
a similar purpose, and the UNITED STATES only $7.
16
But the Tory orator says under the McKenzie Government
you had nothing but
DEFICITS,
while the Conservative Government has had a series of sur-
plusses. This statement is far from accurate. The Public Ac-
counts shows, p. xxxiii., that there were surpluses in 1873-74 of
$888,775.79—1874-75 of $935,644.00.
It is true that in the three following years there were
deficits as follows: 1875-76— $1,900,785— 1876-77 1,460,027—
1877-78—1,128,146.
But it must never be forgotten that these deficits were not
incurred by any extravagance or increase in the expenditure
but because the taxation of the people was reduced. As a matter
of fact nearly $3,000,000 less taxes were raised in each of the
years 1876-77 and 1877-78 than were raised in 1873-74 or 1874-75
and of course many millions less than the Tory Government
has since raised.
The reduction was mainly caused by the cheapness of goods
imported, the customs duties being levied by an ad valorem rate
or so much per hundred upon the cost. It is manifest therefor
that if and when the cost of the goods imported is reduced say
one-third, the tax paid by the people to the Government is
greatly reduced, so it was in the three years referred to owing
to the world wide depression then existing and thus it was that
deficits occurred.
Governments are as a rule only blameable for deficits when
they are guilty of EXTRAVAGANT OR INJUSTIFIABLE
EXPENDITURE and not simply because the amount of taxation
they raise from the people is small.
But what is the record of the Tory Government since 1878 in
this point.
DEFICITS.
In 1878-9 the deficit was - $1,937,999
" 1879-80 " " ;,227
" 1884 5 " " J. 240,058
" 1885-6 " " 5,834,571
" 1887-8 " " 810,031
" 1893-4 " " 1,210,332
For the present year 1895 the returns are of course not com-
plete but we have the official returns for the seven months end-
ing January 31st, published in Canada Gazette and they show
that while there was a deficit of $1,210,332 for the whole year
17
1893-4 the REVENUE for the seven months ending January 1895
was $2,159,720 less than for the corresponding period in 1893-4
while the expenditure was $738,310 greater. We are therefore
almost THEEE MILLION DOLLAES worse off on the 31st
January 1895, tkau on 31st January 1894, and THE DEFICIT
when the fiscal year ends on 1st July, CANNOT WELL BE
LESS THAN FIVE MILLIONS and may considerably exceed it.
With our financial condition thus DARK, with huge deficits
and a rapidly falling revenue, with our taxes increased to the
limit of the people's endurnce, the Government, instead of cur-
tailing expenditure, have largely increased it; while our debt
has reached figures which almost force thoughtful men to doubt
our fature.
GREAT LOSS OF POPULATION.
The CENSUS RETURNS show that excluding altogether the
886,000 immigrants who camej to Canada during the ten years,
1881 to 1891, there should have been an increase of population
by NATURAL INCREASE ALONE (calculated at 2 p.c. a year)
of not less than 900,000. The actual increase was in round
figures 500,000. The LOSS IN NATIVE BORN POPULATION
WAS THEREFORE IN THE TEN YEARS 400,000. If to this
however be added the 886,000 immigrants who according to the
statistics of the department of agriculture were brought into
this country during these ten years at a cost of according to the
Public Accounts, p. iiv. about $3,000,000, the actual exodus from
Canada during the ten years 1881 to 1891 amounted to OVER
1,200,000 PERSONS or 12o,000 EACH YEAR. The United
States census agrees with ours in this regard and shows that of
every male born in Canada, between the ages of twenty and
fifty years, one in three is found in the United States.
The following Table is compiled from the census returns by
the Dominion Statistician Johnson and published in the
Statistical Year Book for 1893, p. 119.
POPULATION OF CANADA, 1871, 1881 AND 1891.
PROVINCES.
1871
1881
Increase,
Per Cent.
1891
Increase,
Per Cent.
Ontario, -
1,620,851
J ,926,922
18.6
2,114,321
9.73
Quebec,
1,191,516
1,359,027
14.0
1,488,535
9.53
Nova Scotia,
387,800
440,572
13.6
450,396
2.23
New Brunswick, 285,594
321,233
12.4
321,263
NONE
Manitoba, 18,995
62,260
247.2
152,506
144.95
British Columbia, 36,247
40,459
36.4
98,173
98.49
Prince Ed. Island, 94,021
108,891
15.8
109,078 0.17
The Territories,
56,446
i 98,967 ::>.:>:;
18
These official figures show that the Maritime Provinces have
suffered in the matter of the exodus worse than any of the others,
having lost during the ten years between 1881 and 1891 allowing
for natural increase of the population 165,000 PERSONS.
The increase of population in the Maritime Provinces between
1871 and 1881 was Io3,281 allowing for natural increase at 2 per
cent, a year it should have been 153,480.
The Exodus therefore during that period reached 50,000 or
5000 a year.
The increase between 1881 and 1891 was only 10,000. Allowing
for natural increase at 2 per cent, a year, it should have been
175,000.
The exodus therefore during that period was 165,000 or 16,500
each year.
During the revenue tariff period, therefore, which covered
nearly all the years 1871 to 1881 the prosperity of the Maritime
Provinces, as evidenced by increase of population, if not all that
could be desired, was at least respectable.
During the ten years of a protective policy that prosperity,
as similarly evidenced, was altogether wanting. An exodus of
165,000 persons in ten years from a population of 870,696,
inhabiting such a rich and highly favored part of the world as
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P. E. Island, is APPALLING.
But, say the Protectionists, people have gone to Manitoba
and the Northwest and British Columbia.
Would that it were so. The inexorable facts recorded in the
census returns absolutely disprove any such theory. They show
that the total number of Maritime Province people to be found in
1891 in Manitoba, Northwest Territories and British Columbia
was 4,280. What became of the other 160,000! Every one
knows THEY WENT TO THE UNITED STATES.
19
NEW BRUNSWICK UNDER THE N. P.
That the Province of New Brunswick has not prospered
under the N. P. is very apparent. A simple statement of facts
speaks eloquently against a protective tariff. Despite its vast
forest wealth, agricultural resources and valuable fisheries, it
presents arrested development. Note this contrast :—
Increased population from 1871 to 1881 35,639
Increased population from 1881 to 1891 only 30
The city of Moncton, through its favorable situation as a
railway centre has, through special causes, grown rapidly in both
decades; and deducting the increase in the city of Moncton the
statistics for the entire province outside the city is rather start-
ling. Note the contrast : —
Provincial Increase (less Moncton) from 1871 to 1881 - 32,207
Provincial DECEEASE (less Moncton) from 1881 to 1891 3,703
This is the province, one of whose representatives, Sir
Leonard Tilley, as finance minister advised the merchants to
clap on full sail for twenty years of prosperity.
But again the Protectionist argues the tendency has been of
late years for the rural population to migrate to the cities.
Has that been the case in the Maritime Provinces? Unfor-
tunately, no! The people have left us altogether.
• x
Look at the following tables compiled from the census
reports and to be found on pages 123 and 124 of the Government
Statistical Abstract for 1894:
POPULATION OF CANADA BY ELECTORAL DISTRICTS, 1891 and 1881.
NOVJL SCOTIA.
Electoral Districts.
1S>81.
1891,
Incr.'H-' !)••<•
Nam bur. :
Annanolis
20,598
LS.060 ;
31,258
26,720
27,368
1!»,881
17.808
36,100
31,817
23,359
25,651
28,469
28,583
35,535
10,577
15,121
14,913
12,470
21,284
19,350
16,114
34,244
27,160
.-)29
IM.897
17,195
38,495
32863
22,052
25,779
22,489
31,075
34,541
10,610
14,399
14,956
12,432
22,216
—1,248 — 60
—1,946 —107
2,986 90
440 10
7,1'.! 20-1
16
_ 613 — 34
2,395 6-8
1,046 33
__1,307 — 5-6
128 05
— 980 — 4-0
2,492 N-7
— 994 — 27
:;3 03
— 722 — 47
43 0-3
— 38J — 0-3
!>32 4:;
Antiijonish
dupe Breton
*/lKuJ • •
(jlUy»; borOU^h
Halifax CCitv)
Halifax (Ccunty)
Hunt's
Kinrr'«j
•*§US ' • •
Ijiiru-nbun*
Pictou
Queen's*
Shelburnc
Yarmouth . .
NEW BRUNSWICK.
Albert «!
1 -2 329
10,971
—1,358
—11-0
Ciirlcton . .
265
°2 529
— 836
— 36
Charlotte
20,087
23,752
—2
— 8'9
Gloucester
21,014
24,897
, 3.283
15-2
Kent
22,618
23,845
1.227
5-4
Kind's . . \ .
2o,017
23,087
—2,530
— 9'8
Northumberland
25109
25,713
604
24
Queen's
14,107
12,152
—1.865
—133
Resti^ouche
7,o
:',08
1,250
177
St. John (City)
26,127
24,184
—1,943
— 7-4
St. John (Ccuntv)
20,839
2 0,390
—1,449
— :>.4
Sunbury
6,651
5,762
— 889
—13-3
Victoria
15,686
18,217
2,531
16-1
Westmorland
York
37,719
30,397
41,477
30,979
3,758
582
9-9
19
P. E. ISLAND.
King's
Prince
Queen's. .
26,433
34,347
48.111
26,633
36,470
45.975
200
2,123
—2.136
07
6-2
— 4-4
21
Now here we have the alarming fact that seventeen counties
in the Maritime Provinces, eight in Nova Scotia, eight in New
Brunswick and one in P. B. Island, HAVE NOT ONLY LOST ALL
THEIR NATURAL INCREASE OF POPULATION, BUT HAVE
ACTUALLY 'FEWER PEOPLE THAN THEY HAD TEN
YEARS AGO.
If the process continues it will take only a few years to de-
populate them altogether.
But how about the Maritime Cities ! !
Unfortunately their plight is if anything worse.
Turn again to the record. The census returns show the fol-
lowing as the result of the census in cities in the Maritime
Provinces of 5,000 inhabitants in 1881 and 1891;
Cities.
1891.
1891.
Increase or Decrease
Number.
Per Cent.
St. John,
Halifax,
Charlottetown,
Moncton,
Fredericton, -
Yarmouth,
Truro,
Total,
41,353
36,100
11,485
5,032
6,218
3.485
3,461
39,178
38,556
11,374
8,765
6,502
6,089
5,102
—2,174
2,456
— Ill
3,733
284
2,604
1,641
107,134
115,567
Now supposing the natural increase of population in these
cities had been retained, how would their population have
respectively stood in 1891:
1881.
Natural increase
Population as it
Actual loss or gain in
Population
2 per ct. per year
should have
'increased.
Population.
St. John,
41,353
8,270
49,623
—10,444
Halifax,
36,100
7,220
43,320
— 4,764
Charlottetown,
11,485
2,297
13,782
— 2,308
Moncton,
5,032
1,006
0,038
+ 2,727
Fredericton,
6,218
1,243
7,461
— 959
Yai mouth
3,485
697
4,182
+ 1,907
Truro,
3,461
692
4,153
+ 947
Total, 107,134 21,425 128,559 12,992
Total population of the above seven cities as they would
have been in 1891 if they had retained their natural
increase, . 128,559
Total population as shown by census returns, 1891,
Actual loss in 10 years,
22
A SAMPLE NEW BRUNSWICK COUNTY.
Albert County, New Brunswick, is a striking illustration of
the baneful effects of the National Policy. It is a county with
a large sea-board, rich agricultural resources, fine stone quarries,
unrivalled deposits of plaster, and ship-owners' investments.
Here is the county's record until the two fiscal policies:
From 1871 to. 1881 Albert County INCREASED under a low
revenue tariff, 1,657.
From 1881 to 1891 Albert County DECREASED under a high
protective tariff, 1,358.
In the past ten years the county has lost within 300 of its
total gain of the ten years preceding.
SHIPPING.
One of the great industries of the Maritime Provinces was its
shipping. The following tables indicate its RISE, progress, and
decadence.
•
Statement of the shipping of the Maritime Provinces for the
years 1873, 1878 and 1893, as shown by the Marine and Fisheries
Report, 1894, page cvi.:
/
Nova Scotia. New Brunswick. P.E. Island.
Tonnage. Tonnage. Tonnage.
is?:; 449,701 27 7,850 38,918
1878 553,368 335,965 54,250
3893 396,263 156,086 20,970
From the foregoing table it appears that while the registered
tonnage of the three Provinces in 1873 was as follows :
Tons.
Nova Scotia 449,701
New Brunswick 227,840
P. E.Island 38,918
Total, 716,469 tons.
23
It had increased in the year 1878 to the following figures:
Nova Scotia 553,368
New Brunswick 335,965
P. E. Island 54,250
Total 943,783 tons.
or an increase of 237,114 tons which, at the average value per ton
estimated by the Marine Department of $30, make AN IN-
CEEASE in the value of the registered tonnage of $7,113,42o
between the years 1873 and 1878.
, The National Policy was introduced in 1879, and has con- •-
tinned in force ever since. The registered tonnage in 1893 was
Nova Scotia 396,268
New Brunswick 156,086
P. E. Island 20,970
Total, 573,319 tons,
or a DECBEASE OE LOSS of 370,264 tons, and at the same esti-
mate of $30 per ton of $11,108,220.
It is contended that this deplorable decrease is not charge-
able to the National Policy and certainly there were other
causes which contributed to bring it about.
But while credit is taken to that Policy for every increase
in the industries of the people,since it was introduced, it is well
to call attention to the fact, that one of the chief industries and
modes of investing their money of the people of the Maritime
Provinces HAS ALARMINGLY DECEEASED UNDEE IT.
The money formerly invested in ships has been withdrawn
or lost, and to a considerable extent that portion withdrawn has
been invested in those FACTOEIE3 or INDUSTEIES such as
the SUGAE and COTTON FACTOBIES which are not indigenous
to the country but have been called into being and are main-
tained by the NATIONAL POLICY.
If instead of protecting by heavy taxation on the people the
sugar and cotton industries, and so inducing capitalists to with-
draw their capital from the natural industries of the country
and invest it in these exotic manufactures, our people had been
encouraged and induced in all legitimate ways, to change their
wooden ships for iron and steel ships, as was done in Great
Britain, we would not have had the deplorable record as shown
above staring us in the face.
24
In the foregoing figures no reference has been made to s-in->-
building.
The facts are as follows :
NOVA SCOTIA BUILT.
No. of Vessels. Tonnage.
1874 17-") 84,480 Value at $40 per ton $3,379,200
1878 167 49,784 1,991.360
1893 111 15,089 603360
NEW BRUNSWICK BUILT.
No. of Vessels. Tonnago.
1874 90 42,027 Value at $40 per ton, $1,681,080
ls78 56 . 27,368 " 1,094,720
1893 119 2,819 112,760
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND BUILT.
No of Vessels. Tonnage.
I,s74 88 24,634 Value at $40 per ton, $ 9-v
1878 28 10,348 415,280
1893 3 634 25,360
The industry is practically extinct.
SEA-GOING SHIPPING.
Pardonable pride is exhibited by Canadians from /time to
time in pointing to the fact that Canada is the Fifth mercantile
power in the world.
Statistics show however that the National Policy or high
taxation is ''getting in its Work" in this direction as well as in
others.
" Protection " as Sir Charles Tupper once observed before
he became a pervert from Free Trade principles, "has swept the
American Flag from the sea." Let us in Canada beware lest our
continuance in maintaining the odious system may produce the
same results.
To day of the ocean borne freight to and from Canada, only
about 20 is carried in Canadian bottoms, while 80 is carried in
British and Foreign ships.
Below we give a table from Trade and navigation returns for
1894 p. 576, showing the SEAGOING VESSELS inwards and
outwards during the year ending June 30, 1893.
25
TOTAL SEA- GOING VESSELS, Inwards and Outwards, 1893.
Quantity of Freight,
Tons Register. Tons weight. Crew, Number
British, 3,780,915 1,698,734 106,861
Canadian, 2,189,725 805,741 109,952
Foreign, 4,637,771 1,086,056 200,822
10,608,611 3,590,531 417,025
This shows that of 10,608,611 tons shipping employed in
carrying the 3,590,531 tons weight of freight to and from Canada
only about one-fifth is Canadian. Of the 417,635 men employed only
109,952 are employed in Canadian ships.
Nearly 80 p.c. of the profits of Canada's seagoing carrying trade
goes to Foreigners and others ontside of Canada. If we rejoice
that Canada's exports have increased our joy must be tempered
with the knowledge, that we employ Foreign bottoms to carry
them away and that foreigners enjoy the profits of the carriage.
In 1878, matters were not so bad. The statistical abstract
p. 625, shows that in that year, the seagoing shipping entered and
cleared at Canadian Ports with cargo and in Ballast was as
follows :
BRITISH. CANADIAN. FOREIGN.
Tons Register. Tons Register. Tons Register. Total Tonnage
1878 2,294,688 1,928,531 2,461,165 6,684,384
This shows that in 1878 of the total tonnage engaged about
29 p.c. was Canadian. Instead of increasing,our relative proportion
in 1893 was reduced to 20 p. c.
The number of crews employed that year is not given in the
"Statistical Eeport."
Compare the foregoing tables and facts with similar tables
as regards British shipping.
The Registered tonnage of Great Britain (see Statesman's
year Book) was in 1850, 3,096,000 ; 1860, 4,325,000 j 1880, 6,230,-
000 ; 1092, 8,644,754. « ^r;
The greatest part of the entire international tradejof^the
world is conducted in British bottoms.
HALIFAX AS A WINTER PORT.
The Tories wish to make the Haligonians believe they have
built up Halifax as the winter port in Canada and diverted traffic
from American ports. But this is not true. In 1893 the ocean
borne tonnage over the I. C. B. to and from Halifax was only
19,714 tons as against 18,354 tons in 1878, a year of depression.
Six years ago (in 1888) the ocean borne tonnage was nearly three
times as large as in 1893. and in 1883 (ten years before) it was
^(} tons as against i9,7i4 tons iu 1893. What do these statis-
tics show t That the N. P. has dwarfed the natural growth of
Halifax as a winter port and crippled the earning ability of the
Intercolonial Railway.
COTTON MILLS AND SUGAR REFINERIES.
Now as to these COTTON AND SUGAR MILLS and the
monies invested in them, let us look at the census returns.
New Brunswick had in 1891 five mills, viz., St. Croix,
Courtenay Bay, Parks, Moncton, and Marysville.
The capital invested in them in Land, Buildings, Machinery
and working capital, $2,733,000.
They employed 625 men, 853 women, 147 boys under 16, 127
girls. Total hands, 1752.
They paid out in wages $498,000 or $284 each employee.
Nova Scotia had in 1891 two mills, one in Halifax and one in
Windsor had a total capital in land, $21,114, buildings, $111,883,
machinery, $283,988, working capital, $158,800, making in all
$575,785.
They employed 184 men, 190 women, 56 boys, 33 girls, total
463. To whom were paid $90,753, wages yearly or $196 per
head.
What returns were made on the capital. The Marysville
Cotton Factory is a private enterprise owned and run under very
exceptional circumstances by a man of indomitable energy, Mr.
ALEX. GIBSON. He pays NO TAXES, PAYS nothing for. fuel,
using the refuse of his saw mills therefor and manages himself.
Such a mill ought to pay a return and would no doubt do
so under any Government Policy. When unrestricted re-
ceprocity was being discussed, Mr. Gibson felt so sure of his
ability to compete with the American manufacturer that he is
reported to have expressed himself as williqgfco abandon Pro-
tection if he could gain access for his wares to the American
market.
The history of the other mills is pretty much the same. The
mills were bonded to raise money to carry on their business.
Restricted to a small market in Canada fiercely competing
in that market with each other and the many other Canadian
mills, the production far exceeded the demand, the prices fell,
the mills closed down, the mortgagees foreclosed, the mills were
sold and the result was that the original capitalists lost the
mills and EVERY DOLLAR OF THEIR CAPITAL INVESTED
IN THEM and went for years without any dividend or return.
27
In the case of the Moncton Mills the original shareholders
got back some 17 or 20 cents on the dollar of their investment.
To-day they are all (excepting Gibsons) in a HUGE COM-
BINE, governed by a central committee at Montreal, sometimes
shut down, other times running on part time, and entirely
managed in the interests of the monopolists.
The Protective Tariff permits and enables this combine, all
competition being done away with and foreign competition
prohibited by the Tariff, to charge just such prices as the
monopolists please, limited only by the prices charged for
foreign goods after paying the duties.
SUGAR.
Great credit is claimed by the Protectionists for having
taken off the duties upon sugar some years ago, and as they say
reduced the, TAXATION OF THE PEOPLE SOME THEEE
AND A HALF MILLIONS OF DOLLAES YEA ELY.
Mr. Foster in his Budget speech last year said : —
" The duties on glass have been reduced ; the duties on salt
" have been reduced one half and more than all, three years ago
" the duty on raw sugar was completely taken off, EEMITTING
''TAXATION to the amount that had formerly been collected.''
This claim explicitly admits that the duties they exacted on
sugar for YEAES WEEE TAXES PAID BY THE PEOPLE.
This was formerly denied. Its admission is most important not
only as regards sugar but all other articles taxed by duties.
It must not be forgotten that these sugar taxes were only
removed when the Government" was forced to do so by'the action
of the United States Government in reducing the sugar duties
there.
All sugar duties however are not removed, sixty-four one-
huudredths, or practically f of a cent per Ib. is still exacted OH
Eefimed Sugar.
This gives a substantial protection to the sugar refiners,
who importing the raw sugar FEEE, refine it, sell it to the con-
sumer and make him pay TO THEM, in IXCEEASED PEICE,
the duty of f of a cent, per Ib. which he would have paid into
the Treasury, if he imported his sugar. In this way the con-
sumer pays an enormous tax upon sugar. What it amounts to
cannot be estimated with mathematical accuracy, because it is
not known whether the refiner charges the consumer with the
full protection of sixty-four one-hundredths or £ of a cent per
Ib. on every pound consumed. If he does the tax the sugar
consumer paid would amount to over $1,500,000. But if he
only paid § of that protective tax, it would reach the respec-
28
table sum of over one million dollars. All of which goes into
the pockets of the sngar refiners.
In 1893 WE IMPORTED 1,651,670 LBS. REFINED SUGAR
and the duty of eight-tenths of a cent, per Ib. gave the revenue
about $9,000. In the same year WE IMPORTED 245 MILLION
POUNDS OF RAW SUGAR.
Being FREE the revenue got NOTHING. On its manu-
factured product there then was a duty of eight- tenths of a cent,
now sixty-four-one-hundredths When this 245 million pounds
raw sngar were manufactured into refined sngar and
sold to the consumer, does the reader imagine the
refiner made him a PRESENT OF THE AMOUNT OF HIS
PROTECTION. The idea is absurd. Sugar refiners are like all
other men. They will charge all they can get and when they
have a protection of § of a cent, a Ib. they charge that to the
consumer or just so much short of it as enables them to under-
sell foreign sugars, and whether that is |, § or £ of this pro-
tection the result is very large. Now the estimate of the quantity
of refined sugar consumed in Canada yearly is from 250 to 300
millions pounds, on the basis of 250 millions pounds of consump-
tion the f cent, per Ib. duty, would leave the snug sum of
$1,600,000 as paid by the consumer of sugar to the refiner.
Whileonly $9,000 was paid into the Treasury.
But the N. P. man points to the price of sugar in New York
as being higher than sngar in Montreal.
Why ! Because the America Tariff exacts a tax of 40 p.c. on
the cost alike of RAW and REFINED SUGAR.— This is equal to
nearly a cent a Ib. The Treasury gets the benefit of all this tax
and has an additional tax of J cent, per Ib. on refined sngar as
protection to the refiners, equal to 12£ cents per 100 Ibs.
Our tariff admits raw sugar free and imposes a tax of 64
cents, per 100 Ibs. on refined.
Thus the Canadian refiner has 5i % cents per 100 Ibs greater
protection than the American.
The New York refiner pays including the duty for his raw
sugar 3 cents and sells granulated for 3| per Ib.
The Canadian gets his raw sugar free and charges 3 3-8 for
his granulated.
He therefor makes J cent a Ib. or $i.50 a barrel more for his
sugar than the American refiner for his.
The Canadian Treasury GETS NOTHING. If the refiner
says he does not charge the duty why keep it on.
The value of the products of these refineries by the census of
1891 was $17,000,000.
29
If we were allowed to import our sugar free from England
we would save just £ of that amount being the difference be-
tween the cost of sugar imported from England and that
bought in Canada.
That would mean $2,125,000. If the duty makes no differ-
ence in the price charged by the refiner, we say take it off and
give the people a present of $2,000,000.
THE RICE QUESTION.
By a similar leger-de-main the people are compelled to pay
about $300,000 yearly in the shape of taxes upon rice while only
about $50,000 finds its way into the Treasury.
The feat is worked in this way: —
Cleaned rice pays a duty of l£ cents per lb; uncleaned pays
about J of a cenr per lb. There is consequently a protection
of 1 cent a lb. given to those who import the paddy or uncleaned
rice, and hull and clean it.
The Trade and Nav. Eeturns for i894p. 16 show that in the
year i893-4 there was imported over 3^ millions Ibs of cleaned
rice , which paid a duty to the treasury of about $44,ooo. While
of uncleaned rice there was imported close on 23, 000,000 Ibs
which only paid about $53,ooo to the treasury. This 23, 000,000
Ibs of uncleaned rice made about 22,obo,ooo Ibs when cleaned
ready for sale.
The cleaner being protected one cent a lb would of course
charge that or nearly all to the consumer to whom he sold the
rice.
The consumer therefore paid the tax of i£ cents for each lb. of
rice he consumed, but he paid ^cent each lb. or in all $53,ooo to
the treasury while he paid i cent per lb, or$22o,oooto the cleaner.
In this way out of every $5 of taxes the consumer paid, the
treasury got $1 and the manufacturer $4.
Last session Mr. Foster tried to remedy this gross injustice
and when he introduced his new tariff, he proposed to reduce the
duty on cleaned rice and raise it on unhulled, so that the
treasury might receive more of the taxes paid by the rice con-
sumers.
The rice cleaners however sent a deputation to the capital,
took the Finance Minister by the throat and made him abandon
his reform, and leave the consumer at the mercy of the cleaner of
rice. It was discovered that the proposed reform was a ''clerical
error" and the tariff was restored to what it had originally
been.
30
THE CORDAGE COMBINE.
The customs tax is 1J per lb., and 10 per cent, equal t<
about 2^ cents a pound. This to a maritime people is one oi t>>
most odious impositions of the National Policy, and works tin
most grievous injustice.
The monopoly of Canada enjoyed by "The Consumers
Cordage Company " is almost complete.
Canada has been handed over to the tender mercies of this soul
less corporation, bound hand and foot, and pays it tribute yi-arl;
IN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. All ft.:
cornage is practically excluded by a duty of a shade over L' l i
cents a pound.
The smaller rope*factories were bought up by the large com
bine, their doors closed, their workmen turned adrift, and thei
proprietors paid THOUSANDS A YEAR to walk about am
enjoy themselves.
The rope factories in St. John and Quebec are cases in point
Having silenced in this way Cenadian competition, and ha<
foreign competition excluded by the tariff, the Consumers Con la^
Co., with Mr. John F. Stairs, M. P. for Halifax, as its President
(and it need hardly be said an out-and-out supporter of the N
P.) proceeds to recoup its expenditure in buying up its rival:*
and to build up collossal fortunes for those enjoying it
monopolies by fleecing- the Canadian Consumer.
The 2 16 cents duty per pound, payable upon foreign cordag
imported, is not paid into the Treasury by those who use rope
because practically foreign rope is excluded.
The consumer is bound to buy the Canadian rope.
He pays the tax of 2 1-6 cents a pound, or nearly that, al
rig-ht, but he pays it to Mr. John F. Stairs, M. P., and his co
monopolists, and not to the Treasury.
So complete is the monopoly that the Attorney-General o
Nova Scotia publicly stated that he would be willing to pay it
"weight in solid silver for every inch of rope that was no
bought, or compelled to be bought, from this single combine, ii
the Dominion of Canada."
But this combine, when it sells its rope in Newfoundland o
St. Pierre, has to sell it in competition with rope manufacture"
elsewhere, and actually sells it, from 1 1-2 to 2 cents less pe
pound than it sells the same article to Canadians in Canada.
This is an intolerable outrage sanctioned, encouraged am
maintained by the National Policy.
Some kinds of cordage, not manufactured by the «oui
bine is imported still, and the revenue leceived in 1892, abou
$14,000 in duty on it. But rope is monopolized.
31
KEROSENE OIL.
No duty is more unjust, unfair or discriminating than that
charged upon kerosene oil.
Its history is, that somewhere about the year 1868 a customs
duty of 15 cents a gallon and an excise duty were levied on
kerosene oil.
In 1877 the excise duty was removed, and the customs duty
reduced to 6 cents per wine gallon.
When the imperial gallon was adopted this duty was
increased to 7 1-5 cents and so remained until 1894, when after a
very vigorous fight the Liberals in Parliament, headed by Mr.
Davies, succeeded in forcing a slight reduction of 1 1-5 cents,
making the present duty 6 cents per imperial gallon.
But the iniquity of this tax can be properly appreciated only
by remembering that when the duty was left at 6 cents a wine
gallon in 1877, the price of American oil of the same quality as
that now imported > was 20 cents per gallon, which made the then
duty about 30 per cent. Of late years the price has fallen to 3£
cents per wine gallon, while the duty remains the same at 6 cents
— equivalent to nearly 150 per cent.
Many invoices of imported oil were read in Parliament last
session.
One importation to St. John, N. B., March, 1894: Two tanks
oil, invoice $396; Quantity, 10,908 gallons; Duty paid, $785,
almost 200 Per Cent.
Another invoice about same date: Quantity, 9,643 gallons;
invoice cost,t$405; Duty paid, $694.
X Last November (1894) the Eastern Oil Co. produced an in-
voice of oil imported into St. John under the present tariff:
Invoice cost, 721; duty, $1,029 — equal to nearly 150 per cent.
The trade and Navigation Returns for 1894 show that in that
year there was imported into Canada, 5,958,368 gallons, value
$436,476, on which duty was paid to the amount of $430,564.77,
or almost 100 Per Cent.
But that thi.s is unjustly levied can be seen from the following
table:
Quantity, G&lla. Value. Duty. Per Centage
Ontario, 2,064,578 $153 797 $148,652 96'6
Quebec, 783,858 52,655 56.437 107'1
Nova Scotia, - 1,024,622 59,583 73.772 1237
N.nv Brunswick, 1,010,322 55,984 72,743 130'3
'P. E. Island, - 255,006 11,544 18,360 1688
, Manitoba, 397,113 20,263 28,600 141 1
British Columhia, 442,203 83,416 31,818 381
Northwest Ter, 2.481 450 178 39 "5
5,980,183 $437,692 $430,564 98'3
32
•
Now this unjust duty is maintained ostensibly to protect an
Ontario Industry which gives employment a. shown by the cen-w>
returns vol. 3 p. 231 to 276 persons.
The statistical abstract for 1894, p. 379 shows the quantity of
CANADIAN OIL consumed in Canada in 1893 to have been
10,683,806 gallons, as against 6,249,946 gallons of American
oil.
On this latter duties were paid into the Treasury amounting
to about $430,000. An amount equivalent to that duty or more
must have been paid the Canadian oil retiner.
The result was that the Canadian consumer paid into the
Treasury in tuxes on the Canadian oil he consumed $430,000 and
on the 10£ million gallons of CANADIAN OIL he paid the
Canadian manufacturer $760,000 or nearly $2 for every $1 paid
paid into the Treasury.
Supposing the Canadian manufacturer let the consumer off ow-
luilf the tax, he would still have paid in taxes on oil not $1 of which
went to the Treasury, nearly $400,000.
All this to give employment to 260 men.
GOODS CHEAP AS EVER I !
But the argument is advanced by Tory speakers that GOODS
ARE AS CHEAP IN CANADA AS EVER THEY WERE.
Even if this statement was correct it is entirely beside the
question.
That question simply is are goods as cheap as they ought to be
and as they wyuld be if the protective duties were removed ?
What are the facts. They are that owing to improved
machinery, cheap raw products, cheap food, etc. Goods are now
and have been for some years manufactured and sold in England
cheaper than ever before.
Remember the farmer does not now receive anything like as
much for his products as he used to. Look at the figures.
1884 1894
Wheat, per bushel, 80 cts. 55 cts.
Barley, " 53 " 38 "
Oats, " 33 " 28 "
Hay, per ton, - $9.50 $7.50
It is manifest therefore, if the farmer gets so much less for his
produce and has to pay the old prices for the goods he requires to
buy, he must be so much the worse off.
Now the following table, reproduced from the Commercial
Bulletin, shows the exports and selling values of the great staple
goods in England in 1874, 1884, and 1894:
EXPORTS FROM GREAT BRITAIN.
Percentage
of increase
or decrease.
-+18-6
—12-8
Cotton Yarns (Ibs.)
1874 220,599,074
1884 271,077,900
1894 236,198,500
Cotton Fabrics (yds).
1874 3,603,348,527
1884 4,417,481,000 -+22'6
1894 5,312,753,900 -+20'2
Linens (yds.)
1874 190,409,712
1884 150,672,700 — 20'8
1894 152,069,700 -+ 0'93
Iron and Steel Manufactures.
1874 2,487,162 (tons)
1884 3,496,352 +40.6
1894 2,656,125 —24.
Value.
£14,516,093 stg.
13,811,767
9,289,078
£55,014,066
51,061,408
50,223,291
£6,173,255
4,149,830
3,273,448
£31,225,380
24,487,669
18,731,140
Percentage
of increas
or decrease.
— 4-8
—327
718
1-6
•32.7
-21-1
-21-6
-23-5
These figures in themselves speak volumes. In cotton yarns
they show an increase in quantity produced in 1884 over 1874 of
18% while the increased quantity was sold at 4% less. In 94, 12%
less in quantity was produced, but it sold for 32.7 p. c. or nearly
one-third less in price than in 1884.
In Cotton Fabrics, the year 1884 produced 22'6% more than
1874, yet the product sold for 7.18 per cent less price showing a
cheapening of nearly 30 per cent in ten years.
1894 showed astill further increase of 20 per cent in quan-
tity produced while it sold for 1 per cent less price.
The same story is told in Linens. 1884 produced 20 per
cent less in quantity than 1874, but sold for 32 per cent less price,
while 1894 producing nearly 1 per cent more sold for 21 per cent
less.
In Iron and Steel the results are more wonderful, the year
1884 produced 40 per cent more quantity than 1874 and England
34
sold it to her customers 21 per cent less than she sold the smaller
production of 1874- The year 1894 produced 24 per cent, leas
quantity and England sold it 23 per cent, less than she sold her
l£84 product.
COTTON AND COTTON GOODS ! !
But apart from the above tables let us look at the facts.
Mr. Edgar stated in the House of Commons and the correct-
ness of his statements has never been challenged, that the raw
cotton tell in cost between 1890 and 1893, 1 cent 6 mills a
pound. This, on the enormous quantity imported of about 40
millions of pounds, amounted alone to a profit of $660,000. The
wages of the operatives were not raised and the prices charged to
the consumer instead of being lowered were raised from 10 to 25
per cent, during those three years. But the dividends and the
reserve funds set apart by the companies were raised.
Mr. Edgar further stated that 13 million dollars worth of
cotton is manufactured by the Canadian Cotton Companies, and
that tli3 duty paid by the importers last year, on all cotton goods
brought into the country was a trifle over 28 per cent. Supposing
there was no other profit on that $13,000,000 than the 28 per cent,
paid by the actual importers, who, paid that in addition to the
freight and profits paid to ' the English manufacturer of cotton
goods.that would make a sura of $3,640,000 paid by the people to
the Combine, under the protection given by the Tariff.
In other word.", on the $4,500,000 worth imported a tax of
SI. 260,000 is paid, which goes into the treasury, and on the
$13,000,000 worth of cottons manufactured, an equivalent tax of
$3,640,000 is paid, which goes into the coffers of the combines.
Take the history of these Combines to see how the people are
fleeced and the facts hidden from them. In 1892 the Dominion
Cotton Cc. one of the combines which controls 11 mills of the coun-
try, had a Capital of $1,500,000. They decided to double that Gap-
it*!, TVi'-y issued fhe new stock to themselves. They only pai<l
of HIP now stick 10 per cent,, or $150,000 and the balance of
S ] :r>0000 was watered. On April 14th 1893 the annual report of
that Company was published. It stated that the earnings for that
year were about 20 per cent on the capital of $3,000,600 but as on
the lust $ 1,500,000 the shnreholders only paid 10 per cent, or
0,000 while the Company paid a pnfit, of 10 per cent on the
whole 1| millions, these gentlemen actually received 200 per cent
on all the money they paid in.
35
INCREASED DUTIES ON DRY GOODS.
The National Policy has imposed very heavy duties on dry
goods. Careful examination by large importers has shown that the
average duty on dry goods is about 33 per cent, against 17 1 per
cent, under the Liberal Government. But many articles in comm-on
use by the middle and poorer classes pay very much higher dut es.
Cloth, of which the clothing of working people is largely made, has
been taxed 40, 50, and even 60 per cent. The consumer has to pay
not only the increased duty, but a good deal more, as will be seen
by the following calculation :
Comparison of cost — $100 worth of Dry Goods.
UNDER LIBERAL TARIFF.
% Cost of goods in England, $100.00
Importation, Freight, Insurance, etc., 8 p. c., 8.00
Duty, 17£ p. c., 17.50
Cost to importer, $12550
Wholesaler's profit, 15 p. c., 18.82
Cost to retailer, $144.32
Retailer's profit, 25 p. c., 36.08
Cost to consumer, $180.40
Thus even under the Liberal tariff it cast $80 to place $100
worth of goods from England in the hands of the consumer. Now
let us make a similar calculation under the National Policy, with
average duty on dry goods 33 per cent.
UNDER TORY TARIFF.
Cost of dry goods in England $100.00
Cost of importation 8.00
Duty, 33 p. c. 33.00
Cost to importer, $141.00
Wholesaler's profit 15 p. c., 21.15 '
Cost to retailer, $162.15
Retailer's profit, 25 p. c. 40.51
Cost to consumer, $202.65
Cost of $100 worth of goods under Liberal tariff', $ 180.40
Cost of $100 worth of goods under National Policy, 202.65
Increased cost to consumer, $ 22.25
36
A similar calculation applied to a parcel of cloth used for cloth-
ing, and paying 60 per cent, duty, would be as follows :
I 100.00
18.00
60.00
Cost of goods,
Cost of importation,
Duty 60 per cent.,
Cost to importer,
Wholesaler's profit, 15 p. c.,
Cost to retailer,
Retailer's profit, 25 p. c.,
Cost to consumer,
$ 168.00
25.20
$ 193.20
48.30
$ 241.50
Cost of $100 worth of goods under Liberal tariff, $ 180.40
Cost of $100 worth of goods under National Policy, 241.50
Increased cost to consumer,
$ 61.10
Under the system of an ad valorem and specific duties there
are many cases in which articles of dry good are taxed as high as
60 per cent.
THE IRON DUTIES.
The positive harmfulness of protection is well illustrated by
the history of Canada's desperate efforts to tax her iron industry
into greatness. All she has succeeded in doing has been to tax her-
self very nearly to death. In the low tariff period from 1867 to
1879 pig iron was free while a 5 per cent, duty only, was imposed
upon bar and rod iron. Coal was free too. Coal and iron are raw
materials of every manufacture and by making them as cheap as
possible the low tariff governments gave encouragement to the
establishment of manufactures. Agricultural implement factories
in particular sprang up here and there, and foundries and rolling
mills began to make their appearance. Unfortunately for Canada
a Protectionist Government came into power in 1878, and in over-
hauling the tariff, duties of $2 per ton were placed on pig iron, 17£
pr-r cent on bar iron, and in proportion, on other forms of iron, or
manufactures of it. But it is the fate of a protective duty to go on
enlarging itself until it bursts. In 1883 the duty was reinforced
by a bounty of $1.50 per ton. As the development of the iron
industry still failed to satisfy the Government, Sir Charles Tupper,
in 1887 resolved on drastic measures, and brought down to the
37
house a new iron schedule. By it pig was taxed $4 per ton, (or
84.50 per per long ton in which form pig iron is bought); puddled
bars $9 per ton; bar iron $13 per ton; plate iron $13 per ton; cast
iron pipe $12 per ton; hoop iron $13 per ton, and everything else
in proportion. At the same time the bounty was reduced to $1
per ton.
TUPPER'S PROMISES.
This new tariff, Sir Charles Tuppor assured the House, was going
to do the trick- He predicted that the iron industry which would
spring up in consequence would furnish employment to "an army of
men, numbering at least twenty thousand, increasing our population
from 80,000 to 100,000 souls, and affording the means of supporting
them in comfort and prosperity." He declared that were we to manu-
facoire all the iron and steel articles imported, "and there is no
reason why we should not steadily progress to that point, the popula-
lation I have mentioned of 100,000 souls, would be nc less than
trebled." He prophesied that blast furnaces would be called in o ex-
istence in Carleton (N. B.), British Columbia, Manitoba, Cobourg,
Kingston and Weller's Bay. All this was to be done without the cost
of iron and steel being increased to the consumer.
How different was the realization ! The first effect of the tariff
was to very nearly double the price of every piece of hardware, from
a ten-penny nail up. It in the course of a year or so all but wiped
out the important iron and hardware importing business of the
country. This prejudically affected the shipping interests, and the
profits of the steamship lines began to decrease until they disappeared
altogether. One of the chief lines of steamers is now in liquidation
largely as the result of this attempt to force these blast furnaces into
existence. By affecting the shipping interests it added to the cost of
transportation of wheat to Great Britain and thus reduced the
farmers' profits on grain- Thus this iron schedule can account these
amoung its accomplishments: It has increased to the Canadian con-
sumer the price of every article in the manufacture of which iron
enters, from 50 to 100 per cent., thus adding not less than three or four
million dollars per year to the taxation borne by the Canadian people:
it has ruined the iron and hardware importing houses, it has burdened
the manufacturers who use iron, it has seriously
INJURED CANADA'S SHIPPING INTERESTS,
and it has lessened the price of every bushel of Canadian wlieat ex-
ported.
And unfortunately for the protectionist apologist, he cannot say
in reply: " But, is not all this more than compensated for by the blast
furnaces which nightly crimson the sky at Carleton County, Welle. 's
Bay, ('obourg, Kingston, Manitoba and British Columbia, by the
100,000 souls maintained in 'comfort and prosperity?' If all that Sir
Charles predicted in the way of development had come to pass the
game would still have been too dear for the candle. But not even one
of George Johnson's lynx-eyed enumerators could discover the
38
100,000 people or the blast furnaces. They never materialized and Sir
Charles' prediction was put on the shelf along side of his other
famous prophesy made in 1<79, that in fifteen years the Canadian
Northwest would be exporting 640,000,000 bushels of wheat annually.
THE IRONMASTERS' MONOPOLY-
The iron duties worked to the enrichment of one class— the home
makers of hardware. It did not greatly as>i^t the production of pig
iron, which was nominally its object. For this there was a very good
reason. The protectionists who in selling want to have the people
obliged, under penalty of fine, to buy from them at their own price,
are not in buying ignorant of the virtues of Free Trade. The rolling
mill men, the nail combinesters, the makers of tubings, etc., saw
clearly enough that the effect of such a tariff as that proposed would
be to greatly increase the price of that irhirl, th<tj h<i<l f<> sill: but
they saw with equal clearness that if the cost of their iron were in-
creased their position would not be improved. They therefore
journeyed to Ottawa, and as gratitude for p*.st favors, as well as a
lively expectation of further favors to come, impelled the Govern-
ment to treat them with marked consideration, they got what they
wanted.
A clause was inserted in the schedule which while it in no degree
lessened the effect of the duties, deprived the producers of j>i'</ // •<•»
of most of the br:mf!(* tfieij anticipated. The duty on scrap iron was
left at $2 per ton. Tn consequence, ///' rulliinj //////.< /// /'luce o
'
nf/ iron //?//</' /'r<»n ( '<i/iii</iii/i jtiij imported scrap from the >/»/.•<
tlif. '
of tlif. t.'trth (in<i n.tnf if in ju-t'in ,i<-<. We have the authority ot
Mr. Foster, the Finance Minister, for saying that in consequence
nf (Jit* f//-'-.v\ discrimination n'> l»n- i/-<>// /•• /// <'<n<(t<!,i f, •<>,,,
Cm' '</<//«/ I>,irx. The manufacturers of hardware bought
their raw material almost at free trade prices, and they sold their
(ii/t/»/t <it the hig/i'xt jinint tli> i.'-tru/H tariff permitted. Tq make
sure that they should get every cent possible from this condition of
affairs, which they doubtless knew was too good to last, they
formed a series of combines to regulate prices, and bull-doze whole-
salers from any attempt at importation. These combines, as they
existed a year or so ago, were made up as follows:
FOSTERED COMBINES-
Wire nail combine; Pillow & Hersey, Montreal; Peck, Benny & Co
Montreal; Montreal Rolling Mills Co.; Dominion \Vire Manufactur •
ing Company; the Ontario Tack Company, Hamilton; the Ontario
Lead Pipe and Barbed Wire Company, Toronto; the Ontario Bolt and
1-Vige Co, Swansea; Parmenter & Bullock, Gananoque.
Canadian Tack Combine: Pillow & Hersey, Montreal Rolling
Mills Peck, Benny &('«•, the Ontario Tack Company.
Horse shoe Gombite: Pillow & Hersey, Abbott & Co., Peck,
Benny & Co., Montreal Kolling Mills.
Pr»- light Spikt- Coinl'irie: p.-ck. Hem
• >y, Abbo Montreal Rolling Mills, Abbott «C Co., the On-
tario Forge & Bolt Co.
39
Bar Iron Combine: Pillow* & Hersey Company, Abbott <fc Co.,
Montreal Rolling Mills, Peck, Benny & Co.
The above list gives a very good idea of all those who profited by
the enormous addition to the public taxation made by Sir Charles
Tupper while laboring under the excitement of a prophetic spell.
ENORMOUS PROTECTION.
So outrageous was this schedule that the Government was obliged
at the session of 1894 to amend it By the new taiiff then adopted,
pig iron secured a duty of 84 and a bounty of 82 per ton, making the
total protection 86 on the net ton; the duty on scrap was raised to $3
per ton, for the remainder of 1894, and to 84 per tor begi» ning January
1st, 1895: the bar iron duty was reduced from $13 to 810 per ton;
puddled bars reduced from 89 to 85, and the other iron and steel duties
equalized- This is a much more symmetrical schedule than the one
it replaced, but it will fail almost as lamentably in its attempt, to give
employment in the iron industry to 20,000 men. Iron wets cheapened so
greatly during the last few years that despite the excessive protection^ f
86 per ton, Canadian iron cannot hold its own let alone supplant the
imported article. In Montreal Scotch iron is very largely used, though
American is beginning to get a strong footing; but in Ontario
American iron is almost exclusively employed in manufactures. It
can be bought in Pennsylvania andjaid down in Toronto with all
charges paid for less than would have to be paid there for the Cana-
dian article. Is it not therefore as clear as that two and two make
four that the effect of this duty is to handicap every Ontario manufac-
turer to the extent of $4.48— the amount of the duty— on every long •
ton of iron he possesses. Tne American manufacturer gets his iron
from 84 to 85 a ton cheaper; his coal costs him 60c. a ton less, and in
consequence he can manufacture much cheaper than can his Cana-
dian rival The latter finds it difficult to compete in the Canadian
markets notwithstanding the excessive duties on manufactures of iron;
and when it comes to exporting he would not be in it for a single
second had the Government not granted him relief by*a device w hich
illustrates the uselessness and costliness of Protection. By an Order-
in-Council passed last fall, the Canadian manufacturer can recover on
exported goods 99 per cent, of the duties paid for raw material. The
Government in making such a regulation destroyed completely its own
theory that the protective duty does not add to the cost of the goods,
and they dealt a deadly blow as well at the native iron industry, the
encourageniene of which has been the ostensible object of the legNLi-
tion of the pa^t 10 years. Mr- Geo E. Dranamond, of Montreal, at the
last meeting of the Quebec Mining Association, said that the "way in
which this enactment is framed, and the manner in which it works
are most detrimental to the development of the Canadian iron industry
in its broadest sense." He said, furthermore, that it "simply serves
to nnllify the protection and encouragement to the Canadian iron
industry, granted by the Dominion Government itself at the last ses-
sion of Parliament."
40
THE CONSUMER FLEECED.
While the manufacturer is thus handicapped, the consumer of
iron articles is being unmercifully fleeced. The duties collected on
iron and steel, and manufactures of same last year, 1894, were only
about 8100,000 short of 83,000,000. The consumer is therefore between
the upper and the nether millstone, the Customs tax grindingabove, the
manufacturer below. The sum of about $3,000,000 ground out of him
into the Treasury gives but a faint idea of what is squeezed out of hi m
by the iron combines and trusts The latter must amount at the low-
est figure to another $3,000,000.
To sum up, we have been trying for sixteen years to develop the
Canadian iron industry by taxing foreign iron. During the last eight
years of this period we have had excessively high duties on iron, and
manufactures of iron, with the further assistance of a bounty. The
only results have been to bleed the general consumer of millions of
dollars, to handicap the manufacturer, and to destroy our importing
and shipping interests, while the native pig iron industry is no further
ahead than it probably would have been under free trade conditions.
All this disturbance, or normal trade conditions; all this destruction of
genuine industries, all this piling on of taxes has been for the bene-
fit of the congeries of combines which are in their own way useful to
the Government at election times, by supplying not only generous
donations to the campaign fund but a treasurer to administer it as well.
The iron duties are on the Liberal list- They will have to go.
THE COAL DUTY,
Conservatives have said much about the value of protection
to the coal trade. In nothing has the National Poticy been a
greater failure than in its effect on the coal trade. What the
Nova Scotia coal miners were led to expect in 1878 was the control
of the Canadian market, and the exclusion of imported coal, es-
pecially American. The great coal consuming province of On-
tario was the particular market that was to be given to the miners.
All these great expectations have been dissappointed. Excepting
a very small quantity carried by the railways ,for their own use,
in the eastern part of the Province, Nova Scotia has sent no coal
to Ontario. American coal instead of being shut out, has come
in more largely than ever. There has been an increase in the
Nova Scotia coal trade, but only such as would probably have
occurred if there had been no duty.
The record of the Conservatives on the coal question has been
a very tortuous one. In 1878 one of their great cries was that
they wanted reciprocity in coal and would get it. In the National
Policy of 1879 they included a standing offer of free coal to the
Americans. After a little while the mine managers of Nova
Scotia (nearly all Conservatives) began to preach a different
doctrin*. They laid they could not stand reciprocity in coal.
41
They declared that the admission of American coal would ruin
them. Coal was taken out of the standing offer. For years the
cry was that if coal was made free the Nova Scotia mines would
have to close. This was notably the cry at the general election
of March, 189L when both the Tappers, senior and junior, made
speeches on these lines which had much influence in the mining
districts. Official records now show that at that very time,
while this cry was being raised in mining districts to influence
the votes of miners, there was on file at Washington a letter from
Sir John Macdouald offering to make coal free if the Americans
would do the same. Here is a copy of the letter:
LKS ROCHERS,
ST. PATRICK,
RIVIERE DU LOUP.
Private
July 30, 1890.
MY DEAK SIR, — In answer to your esteemed note of this day, I desire to say
that I am fully assured that the Parliament of Canada will be ready to take off
all Customs duty on coal, ores and lumber imported from the United States,
whenever Congress makes those articles free of duty.
The Canadian Government has already authorized Sir Julian Paunceforte
to state to the American Government that they will be prepared to take off the
export duty ou logs whenever Canadian lumber is admitted into the United
States market at a reduced rate of $1.50 per thousand, board measure.
You are at liberty to show this to such members of Congress or the Govern-
ment as you please. It should not, for obvious reasons, be published in the
press or quoted in Congress,
In the U. S. Tariff Act provision might be made for the making the
above-mentioned articles free whenever and so soon as they are made free by
the Canadian Parliament.
I remain, my dear Sir,
Faithfully yours.
JOHN A MAC»ONAI,D.
S. J. RITCHIE, Estj.
Tliis letter, although marked "Private," was an official offer
to the United States Government and was used as such. It be-
came public by being placed on the files of a committee of the
United States Congress, which had che tariff question under
consideration. To tell the Nova Scotia miners that the Liberal
policy of reciprocity in coal would close the mines, and to carry
on negotiations at the same time to bring about just such a policy,
was a piece of political judggling which an honorable govern-
ment would hardly care to undertake. But the Ottawa Govern-
ment were quite equal to it.
Many of the Nova Scotia coal mines have been in the hands
of small companies who have been doing business in a small way
and have been afraid of competition of any kind. Things have
now taken a different shape. The Whitney Company, organized
by the Fielding Government, is a large concern, chiefly Am-
42
• lit iucludi;: L6 lead' UL8. Ample
capital. iiii|>:-«>\ i-«i machinery and My better bus
motli I give the ^il trade a fair chance.
Instead of being afraid of American competition this company
has . and would accept recipiuc; ^reat
i. jilt IK > uuh the other companies havi
claiming au.iinsi it. i'his hi- company has been formed with the
full knowledge that the coal ipH-st ion i- a much debater one and
that at no distant day coal must be made free. Knowing this
well the company have subscribed their capital and jjone on with
their bn- The abolition of the coal duly might d
BOme disturbance Of trade arrangements at the beginning. Hut
there is little reason to doubt that in a short time thebn>
would get down to a solid basis and would prosper in common
with advant Liberal
policy to th<- coal trade is that by a reduction of the tariff, many
article^ required by the companies for the development of mining
operation^ would be made cheaper, and the workmen would
benefit by the cheapening of food, clothing and other thi
Has the ML P. Given Employment to the People ?
Tory Speakers point with euultatiou to the rensn- n-tnrn>
as proving affirmatively this ijuestion. If an enquirer is not
lied on this point by tho exodus during the decade '.SI to '!»] ,
let him return to rhe same census returns aud analixe them
The Statistical Abstract for 1881, page 180, which purports
ui.s ana! liat then- aic in ( 'anada
cujxit ions arc given by the eensu^. 1
divided into classes as folio
iculturr -.L'Ul
Ki>hing
Lumbering..
Mining
Tot 7 !•().-_> 10
'I Transportation including
I -l.ooo, railx
!>!•' ail
tr:i
lianical pin-
Don :,al Service..
'•mil Av,
ductive Cla>
Total, 1,659,356
43
How many of these classes are benefitted by the National
Policy ?
It is contended that those engaged in manufacturing and
mechanical pursuits, 320,000 are largely dependant on this
National Policy, but it must be remembered that a very great
many of these industries that give employment were nourishing
industries under the revenue tariff which prevailed up to 1878.
It would therefore be a gross mistake to conclude that the
310,000 persons engaged in manufacturing and mechanical pur-
suits are in any way dependant upon the existence of a high
tariff. On the contrary, it will be found that a very small pro-
portion of them are so dependant.
The same Statistical Abstract gives the most numerous of
the various employments of these 320,000 as follows, and it is
submitted these are not directly benefitted by the National Policy,
but indirectly and largely injured.
Carpenters and Joiners, 4.">.769
Dressmakers, Milliners and Seamstresses, 86,494
Blacksmiths, 1S,.">45
Boot and Shoemakers, 16,11!)
Tailors and Tail cresses, 15,094
Saw and Planing Mill Operators, l-'!,338
Masons, 10,312
Painters and Glaziers 10,202
Machinists, !>,572
Butchers, 7,238
Compositors and Pressmen, 6,550
Ship and Boatbuilders, 4,435
Turners, 4,975
Millers, 4,384
Moulders, 4,070
Curriers and Tanners, 3,713
Harness and Saddlery, -".,647
Bakers, -t-,.351
Brickmakers, 3,138
Cheese Factories and Creameries, 3,438
Coopers, 3,204
Marble and Stone Cutters, 3,585
Plasterers, 2,500
Plumbers, 3,249
Lumbermen, 12,319
Tinsmiths, 4,740
255,181
44
ireful examination of tin- reiisn tliat <>ut nf the
above number of 1520, 000 prisons. th> mall proper,
tion who may reasonably be supposed to be benefit ted by the
National Policy. The following table shows the chief ones :
Mill operatives (cotton) by vol. l' «»l een
returns 6,053; by vol 3
Mill operatives (woollen) by vol li 1.4l'l:
by vol 3 .139
Milloperath es textileand not specified) 3,876
Manufacturers and officials of Manufacturing
Companies • . J6*»
Mineral and Soda Water Makers, by vul
354, and by 3rd vol •
Glass Blowers and Workers, (by 2 vol. 581,
and by 3rd vol 689
Hat and Cap Makers, 368
Hosiery and Knitting Mill operatives (by 2nd
vol. 946. and by 3rd vol * 1.-
Linen Mill operatives, (by 2nd vol. 48, and
by 3rd vol I
Oil Works iemployesj|(by 'vol.J 2— 167,'[and
by 3rd volume
Organ Makers 36g
Rope, Twine and Cordage factory operatives... 627
_ ar Makers and Refiners. ... .1 ,927
Umbrella and Parasols
Silk Mill operatives
.
These 30,00» represent the proportion of the 320,000 engaged
iu those industries which may fairly be said to in jiny way owe
their existence or continuance in operation to the P
tariff.
It may be said that the mining interest i> pi-.»rected and en-
couraged, and there is no doubt that this i> so. The
show that there is engaged in Canada :
Agriculture
.ing ,".079
Lumbering 1J,756
Mining and Quarrying. . 15,168
Total, 79o
Theee 16,000 may b« bencfitted but it is at the expense of th«
oth«r 775,000.
45
In the Maritime Provinces the total number engaged in
mining- is :
In Nova Scotia ">,(>60
In New Brunswick, - 97
In P. E. Is! ami, is
Total, 5,775
As no P.E. Island resident has ever discovered these eighteen
or know where they ''mine," some doubt may be cast upon th»->c
figures.
Of the 700,000 farmers and their sons engaged in farming in
Canada, the census show that in Old Canada, that is New Bruns-
wick, Nova Scotia, P. E. Island, Ontario and Quebec, during the
ten years, 1881 to 1891, there was a decrease of 36,000, in the
Maritime Provinces —
New Brunswick lost 8,605 Farmers
Nova Scotia " - 10,095
P. E. Island " 265
Total decrease of fanners for Maritime Provinces ls,!Mj.'
Do Duties on Agricultural Products Protect
the Farmers ?
But the Tory orator contends the N. P., by the imposition of
duties upon Animals, Meats, Eggs. Butter Cheese, Apples, Beans,
Hay, Barley, Oats, Oatmeal, &c., largely benefits the
As to most of these articles but little is said, as we are well
known to be large Exporters and not Importers of them, and the
argument that the imposition of duties on articles we don't im-
port protects the farmer or gives him a higher price is felt to be
absurd.
For instance, no reasonable man could successfully contend
that oats, barley, eggs, potatoes, hay, etc., of which we are enor-
mous exporters, are enhanced in price to the farmer, or that
mackerel, etc., could be enhanced in price to the fisherman by
any duty that could be put on. One hundred per cent, would
have the same effect as ton per cent., and neither would have any
effect, as we do not impoit, but export.
46
But it is said this reply will not envoi- the ruse of ho^s, p
or beet'. Let u^ .-ee if this is
The following table taken from the Trade and Navigation
. rns for l •'.»! >hf\vs the quantity and value of imports of
animal products for home < nn-umptiou. with the quantity and
value exported in I
Imports for home consunip- • anadian 1'roci
ue. No. of Ibs.
\"alue. of Ibs.
Butt $ 41
&4
$ 1,296.814 •'>-°'5
20,964
i \<>.
107,47°
1 .arcl
146,885
70.
Meats.
Bacon \ 1 ; , cc
les 1 7°-ot
alt'd in brls- 95.575
67o,i55
2,316,588
1,970,318 18,504,347
279 356,106
Mutton, 149
2,132
7,67' 89,957
Pork (barrelled) 272.000 3,862,546
8i,953
nie, 12,297
20.84.0
(lanned Meat1-'
1,005,087 10, i i
and sal' 38.
426,990
1)91
'al . .$C7i;,i2Q
$101 ;o6 i72o~-
/i/O)/
/ *»w/ l/-'-';)<J
Of Agricultural Produce we export and import as folio
Import-^ for home
sumption.
No of liust
No. of Bushels.
2,040,648
.'.138
276,313
752
Buckwli* j 594,604
10
,,906
44
• <>\e)
3,255.8l°
i
ilit)
158.
j » ",032
59- !
,302
Wheat,
•71,855
9,069
Other Grain.
is8
Total bu-
" value,
$ 13,831,969
,$ 167,500
47
Potatoes and Hay.
Of potatoes Canada exports 1,112,830 bushels of a value of
$422,000 and imports for home consumption, onlv 37,r>71 hnshels
of the value of $8000.
Of hay she exports 151,851 tons of a value of *1 . -}.")•_'. srii and
imports for home consumption 140-1 tons of a value of*! !,on<>.
Mackerel.
Of mackerel Canada exports in fresh, canned and pickled
536,453 dollars worth and imports in fresh and pickled only is:»
dollars worth.
These tables conclusively show that with respect to all th<->»'
Agricultural products and fish Canada is a great exporting1 coun-
try— and the imposition of duties on these articles with the idea
of protecting the farmer or fisherman is a blind and a humbug.
The price the farmer or fisherman receives is governed by
the markets of the world to which we export. The British
market fixes the price of our wheat, oats and peas, bacon and
ham, cheese and butter. The American market fixes the price of
our barley, beans, mackerel, wood, hay, potatoes, eggs, hors«
sheep, poultry, hides, pelts.
All the duties in the world imposed by us on these articles,
cannot in aay way affect the price, because we don't import them
but export.
A frantic effort is being made to induce the farmer to believe
that pork and beef are exceptions to this rule and that the duties
are a protection to the farmer and keep out American pork and
beef. There is nothing whatever in this argument.
While we import a much larger quantity of barrelled pork
than we export, we at the same time export nearly *2, 000,000
worth of bacon and ham, and import of them practically nothing
($76,000). Our ham and bacon exports are therefore twenty tiv.
times as much as our imports and our total pork exportation in-
cluding hams, bacon, etc., besides barrelled pork is about six-
times the value of the importation for home consumption.
The barrelled pork we import is used chiefly by the lumber-
men and does not enter into competition with such pork as P. E.
Island produces.
As a fact barrelled pork is often cheaper in Chicago than in
Toronto (the two great pork centres for U. S. and Canada) while
at the same time the farmer is getting more for his live hog fn
Chicago than in Toronto.
The explanation of this seeming anomaly lies in the fact that
ji'fee Chicago packer utilizes the hog in packing better than we do.
48
vthing including the biood. bristh-> ;iii<l even the offal is
utili/ed and turned into something <>f money value, and the
Chicago man gets a higher price for the liams and belly bacon
not put in the barrel.
If the duty was taken off pork to-morro\v it would not in
»e tin- price paid to the farmer in Canada for his ho.g in the
Blight
The buyer and pork packer in P. E. Island regulates the
price he pays the farmer by the prices ruling1 in Chicago.
If these prices go up h- down he lo
The duty does not enter into his calculations at all, nor does the
Chicago pork come into serious competition with him.
The lumberman will buy the Chicago pork, and pay the duty.
It is preferred by the shanty man.
Canadian pork is used for home consumption and is preferred
to the American pork.
Reform of the Tariff!
Many people were led to believe from the statement.-, made
by Ministers, and from the fact that they spent a year going over
ida pretending to ascertain the workings of the National
Policy among the people, that it- was their intention to reform the
the tariff. A great flourish of trumpets was made on this point,
and a new tariff was actually introduced by Mr. Foster at the
on of '91. Hi* original resolutions proposed several hundreds
of changes, all in the direction of lightening the burden-
the people Among other thin_ ;fic duti- < h were
to be abolished, but as time progre>sed and the different manu-
facturers were able to bring their influence to bear, the prop
changes and reductions were abandoned. Specific dul
'ied. and with the except ion of a reduction made on agricul-
tural implements and binder twine, the tariff remain* substanti-
ally as oncrou* a* before. This can be proved beyond any doubt
oy taking the monthly return* published in the Canada '
*ho\ving the quantity and value of goods entered : iimption
and the duty collected thereon in each month.
lake the month of December, 1894. The total value of
dutiable goods 'entered was >l.-'tij.;>">j : the duty paid
*1 .:M7,603, or about 3H per cent.
The average of the present tariff, therefore, is a
,ible the same as the old tariff.
By the last Trade and Navigation A'eturns, 1894, we aie
enabled to show what the taxes exacted on each class of goods
wer«.
49
The following is a list:
Carriages,
Manufactures of Cotton,
Earthenware and China,
Manufac. of Flax, Hemp and Jute,
Fruits (dry and green)
Manufactures of Glass,
Hats, Caps, etc.,
Manufactures of Iron and Steel,
Musical Instruments,
Oils of all kinds, Mineral, Animal,
Vegetable, etc.,
Paper and manufactures of, includ-
ing Wall Paper, etc.,
Provisions,
Soaps,
Champagne and Sparkling Wines,
(N.B.— WINKS.— Compare with Kerosene
Oil, which pays about 160 per cent.)
Vegetables (melons, potatoes, toma-
toes, fresh corn and baked beans
in cans,
Wood and manufactures of, -
Wool and manufactures of (blan-
kets, cloths, tweeds, flannels,
socks, shawls, cloaks, shirts, car-
pets, etc.}
Total dutiable goods,
VALUE.
S 40«s,7.s7
I 7M7
1,61
l.si
1,219,543
1,32
.10,1 I.S.I 77
375,421
1 ,297,421
PER
734,481
176,959
166,7s.-)
220.631
1,087, 1 28
WTV PAID.
1,29
238,429
360,951
461
• 324.5f;«i
396 li)l
2,87
108.11Q
68 1 ,256
401.71--.
204,:^ I I
I i 4,o 80
91,311
53,408
28-4
2213
25-3
26-6
30-0
2S-4
27-6
27-s
36-6
54\S
242
27-4
10,946,244 3,309.3,S!» :!()2
869,873,571 £21,161,710 30 -s
Specific Duties.
Among the many promises of the tariff revision in I MM
the total or partial abolition of specific duties. These duties,
levied on the pound, the yard, the bushel, or the dozen, are un-
fairly heavy on consumers of cheaper grades of good-*. : o \-.\\ ;t
yard of cheap cloth the same amount as a yard of superior
quality is a manifest injustice to consumers of coarser lines.
This injustice pertains to all/ specific duiies, and as in other
objectional features of the Canadian tariff the revision h;:s left
matters little or no better than before. The injustice is in pro-
)ortion to the fluctuation and range of pi-ices. As an instance,
ie tax of two cents per Ib. on raspberries, cherries, strawberries
ate., is trifling when such small fruit are expensive luxuries
50
But, when the price falls and they become articles of common
use, it may be as high as fifty per cent. The Government has a
two-fold object in retaining this class of duties. They lessen the
burden on wealthy consumers, who ar6 able most effectually to
oppose the protective system, and they keep the public in
ignorance of the extent to which they are taxed. An innocent-
looking tax of a few cents per pound or per yard may, and does,
conceal duties of more than 100 per cent. The following list
shows some of the unjust discriminations effected by specific
duties in the new Canadian tariff. It does not contain all the
discriminations, and the widest variations have not been pre-
sented :
Rate of Duty. Upon an assumed Rate per cent.
cost of of duty.
Collars, per doz. . . . 240 per do/, and 25 p. ct. $0.72 58 1-3
" " " 1-44 4i 2-3
Cuffs ' pairs. .40. per pair and 25 p. c. 96 75
" " " " 1.92 50
Shirts " $i per doz. and 25 p. c. 4.00 50
" " " " 20.00 30
Blankets, per Ih 50. pet Ib. and 25 p. c. 40 37^
" " " " " 65 33
Oilcloth per yard. . . \ 30 p. c. but not'lessthan 50
" " . . . / 40. per square yard. 75 30
Wall paper, borders per roll) ij^c per roll and 9 412-3
" " / 25 per cent. 75 27
Tweeds, per yard 25 65
2.00 30
Coatings i .00 35
" " 6.00 26 2-3
Overcoatings, " 50 65
7-00 28
Castile soap, |>er Ib 2c. per Ib 12 16 2-3
" .... " 20 10
Canned fish " ... i '••.(-. per can or p'kge. 10 15
" 20 7#
( I his duty is levied on the tan)
Hooks 6c. per Ib cheap 100
" " dear i
Soap, common, per Ib. . ic j>er Ib 5 20
10 10
Clothes wringers, each . . 25c. each and 20 p. < 4.00
" .. " " 10.00
Ready-made clothing, per suit 8.00 j ••
30-00 33
51
Rate of Duty. I "pon an assumed Rate per cent,
cost of of duty.
Socks and stockings per doz. pair) IDC per doz. 60 51 2-3
/ and 35 p.c. 10.00 36
Dessicated Cocoa, per lb..-5c per lb 12 4123
" 15 33 1-3
Rice, per lb i %c. per lb 5 25
(i « .<
TO 121 -2
Raisins, per lb ic. per lb 5 20
" " " 12 1-2 8
Prunes, " ic. per lb 4 25
" 15 62-3
Currants, dried, per lb. . . ic. per lb 6 16 2-3
"... " 10 10
Vinegar, per gal i5c. per gal 15 TOO
3° 50
Corn Starch, farina,etc. iy-c. per lb 10 15
" " " 18 81-3
Coal Oil 6c. per gal from 60 to too
Carpets, cotton warp.per yard,3C. per yard and 25 p. c. 20 40
" 50 31
" all wool " 5c per sq. yd. and 25 p. c. 50 35
" " " " " " i. oo 30
Cordage, per lb i j<£c. per lb and ro p. c. 10 22 1-2
" " " " ' " 20 16 1-4
Window shades, per yd \ 35 p. c. but not less 10 50
/ 5C. per sq. yard, 20 35
Baking Powder per lb . . . . 6c. per lb 30 20
" " " 60 ro
On tweeds, etc., where the duty is not stated above, the tariff
taxes the goods per pound weight, thus manifestly pressing more
heavily upon the coarser and heavier goods.
Extracts From the Tariff.
The following are the duties imposad by the tariff upon
some of the articles in common use :
Adzes and hatchets 36 per cent.
Agate iron-ware, 35 "
Agricultural implements : Mowing machines, self-
binding harvesters, harvesters without binders
binding attachments, reapers, sulky and walk-
ing ploughs, harrows, cultivators, seed drills
and horse rakes, 20 "
Agricultural implements: Axes of all kinds, scythes
hay knives, lawn mowers, pronged forks, rakes,
hoes and other agricultural tools or implements, 35
52
Agricultural implement* : Shovels, spades, 50 <
per dozen and 25 per cent.
Axle grease, 25 "
Bags or sacks of hemp, linen or jute, and cotton
seamless bags, 20
Bags, cotton, made by the needle, 32£ "
Bags, paper, printed or plain, 25
Baking powder, Gc. per Ib.
Barbed wire fencing of iron or steel, |c. "
Binder twine, 12^ per cent.
Blankets 5c. per Ib. and 25
Blueing, (laundry) 25
Bolts, nuts and washers(iron or steel)lc. per Ib and 20
Bolts, nuts and washers (iron or steel, less than 3-8
inch in diameter) Ic. per Ib, and 25 per cent.,
but not less than 35 "
Boots and shoes (leather) 25
Braces or suspenders. 35
Braids, 30
Brass nails, rivets, screws, etc., 30
Brushes, 25
Buckles, iron or steel, 27£ "
" brass, • 30
Builders' hardware, 32£ "
Buttons, pantaloons, etc., 20 "
Candles, paraffine wax, 4c. per Ib.
" (other than above); 25 percent:
( ';i IK! y and confectionery, 35 "
Caps and hats, fur, 25 "
Caps and hats and bonnets, 30 "
Carpenters' rules, 35 "
Carpets (two-ply and three-ply ingrain, whose warp
is wholly composed of cotton or other material
than woo] worst «•(!, hair of alapaca goat or
like animals > He. per square yard and '_'.'• "
Carpets M ]•«•!)]{• ingrain, threo-ply or two-ply com
posi-il wluill\ of wool) 5c, per square yard and lif> u
Cai pHs dilicr than al>ove) 30 "
Carriages, l>nu<;ifs. pleasure carts and similar
vehicl&s (not elsewhere specified). -Costing not
more than $50, £5 each and 25 percent; costing
more than $50 35 "
Carriages : Farm and freight wagons, carts drays
and similar vehicles .. 25 "
53
Chains, trace, tug and halter 324 per cent
Chimneys, lamp, glass, 30 «
China ware and porcelain ware 30 «
Churns, wood 20 "
Crocks and churns, earthenware, 3c. per gallon of
holding capacity
Clothes wringers 25c. each and 20 "
Cordage l£c.. per Ib. and JO p. c 2£c per lb
Collars, cotton, linen, etc 24c. per doz. and 25 per cent'
Cuffs 4c. per pair and 25 "
Cultivators 20 lt
Currycombs and currycards 32i «
Cutlery, table, not plated 32? u
" ll plated tt
11 N. O. P., not plated 25 "
Cutters and sleighs 30 u
Duke, cotton, printed, dyed or colored.... .... 30 it
Earthenware and stoveware, jugs, crocks, etc. 3c.
per gallon capacity
Earthenware, viz., drain pipe and tiles 3c it
" drain tiles Qot glazed 20 "
Edged tools,' n. e. s 3^ K
Envelopes, printed or not „ 3 o "
FLOUR, 75c. perbbl.
Fanning mills and parts, 35 per cent.
Barbed wire fencing of iron or steel |c per j^'
Buckthorn and strip fencing of iron or steel £c< «<
Fertilizers, compounded or manufactured 10 per cent.
Flags, bunting or cotton, 30 "
Forks, pronged, hay, manure, etc., 35 «
Furniture, all kinds, 30 "
Glass Goods, lamp chimneys, etc., 30 «
Mirrors, 27£ to 32£ "
Axle grease, .".. 25 "
Grindstones, 30 "
Hnlter chains, ;*2i "
Hammers, 25 '
Harrows and parts, 20 "
Hats, caps and bonnets, not fur, 30 "
Hay knives, 35 "
Hay rakes, wood, 35 "
India rubber and waterproof clothing, 35 "
Linen clothing, 32£ "
Mangles, washing, 2?|
Harvest mitts and mitts and gloves of all kinds 35 "
54
Nails and spikes, 30 per cent.
Wire nails, lc. per Ib.
Cut nails, fc. per Ib.
COAL OIL (equal to from 100 to 150 per cent) 6c. per gal.
Ploughs, walking ami sulky, 20 per cent.
Horse rakes, 2:>
Rakes, not elsewhere specified, ... 35
Rice, cleaned, HC. per Ib.
Saws of all kinds, . T. 32£ per cent.
Screw nails, 35
Scythes, 35
Scythe stones, 30
Separators and parts, . . . . 30
Shears (pruning and sheep) 35
Sleighs and sledges, 30
Soap (common) lc. per Ib.
Soap (castile, mottled or white) 2c. "
Starch, l£c. "
Steam engines, (portable) 30 per cent.
Stoves, 27£
Stovepipes, 27*
Stove shovels, -27*
Su^ar (raw above 16 Dutch standard and all
refined) . 64c. per 100 Ibs.
Syrup. £c. per Ib.
Molasses, He. per Ib.
Surcingles (cotton or heiup) 30 percent:
Suspenders and braces, 35
I'nderwear of all kinds, 30 to 35
Washing machines, 17 ±
Winceys, checked, striped or fancy cotton ;io
Windmills, 30
The customs tariff of the Dominion should be Itasr.l, not us
it is now, upon the protective Principle, but upon the require-
ments of the public service ; and it should be so adjusted as to
make free, or to bear us lightly as possible upon the necessaries of
life, and should be so arranged as to promote free trade with the
whole world, more particularly with Great Britain and the United
States."
55
ENLARGED MARKETS -RECIPROCITY.
Plank 2— Liberal Platform.
" That, having regard to the prosperity of Canada and the United
States as adjoining countries, with, many mutual interests, it is desir-
able that there should be the most friendly relations and broad and
liberal trade intercourse between them ;
1 That the interests alike of the Dominion and of the Empire
would be materially advanced by the establishing of such relations ;
' That the period of the old receprocity treaty was one of marked
prosperity to the British North American colonies;
;t That the pretext under which the Government appealed to the
country in 1891 respecting negotiation for a treaty with the United
States was misleading and dishonest, and intended to deceive the
electorate;
" That no sincere effort has been made by them to obtain a treaty
but that, on the contrary, it is manifest that the present (Government,
controlled as they are by monopolies and combines, are not desirous
of securing such a treaty;
14 That the first step towards obtaining the end in view, is to place
a party in pow.r who are sincerely desirous of of promoting a teaty
on terms honorable to both countries;
'' That a fair and liberal reciprocity treaty would develop the great
natural resources of Canada, would enormously increase the trade and
commerce between the two countries, would tend to encourage friendly
relations between the two peoples, would remove many causes which
have in the past provoked irritation and trouble to the Governments
of both countries, and would promote those kindly relations between
the Empire and the Republic which afford the best guarantee for
peace and prosperity;
" That the Liberal party is prepared to enter into negotiations
with a view to obtaining such a treaty, including a well-considered
list of manufactured articles, and we are satisfied that any treat, so
arranged wilTreceive the assent of Her Majesty's Government, with-
out whose approval no treaty can be made.
The Benefits of Reciprocity.
Reciprocity is not a mere theory as regards the effects to be pro-
duced. The old reciprocity treaty extending from 1854 to 18<»<; affords
practical illustration of the benefits to be derived from interchange
of trade with the United States. During the twelve years that treaty
remained in operation our exports to the United States nearly quad-
rupled, rising from $10,473,000 in 1854 to $39,950,000 in 1866 from all the
provinces now embraced within the bounds 'of the Dominion. The
period durng which the treaty remained in force was one of marked
prosperity for all the provinces Since the abrogation of the i reaty
in 186(3 our export trade with the United States has practically re-
mained stationary, though maintaining the average annual increase
from 1854 to I860 would have carried it up for 1893 to over $100,000.000,
the actual amount haying been for that year 837,296,110 of the produce
of Canada, not including coin and bullion, the produce of Canada,
which amounted to ail additional $309,459.
Sham Negotiations,
It is obvious that the advantages to be derived from reciprocity -ire
veiy great, and it is to be regretted that tl. l.een
guilty of duplicity in dealing with the question. When Parliament
was dissolved in February, 1891, the reason assign, d forth.
that a treaty of reciprocity with the I'nit.'d states was about to be
made, and that it would he desirable to refer the treaty to a Parliament
fresh from the people, and not to a moribund Hou^ menis in
Government organs that a reciprocity treaty in natural products simi-
lar to the treaty of 1854 was being negotiated at Washington, and that
Si i- Charles Tapper was going there as Canadian Commissioner.
traacted attention in the United States, and on January 29th, 189L
Congressman Baker addressed a letter to JWr. lilaine, Secretary of
State, 'asking if these rumors were well founded. To this enquiry Mr.
Blaine made the following unequivocal reply :
WASIIJM.IOX, I). C., 2'Jth January, 1«!M.
MY DK.VK MR. BAKKK, — I authorize you to contradict the rumors you refer
to. There are no negotiations whatever on foot for a reciprocity treaty with
Canada, and you may be assured that no scheme for reciprocity with the
Dominion confined to iiiitnral pro lucts will he. ii:.tertaiiied by this Government.
1 know not hum of Sir Clmrles Tuppcr's coining to WubingtOO,
Yours very truly.
JAMES G. BLAINE
Five days after this letter had emphatically given the lie to the
claim that reciprocity negotiations were in progress, Parliarn.
I ved on the pretext above named. And the false representations
thus made to the electors no doubt aided powerfully in securing a
verdict favorable to the Government.
Having won the election upon these representations it became
necessary to fulfill the promise to send commissioners to Washington,
and this was done in April, iS'.ii. Owing to indignation at the
duplicity and misrepresentation of the Canadian atithorh the
action of the United States Government in tne premises, President
Harrison refused the Canadian commissioners an interview.
In I-Ybruary, l^'.i-J, Canadian commissio :,n>iuh
through the intervention of Sir Julien Paunj ng a re-
ception by lion .lames U. lilaine, American Secretary of State, and
then Mau-d their proposal for reciprocity to be on toe bafi
. of 1854 and to be Confined to natural products. To this propo>al
Mr. Blaine made answer that the United States would oonsidei
-iiion for reciprocity which did not embrace an agreed list of
liianufai tnies, as was well known to the Canadian c. -
from all previous declarations of the American State Department.
In truth the Canadian proposals were a mockery made solely to save
appaaranoes.
01
The report made by Mr. Blaine to the President of his interview
with the Canadian Commissioners in a state document, signed by him
and published in the offcial records of Congress, contains the
following:
" At the first conference, on February 10, the commissioners
" stated that they were authorized by the Canadian Government.to
" propose the renewal of the reciprocity treaty of 1854 (which was
" terminated in 1866 by the action of the Congress of the United
" States), with such modifications and extensions as the altered
" circumstances of both countries and their respective interests
" might seem to require.
" In answer to an inquiry, the commissioners stated that the
" modifications or extensions contemplated in the schedules of
" articles should be confined to natural products and should not
"embrace manufactured articles.
" The commissioners were informed that the Government of
'' of the United States would not be prepared to renew the treaty
" of 1854 nor to agree upon any commercial reciprocity which
" should be confined to natural products alone; and that in view of
" the great development of industrial interests of the United States
" and of the changed conditions of the commercial relations of the
" two countries since the treaty of 1854 was negotiated, it was re-
" garded of essential importance that a list of manufactured goods
1 should be included in the schedules of articles for free or favored
': exchange in any reciprocity arrangement which might be made.
" The commissioners then inquired if the Government of the
" United States would expect to have preferential treatment ex-
" tended to the list of manufactured goods of the United States on
" their introduction into Canada by virtue of a reciprocity treaty,
" or whether it would regard the Canadian Government as at
" liberty to extend the same favors to the manufactured goods of
" other countries not parties to the treaty on their introduction
" into Canada.
" The reply given them was that it was the desire of the <
" eminent of the United States to make a reciprocity convention
" which would be exclusive in its application to the United States
" and Canada, and that other countries which are not parties to it
" should not enjoy gratuitously the favurs which the two neighbor-
• m<_I countrir.- miijht reciprocally cone tch other for valuable
.MI It-rations and at a large sacrifice to their respective
" revenues.
j»on receiving thi ; reply, the ' n cuini!.
1 'asked that the further r uiou of the -ut j,ct lie adjou'
" till another conference, to enable them to consult as to the c»
" which they would adopt in view of the foregoing declaration."
" In the conference of the llth the Canadian commissioners
" stated that they //"</ »//'•
" thn.t manufactured goods should be
" articles for exchatige in a reciprocity convention, and to the d
" expressed by the Government of the United States that such
" American goods on their introduction into Canada should he
" accorded preferential treatment ever similar from other
"countries; and they announced, with an expression of regret, that
" they did. not consider it possible to meet the expectations of the
" Government of the United States in these respects. In the first
" place they encountered a serious obstacle in the matter of
" revenue. If any considerable list of manufactured goods of the
" United States should be admitted free into Canada, it would
"entail a material loss to the Dominion treasury, and if f
" favors were likewise extended to the merchandise of other
" countries the loss of revenue would be much greater. They felt
" that they would not l>e able to recoup these y other
•• methods of taxation. In the second place, it seenn.":
" impossible for the Canadian Government, in view of its piv
" political relations and obligations, to extend to American goods a
" preferential treatment over those of other countries. As Canada
WHS a part of the British Empire, they did not r it
" competent for the Dominion Government to *-nter into any c
" mercial arrangement with the United States, from the benefits of
" which Great Britain and its colonies should be excluded.
"The announcement of these conclusions of the Canadian
mmiesionera was accepted as a bar to further negotiation -
" this subject, and it was not again di-- \eept in connection
" with the fishing privileges on the Atlantic coast."
FORMER RECIPROCITY TREATIES-
>cle III, Treaty with Groat Britain
It i> agreed that the articles enumerated in the srh<-diilr huii: into HI,:
being the growth ami produce of the aforesaid British nr <>( the
United States, shall be admitted iiito each country respectively free of duty:
59
Grain, flour and breadstuff of alt kinds.
Animals of all kinds.
Fresh, smoked and salted meats.
Cotton, wool, seeds and vegetables.
Undried fruits, dried fruits,
Fish of all kinds.
Products of fish, and of all other
creatures living in the water.
Poultry, eg'j:s.
Hides, furs, skins, or tails, undressed.
Stone, or marble, in its crude or un-
wrought state.
Slate.
Butter, cheese, tallow.
Lard, horns, manures,
Ores, of metals, of all kinds.
Coal.
Pitch, tar, turpentine, ashes.
Timber, and lumber of all kinds, round,
hewed and sawed, unmanufactured
in whole or in part.
Firewood
Plants, shrubs, and trees.
Pelts, wool.
Fish oil.
Rice, broom corn, and bark.
Gypsum, ground or nnground.
Hewn, or wrought, or unwrought
burr or grindstones.
Dyestuffs.
Flax, hemp, or tow, unmanufactured.
Unmanufactured tobacco.
Rags.
[Article IV, Di aft of treaty with Great Britain, 1874.— Geo. Brown Treaty.]
It is agreed that the articles euumerated in Schedules A, B, and C, hereunto
annexed, being the growth, produce or manufacture of the Dominion of Canada
or of the United States, shall, on their importation from the one country into
the other, from the 1st day of July, 1875, to the 30th day of June, 1876 (both
included), pay only two thirds of the duties payable at the date of this treaty
on the importations into such country of such articles respectively ; and from
the 1st day of July, 1876, to the 30th day of June, 1877, (both included), shall
pay one-third of such duties, and on and after the 1st day of July, 1877, for the
period of years mentioned in article xiii of this treaty, shall be admitted free of
duty into each country, respectively.
For the term mentioned in article xili no other or higher duties shall be im-
posed in the United States upon other article not enumerated in said schedules
the growth, produce or manufacture of Canada, or in Canada upon such other
articles the growth, produce or manufacture of the United States, than are re-
spectively imposed upon like articles the growth, produce or manufacture of
Great Britain, or of any other country.
SCHEDULE A.
Consists of the following natural products :
Animals of all kinds.
Ashes, pot, pearl, and soda.
Bark.
Bark extract, for tanning purposes.
Bath bricks. .
Breadstufls of all kinds.
Brioks for building, and tire bricks.
Broom corn.
Burr or grindstones, hewed, wrought,
or unwrought.
Butter,
Cheese.
Coal and coke.
Cotton wool.
Cotton waste.
Dyestuffs.
Earths, clays, ochers, sand, ground or
unground.
Eggs.
Fish of all kinds.
Fish, products of, and of all other
creatures living iu the water, except
rtsh preserved in oil.
Firewood.
Flax, unmanufactured.
Flour, and meals of all kinds.
Fruits, green or dried.
Furs, undressed.
Grain of all kinds.
Gypsum, ground.unground, or calcined.
Hay.
Hemp, unmanufactured.
Hides.
Horns.
Lard.
Lime.
GO
Malt.
Mann
Marble, stone, slate, or granite,
wrought or nnwrought .
Meats, frr-.li. .-moked or (-alted.
<>f all kinds of metals.
PHts.
Pease, whole or split.
Petroleum oil,crude,reflnd or ben/ole.
Pitch.
Plants.
Poultry and birds of all kinds.
Hags of all kinds.
Rice.
Salt.
Seeds.
Shrubs.
Ini,
Straw,
Tails.
Tallow.
Tar.
Timber and lumber of all kinds, round,
hewed and sawed, mannf:i< Hired in
whole or in part.
Tobacco, unmanufacturi
Tow, unmanufactured.
Trees.
Turpentine,
Vegetables.
Wool.
SCHKDUI.K H.
Consisting of the following agricultural implements:
Axes.
ttagholdera.
Beehives.
Bone-crushers, or parts thereof.
Cultivators, or parts thereof.
Chaff-cutters, or parts thereof.
Corn-hupkers, or parts thereof.
Cheese-vats.
Cheese-factory heaters.
Cheese-presses, or parts thereof.
Churns, or parts thereof.
Cattle-feed boilers and steamers, or
parts thereof.
Ditchers, or parts thereof.
Field rollers, or parts thereof.
Fanning mills, or parts thoreof-
Feed-enoppers or parts thereof.
Forks for hay and manure, hand or
hoi
Grain Drills, or parts thereof .
Grain-crushers, or parts thereof.
Ha n
Hoes, hand or horse.
Ilorserakes.
Horse-power machines, or parts thereof
Hay tedders, or parts thereof.
Liquid manure carts, or parts thereof.
Manure sowers, or part* thereof.
Mowers, or parts tin
Oil and oil-cake crushers, or parts
thereof.
Plows, or parts thereof.
Rant and seed planters, or parts thereof.
Root cutters, pulpers, and washers, or
parts thereof.
Rakes.
Reapers, or parts thereof.
Reaper and mower combined, or parts
thereof.
Spades.
Sho\>
Scythes.
Snalths.
Threshing machines, or parts then- >f
SCUKbl
Consisting of the. following manufactui
A\l.-, all kinds.
Hoots :ind shoe*, of leather.
I'.uot and -hoe making machines.
Butlalo robes dressed and trimmed.
n grain bag<.
Cotton denims.
Cotton jeans; unbleached.
Cotton drillings, unbleached.
Cotton tickings.
Cotton plaids.
< ottonades. unbleached,
Cabinet ware and furniture, or parts
thereof.
Carriage^, carts, wagons, and other
wheeled vehicles and sleighs or
parts thereof.
Fire engines, or parts thereof.
Felt covering for hollers.
Gutta-percha belting and tubing.
Iron, bar, hoop, pig, puddled, rod.
sheet, or scrap.
Iron nails, spikes, bolts, tacks brads
or sprigs.
Iron castings.
India rubber belting and tubing.
Gl
Locomotives for railways, or parts
thereof.
Lead, sheet or pie.
Leather sole or upper.
Leather, harness, and saddlery of
Mill, or factory, or steomboat fixed
engines and machines or parts teereof
Manufactures of marble, stone, slate
or granite.
Manufacturers of wood solely, or wood
, nailed, bound, hinged, or locked with
metal materials.
Mangles, washing machines,wringing
machines, and drying machines, or
parts thereof.
Printing paper for newspapers.
Paper-making machine.',"!- p.n
Printing type, presses, and fo ers,
paper cutters, ruling machines, age
numbering machines and sterel yp-
ing apparatus, or parts thereofv
Refrigerators, or parts thereof.
Railroad cars, carriages and trucks,
or parts thereof.
Satinets of wood or cotton.
Steam engines or parts thereof.
Steel, wrought or cast, and steel
plates and rails.
Tin tubes and piping.
Tweeds of wool solely.
Water-wheel machines and apparatus
or parts thereof.
American duties have been imposed upon Canadian agricultural
products imported into the United States since 18^ . In October,
1890, these duties were largely increased by the McKi .^y Bill and the
disastrous effect upon our export trade produced by this increase is
shown by a comparison of farm exports for the year ending June 30th,
1890, the last year before the McKinley Bill went into operation, and
the year ending June 30th, 1893, the last year for which we have full
trade returns since the bil went into operation. The following is the
comparison in twelve leading articles of farm products.
Comparison of Export of Farm Products, 1890—1893.
Name of Article,
Horses,
Cattle,
Poultry,
Eggs.
Wool,
Flax,
Barley,
Split peas,
Hay,
Malt,
Potatoes'
Rye,
1890
$1,887,895
104,623
105,612
1,793,104
235,436
175,563
4,582,562
74,215
922,797
149,310
308.W5
113,320
$10,453,352
1893
$1,123,339
11,032
52,114
324,35:>
228.0,'JO
124,082
638,27 1
4,214
854,958
19
•259,176
3,302
S3.624.892
United States Market Compared With All Others.
It is the custom of the Conservative orators, and of the Con-
servative press to seek to belittle the importance of the American
market, and we are told that substitutes for that market can easily
be obtained, as for instance in Australia, a country which last year
62
took of the farm products of C 'anada to tho value of S25 only. A
statement of tin- lines in which our uitrd States,
even under the grievous restrictions of the McKinley Bill, exci
our exports to all the rest of the world in 1S93 will show how
utterly destitute of foundation is this assertion. Here is tin t
which is more convincing than argument :
Articles or classification of r\p"
tin- produce of Canada. Tinted S; All »\ .IT com
Products of the mine,
4,7
s 5 ;
forest,
60
12,4!'
Fresh water fish and salt
water fish, fresh,
1,2S7>22
4,642
Horses,
1,1-
337
Swine,
130,093
15,997
Sheep,
1J088.814
169,041
Poult y,
1 14
9,013
Hones,
1-44
10,282
Hides,
246
7 122
Sheep pelts,
66:
16
Wool,
281
Flax,
1 -24
Berries,
96,104
115
Krnit, \. K. S.,
24,(
1.114
Barley,
•271
806
Beans,
:r> I
Hay,
Il.l.S
7IU4
Straw,
1 17
Maple sugar,
;74
1477
Trees, shrubs and plants,
11
Potut
259,176
162,782
10:.
10,404
< >ther artic.l<
27'
I :>77
Fertilizers,
7,706
Furs,
164
3408
Grind
24,754
Gypsum,
091
Household I'tiects,
1 24<;,o
37,081
Lime,
!»7
8.207
Barrels,
10631
6,297
HouM-hold furniture,
872
50,749
Wood pulp,
424 :>-•:*
1,640
Other manufactures,
7. V2
117727
Bulli
$28,132,233 14:.
63
RECIPROCITY.
In connection with this subject of Reciprocity with the United
States, the following tables are submitted showing the exports of the
three Maritime Provinces, during 1893, and the countries where
exported to :
NEW BRUNSWICK.
Total exports, . ..... 8 7,253,611
Of these the United States took : 3,735,074
Over 50 per cent.
The rest of the world took $ 3,518,537
Of this $3,518,537 Great Britain took almost $, 3000, 000, of which all
8225,000 was deal and deal ends.
Practically, therefore, New Brunswick's market for all she has to
dispose of, except deals and deal ends, is found in the United States.
The products of her manufactures. s 144,999
mines, 66,348
tisheries, 756,437
animals ami their products, 158,041
agricultural produc", 174,763
All find their best markets in the United States, while less than
half <t million of her total exports rind a market in all countries of the
world outside of Great Britain and the United States.
The case is even stronger with
PHINCE EDWARD ISLAND.
Her total exports in 1803 reached ... 8 1,235,344
Of these the United States took .... nr.s.i.-yj
or over 50 per cent
All the rest of the world took .Vi7,-Jicj
NOVA SCOTIA.
Total exports, 310,308,62<S
( )f these the United States took 3,230,218
or nearly one third,
All the rest ut'the world took £ 7,078.410
This is irrespective of 8304,220 coin and [bullion exported to the
United States.
These tables show that one of the most I'ul.inthh- //^//-/-,..v\ for the
Maritime Provinces is the United States.
That it would be suicidal on our part not to cultivate and
develop it,
64
That in spin- of /mxtH, \t<irijj'* ••„ f>,,tl, .v/^.t run- trade with the
United States, in the year was as follows :
Nov. exports to I'nited States, S
New Brunswick, " \074
P. K. Island " " 608,1-V2
Total exports, 9 7,573,444
Nova Scotia, Imports from I' S., * 2,46o.
New Brunswick,
P. K. Island 130,-j:M
- :>,.vj(»,«;:v_»
Total trade of Mar. Provinces with
with the United States in 1893-4. S 1M, 103,076
This trade is capable of infinite expansion. A reciprocity
treaty would re- vivify trade, increase our exports and imp-
duplicate our profits, increase the value of our lands, retain at
home and give employment to our population.
We do not ignore the increasing value of our British trade.
On the contrary we desire to increase it. That is evident by the
resolution moved by Mr. Davies in Parliament, and voted down
by the Tories : Eesolved that
Inasmuch as Great Britain admits the products of Canada
into her ports free of duty, this House is of the opinion that the
present scale of duties exacted on goods mainly imported from
<ii<-at Britain should be reduced."
We have and will have the British markets absolutely
We want two strings to our bow. We want to make the Ameri-
can market as free as the revenue acquirements of both countries
permit.
We know we could have negotiated a reasonable and fair
Reciprocity treaty in 1891 or 1892, embracing a fair list of manu-
factured goods.
\\'c believe such a treaty can yet be had. The task has been
rendered exceedingly difficult by the blundering of the Tory Gov-
ernments. But it is not insuperable ; and if a Liberal Govern
in cut is returned to power we can reasonably hope for the
ul negotiation of a Reciprocity treaty with the United
States at an early date.
65
PURITY OF ADMINISTRATION- CONDEMN
CORRUPTION.
" That the convention deplores the gross corruption in the
management and expenditure of public moneys which for years
past has existed under the rule of the Conservative party, and the
revelations of which by the different parliamentary committees
of enquiry have brought disgrace upon the fair name of Canada.
" The Government which profited politically by these ex
penditures of public moneys whereof the people have been de-
frauded, aud which, nevertheless, have never punished the
guilty parties, must be held responsible for the wrong-doing. We
arraign the Government for retaining in office a Minister of the
Crown proved to have accepted very large contributions of money
for election purposes from the funds of a railway company, which
while paying the political contributions to him, a member of the
Government, with one hand, was receiving Government subsidies
with the other.
" The conduct of the minister and the approval of his col-
leagues after the proof became known to them are calculated to
degrade Canada in the estimation of the world, and deserve the
severe condemnation of the people."
A Few Examples.
The force of the charge of corruption made against the Con-
servative Government, and the urgent condemnation they deserve
can be best shown by a few examples.
The illustrations given are confined to cases involving the
action of members of the present administration, or of their sup-
porters in the House, who have been sustained in their wrong-
doing by the ministry and the party in Parliament.
1. In the Caron case the evidence is complete of the levying
by a Minister for a reptile fund of an enormous sum from those
interested in railway government subsidies, and its expenditure
by Ministers in electoral corruption. The exposure is more re-
markable because the original charges were mutilated and enquiry
largely stifled, on the motion of Mr. Bowell, the present First
Minister.
2. The McGreevy Conspiracy illustrates the levying of cor-
ruption funds from contractors for public works, the complicity
of Ministers, and the timpering with justice by the release of
political criminals.
66
:>. I he Blind Share Case illustrates the encouragement and
assistance given by Mr. Bowel 1, the new Premier, to the traffick-
ing in Orders in Council.
4. The Cochrane Case is a gross case of the sale of public
offices by a member of Parliament.
5. The Turcotte case is one where a Member of Parliament is
maintained in his seat while drawing the profits from a Govern-
ment contract.
The Capon Case.
Sir Adolphe P. Caron, M. P., is the leader of the Conservative
party in the Province of Quebec, and he ranks next to the Premier
in the Cabinet, both in seniority of appointment and in influence.
In 1892, charges were made by Mr. J. D. Edgar, M. P., in the
House of Commons that sums amounting to $100,000 and upwards
were levied from Government contractors and those interested in
certain railway subsidies, and were spent in the bribery of t went v
two constituencies in the District of Quebec,at the general election
of 1887,
To investigate these charges, he demanded a reference to the
Committee of Privileges and Elections. The members composing
this committee are, in the proportion of two to one, supporters of
the Government.
The Ministers did not dare to face a full enquiry, and there-
fore they put up Mr. Mackenzie Bowell, the present Premier, to
move to strike out some, and to vary others of the charges.
'I he Tarte McGreevy inquiry of the previous year was made
before the Committee of Privileges and Elections, and it had been
so damaging to the Government that they dared not again face
the committee. Mr. Bowell, therefore, provided in his motion
that the emasculated charges should be referred to a Royal Com-
mission, to be appointed by the Government and selected by the
accused. Mr. Bowell 's motion was carried by the usual party
majority.
Mr. Edgar very properly declined to appear at the sittings
of this Royal Commission but sent to the Commissioners a list of
his witnesses, whom they called and partially examined.
In due time the Royal Commission reported the evidence
taken. The startling and disgraceful facts revealed before them,
even under the limited scope of the inquiry, show that the Minis
ters had good reasons for dreading the more complete exposure
that would have been made if the original charges had been gone
into.
67
It was clearly shown that when Sir Adolphe Caron entered
the Ministry in 1880, he was a shareholder of the construction
company which received all the Government subsidies granted to
the Quebec and Lake St. John Eailway Company. After he
entered the Government, the subsidies voted to that railway ex-
ceeded a million of dollars. The late Senator Boss was president
of this company, and Mr. Beemer was the contractor, also deeply
interested in the subsidies. Just before the elections of 1887, Sir
Adolphe Caron applied for a political subscription from Senator
Boss, who promptly gave him $25,000.
According to Mr. Beemer^s books, there were also about the
same time a number of other payments amounting to $25,000
more, which was charged to "A. P. C." and " G. E. F." These
letters were sworn to have ment "A. P. Caron " and "General
Election Fund." There can be no doubt that at least $50,000
were furnished towards a corruption fund in 1887, from those in-
terested in the subsidies to this one railway. It was a great
investment for them, of course, to make this contribution, for
the Government have paid them $463,408 since 1887.
Then there was the Temiscouata Eailway, which was also
receiving Dominion subsidies, and was partially enquired into by
the Eoyal Commissioners. They found in this instance, too, that
$25,000 was set apart and expended by this railway for political
purposes during the progress of the work of construction.
These sums went to swell a Eeptile Fund for the District of
Quebec alone, for the election of 1887, which amounted to
$112,000 according to the figures of the McGreevy papers papers
published in The Globe.
Out of the twenty- two counties where this fund was expended,
the Government only carried ten seats, making an average ^cost to
the country for each member returned to support them $11,200.
It is not at all unfair to assume that in the rest of the Dominion
similar corruption funds have been provided by the same vile means
for the elections of 1887, and for all elections.
The raising of these enormous sums before every general elec-
tion is a well recognized practice of the Conservative party in
Canada. Before another Royal Commission in 1873, it was proved
that Sir Hugh Allen paid for the promise oi the old Canadian
Pacific Railway Charter, $365,000 to the election fund of the Con-
servative party in 1872. How much more they had from other
sources for that election will never be known.
6S
For each dollar that a contractor, or a ^u'-si.lixcil railway com-
pany, or a tariff-protected monopolist, pays to reptile funds, he is in
a position to demand a ten-fold return iii the plunder of the public.
By the acceptance of the.se bribes, the Government place themselves
at the mercy of the contributors.
Since the exposures in the Caron case, several new Ministries
have been constructed, and in each one of them Sir Adolphe Caron
has been placed in a high and honorable position. His offence has
been adopted by the Conservative party as their own, and he him-
self has boldly justified it in his place on the floor of Parliament in
these memorable words: "1 say that under the same circum-
stances what I did on that occasion I would do again to mor-
row in order to help my friends."
The McGreevy Conspiracy and the Langevin-Caron
Reptile Fund.
In 1891, a number of charges were made in Parliament by Mr.
Tarte, M. P., against Sir Hector Langevin, then Minister of Public
Works, and Hon. T. McGreevy, AL P. Mr. Tarte alleged that the
contracting firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., were allowed by Sir
Hector Langevin, then Minister of Public Works, with the assistance
of Mr. McGreevy, to cheat the country out of nundreds of thousands'
of dollars on Government contracts.
These charges were referred to a Committee of the House for
investigation, and the public were startled by the revelations of
fraud and conspiracy by which the country was shown to have
been robbed of about half a million of dollars. The full extent to
which this money was applied to Tory Corruption Funds will never
be known, but evidence was dragged out of unwilling witnesses
that $119,438 of it were paid for election expenses.
The famous (Quebec District Election Fund of l.sxT received
$20,000 from these contractors, and that fund wus tlistril.nl. -d for
election purposes by two Ministers of the Crown, Sir Hector
Langevin and Sir Adolphe P. Car on.
As an instance of the grossly corrupt uses that were made of
this Keptile Fund, the case of Three Rivers, Sir Hector Langevin's
^jwn constituency, may be given. In 1887 the total number of
votes cast for Sir Hector, the successful candidate, was 640. The
sum returned by Sir Hector's agent and published as his total law-
ful election expenses was $917.09. Tlu; MHU sent into the con-
stitnency from this fund alone was $13,150. No wonder be w;xs
successful after an expenditure of over $20 for every vote he re-
ceived.
Messrs. McGreevy and Connolly were placed on trial for their
part in this conspiracy to defraud, and on conviction in November,
1894, were sentenced to gaol for twelve months. How could a
Conservative Government who owed their places to the support
given them by these conspirators permit them to serve out their
sentence ? How could Sir Adolphe Carop, a noble knight and a
Minister, who had received and expended in corruption, part of
the proceeds of this conspiracy, allow his friends and pals to lan-
guish in prison while he was an adviser of the Crown ? It was
therefore represented to the Government that confinement did not
agree with the prisoner's digestion, and they were liberated after
but three months' imprisonment.
The eminent judge who tried the case (Mr. Justice Rose) said
that the offence was only aggravated by the purposes of electoral
corruption to which the proceeds of this conspiracy wore applied ;
yet it was the very baseness of the objects of the conspiracy that
saved these culprits from the punishment of their crimes. To
screen the criminal purveyors of the Reptile Fund the course of
justice was tampered with and the prison doors were flung open
wide for the escape of the men who had dark political secrets in
their breasts, which they threatened to divulge.
In order that the full responsibility may be shown to rest
upon the proper shoulders, the following extract is given from the
Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons of 3rd July, 1894.
It is a motion of want of confidence, and all the Government sup-
porters in the House voted against it :
" The Order of the day for the House to go again into Com-
mittee of Supply, beinif read :
" Sir John Thompson moved, That Mr. Speaker do now leave
the Chair.
" Mr. Edgar moved in amendment thereto, that all the words
" after the word "that" be left out, and the following inserted in-
stead thereof : "from the public trial and conviciion of Thomas
" McGreevy and N. K. Connolly for conspiracy to defraud, and
' from evidence and papers already before this Houpe, it appears
"that large portions of the moneys which were found, upon said
"trial, to have been criminally received by the said Thomas Me-
70
" Greevy from Government contractors, were so received by him for
' the purpose of being expended in elections in the interest of the
"Conservative party, and for distribution by Sir Hector Langevin,
" M. P., and Sir Adolphe Caron, M.P., for the election of themselves
" and of other supporter* of the Government at the general elec-^
" tions held in February, 1887."
" That it further appears that large portions of the said
" moneys, together with other large sums collected by Sir Adolphe
" Carou from those interested in Government railway subsidies,
" were expended and distributed by Sir Hector Langevin and Sir
" Adolphe Caron, and in lavish and illegal amounts, to assist in
' the election of themselves and of other supporters of the Govern -
" meat, in the district of Quebec, at the general elections of 1887."^
' That the said Sir Hector Langevin and Sir Adolphe Caron
" were then, and are now, members of this House, and on the roll of
' Her Majesty's Privy Councillors for Canada, and the said Sir
" Adolphe Caron is a Cabinet Minister and Postmaster General."
11 That in the opinion of this House, the said Sir Hector Lan-
" gevin and Sir Adolphe Caron are- deserving of the severest
" censure for their connection with the said transactions, and
• that it is a public scandal and an injury to the reputation of
" Canada that Sir Adolphe Caron should continue to hold the
" position of a Minister of the Crown."
"And the question being put on the amendment; in was
on division."
Bowell and the Blind Shares.
In 1882 a craze set in for the formation of Colonization Com-
panies in the North-west. The plan was to secure an Order-in
Council from the Dominion Government granting large tracts of
land at low prices to individuals who would then form a joint
stcck company to buy out their grants. For this purpose a mem-
ber of the House of Commons, now deceased, associated himself
with Mr. James C. Jamieson, a son-in-law of Sir Mackenzie
Bowell, then and now a Minister of the Crown, and they pro-
cured for themselves and ten others in April, 1882, an Order in
Council granting them several townships of very choice land. Mr.
Bowell was consulted about it before the Order in Council was
passed, and knew of the exceedingly advantageous '• deal " that
had been arranged for the profit of his supporter in the House,
and for his son-in-law. Both of those gentlemen were to receive
what was called " blind shares " in the stoek of the company,
71
that is, stock on which they were to receive all the profits with-
out paying any money into the company. A company called
" The Prince Albert Colonization Company " was accordingly
organized with twelve shareholders, ten of whom were paying
parties, and the aforesaid two gentlemen were non-paying hold-
ers of u blind shares," each to the extent of $33,cfr)0.
It is true that Mr. Jamieson had to pay another party $500
to get in on the ground floor, but so warm an interest was taken
by Mr. Bowell in this clever scheme of making money out of the
Government grant that he offered to lend, and did lend, to Mr.
Jamieson this $500, which was afterwards repaid to Mr. Bowell,
when Mr. Jamieson sold out his blind shores for cash.
On the demand of Mr. Edgar, M. P., these charges were re-
ferred for investigation to the Committee of Privileges and Elec-
tions. Thoy were proved to be literally true ; yet by a majority
composed entirely of Ministers themselves, Mr. Bowell was white-
washed by the Committee, and his conduct was declared to be be-
yond reproach. This report was . laid before the Hou.se of Com-
mons on 18th May, 1886, but although the House sat until 2nd
June, the Government did not dare to move for its adoption. The
position therefore is that Sir Mackenzie Bowell was accused in the
House of conduct of which he himself said : " These statements
affect not only my position as a Minister of the Crown but my re-
putation as a public man." These charges, so serious and disgrace-
ful to a Minister and a public wan, stand of record yet against
him on the journals of the House of Commons. They have not
been dealt with by the House. Are they wiped out by reason of
his elevation to the Senate ? He allowed the Session and the
Parliament, in which the charges were made, to pass without a
move, satisfied apparently with the whitewash of a packed com-
mittee, and a verdict cast by his own colleagues on that committee.
Is this the stainless Premier, the pure and lofty statesman, who
leads the Conservative party of Canada to-day ?
No wonder that he moved the resolution to burke enquiry in-
to the charges made against his colleague Sir Adolphe Carou iu
1892. " A fellow feeling made him wondrous kind."
Corrupt Sale of Public Offices — The Cochrane Case.
From 1888 to 1890 the patronage of the County of East
Northumberland was in the hands of Edward Cochrane, Conserva-
tive M. P. The completion of the Murray Canal gave a number of
positions as keepers of swing bridges across the canal to be award-
ed to political supporters by Mr. Cochrane.
72
There was at that time also •• vacancy to he fillet by him iu
the position of keeper of the Presque Isle Light House.
A committee of Mr. Cochrane's supporers was organized for
the express purpose of corruptly trafficking in these officeW and
with the full knowledge of Mr. Cochrane they did corrup^y sell
and dispose of such offices.
Hedley Simpson paid $200 for the Light House position, and
each of the following persons paid from $125 to $200 apiece for
the petty positions of keepers of swing bridges, nsunely: Wesley
Goodrich, John D. Cloustou, William Brown, Robert May and
Thomas Fitzgerald.
When Mr. Cochrane, M. P.. was informed that the p*iti£ of
the berths had been duly paid, he recommended to the Govern
ment the appointment of these men, and the appointments were
promptly made.
The proceeds of these corrupt sales were applied to the poli-
tical purposes of the Conservative party in the riding, and in
part to pay off a promissory note on which Mr. Cochrane, M. P.,
was personally liable.
Mr. M. C. Cameron, M. P., brought these matters before the
House, and this flagrant and miserable abuse of patronage, and
this sale of public offices was proved before a select committee of
the House of Commons in 1891. " A mild censure of the system of
sale of public offices was passed, but the whitewash brush was
applied, and the Government majority refused to condemn tin-
conduct of the member who not only escaped censure, but hag
been treated by his party as a martyr, a hero, and a victim of
Grit persecution ever since.
Buying Up a Member of Parliament. -The Tureotte Case.
Mr. A. J. Turcotte, the present M. P. for Montmoreuci Co.,
was elected on llth March, 1892. He is now a very active per-
sonal ally and supporter of Sir Adolphe Carou. At the time of
his election he was carrying on a grocery busings in Quebec in
partnership with Mr. Provost. The firm then had a contract with
the Government in the name of Mr Provost, for the supply of the
militia at the Citidel of Quebec with groceries and provisions.
and up to the dissolution of the firm on 2nd February. 18!»:>. they
received from the Government rlu-qiifs amounting to $4.112.85.
This amount was all paid over by the firm to Mr. Tnrcotte for his
private benefit.
73
After the dissolution of the firm, Mr. Turcotte continued in
the grocery business and supplied the Militia Department with the
goods. For these he leceived all the payment for his own benefit,
although the cheques, as before, continued to be issued in Mr.
Provost's name, and were endorsed by him over to Mr. Turcotte
who cashed/fchern.
It is of course grossly improper for a member to be sitting in
the House drawing pay from contracts let to him by the Minis-
ters. He is in fact sold to them, and does not represent the people,
but is the slave of the Government.
The law condems this sort of thing very clearly, for section 10
of the Independence of Parliament Act, says :
" No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with any other,
by himself or by the interposition of any trustee or third party,
holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing any contract or
agreement, expressed or implied, with or for the Government of
Canada on behalf of the Crown, or with or for any of the officers
of the Government of Canada, for which any public money of
Canada is to be paid, shall be eligible as a member of the House
of Commons, or shall sit or vote in^ihe said House."
Yet in spite of the plain language of the statute, the Govern-
ment majority in the House on 13th July, 1894, was called upon
to whitewash Mr. Turcotte in the face of sworn evidence proving
the above facts.
On that date Mr. Edgar, M. P., moved a resolution declaring
that Mr.vTurcotte had forfeited his seat.
Four Conservative members refused to swallow the scandal-
ous whitewashing vote, but all the rest were whipped into line,
voted down Mr. Edgar's motion, and had to justify by their votes
the clearest breach of the Independence of Parliament that was
ever proved before a committee.
Under that precedent, members can be safely bought up by
public money, like sheep in a market, to support any Govern-
that happens to be in power.
Favoritism and Extravagance.
The Hon. John Haggart, Minister of Railways and Canals,
represented his present constituency of Lanark in 1882, and used
his influence with the Government to induce them to undertake
the construction, at public expense, of a short canal of six miles
in length (called the Tay canal) from the Eideau canal to the
town of Perth, with a branch to Mr. Hagga*rt's own mill in that
town. The estimated cost inclusive of certain land and damages,
wa.s si 32,660. The actual cost has amounted to the enormous
sum of $476,128.
74
Is this immense expenditure justified by traffic upon the Tay
canal ! On the contrary it is navigated only by some sktffs, one
scow, two yachts and two tugs. The total revenue fffni this
canal for the year ending Jan. 1st, 1894, was $135.76, wmle the
actual cost of maintenance was for this same period, $2,486.00.
Here is an instance of grossly excessive expenditure which lays
the member who forced it upon the Government for his own ad-
vantage, open to the charge of being utterly unfit to manage the
Department of Railways and Canals.
A resolution condemning that expenditure was moved in
1894 by Mr. John Charlton, M. P., but was voted down by the
usual Government majority.
Curran Bridge Scandal.
The story of the construction of two Government bridges
over the Lachine canal (commonly called the Curran bridges),
involves as startling a disclosure of incompetence, extravagance
and criminal neglect of duty as has yet been made in Canada: The
responsible head of the Department is Honorable John Haggart,
Minister of Railways and Canal* and the work was all done in
the city of Montreal, within telephoning distance of the Minister's
office. The bridges were constructed during the first four months
of the year 1893. The Department decided to have the work on
the sub-structures of the bridges done by day labor. The contract
was entered into with a contractor named St. Louis, a Govern-
ment election pusher, who carried out the work as laid out by
the Department and under its superintendence and direction.
The original estimate of cost of these sub-structures was
$122,000, but the account presented to the Department for that
work have amounted to $430,325, and of this sum $394,000 has
actually been paid to the contractor by the Government.
In order to illustrate the nature of the outrageous over-
charges a few examples may be given. The supply of timber and
lumber paid for is over 1,000,000 feet, board measure, more
than could have been used in those works. The cost of stone
cutting on one of the bridges, if it had been let at the usual
prices by piece work, would have been $3,000, whereas the
amount paid by the Government, including the contractor's price
is $16,715, and the cost of stone cutting on the other bridge was
still more excessive. The prices paid by the Department to the
contractor for labor were greatly beyond current prices, in some
instances being as higB as $12 for work for which the contractor
only paid $4.50, and $9.20 for other work for which the contractor
only paid $3.75. False pay lists were made up with the names
of hundreds and thousands of men upon them who n^ver worked
at all, and very many of whom were entirely fictitious.
75
No check was kept by any Government official upon these
lists, or upon the number of men employed. For months the
contractor, St. Louis, was allowed to charge just what number of
men he liked, and these pay sheets were duly certified by the
Government officials as correct, and paid by the Government.
One official swore that he kept a private memorandum of the
numbers of men employed each day for some weeks. On com-
paring this the truth of which was sworn to, with the Govern-
ment returns, it was found that where 10 men were actually em-
ployed 30 were charged for, and where 30 were actually employed
90 or 100 were charged, and where 100 were employed 300 or 400
were charged.
It was the most open, bare-faced swindle ever exposed in
Canada, and to this day not one of the culprits has been con-
victed in court or punished. A pretence has been made of be-
ginning a prosecution against St. Louis, but it is only a pretence.
The elections will soon be over, and if the Government is sus-
tained, Mr. Ouimet will take good care that his cousin St. Louis,
does not suffer. The Government Commissioners. Messrs. Mc-
Leod, Douglas and Veniot, appointed to examine into the facts,
reported that the amount stolen was $195,693.
This was a larger sum than the whole work could have been
completed for had it been built by contract in the usual way.
These facts cannot be contradicted or denied, as they have
been proved on several occasions, and Mr. Haggart, while not
denying them, is pursuing a somewhat cowardly course of throw-
ing the whole blame upon subordinate officers of his Department.
The people of Canada, however, pay Mr. Haggart a very
large salary for looking after this business for them, and it is a
monstrous proposition that he, the responsible Minister of the
Crown, should be able to clear his skirts by blaming subordinate
officers and contractors whom he appointed and paid. Mr. St.
Louis, the contractor, excuses himself on the ground that he \\ as
forced to contribute so much money to the election of the Conser-
vative party that he had to make it up out of contracts. In order
to avoid the exposure of particulars of his political contributions
all his books connected with the matter were burnt. It is pos-
sible that the inward history of this disgracefnl transaction will
never be known, but the Government and their followers who de-
fended it by their votes last session, will be held to strict ac-
count when they appear before their electors. Sir Richard
Cartwright, on the 18th July, 1894, moved a resolution in the
House of Commons exposing and condemning this transaction,
but it was voted down by the usual Government majority.
76
\
Refusal of Enquiry.
When charges of misconduct have been made agfftst Ministers
in the House of Commons, the Government have sonrnimes altered
the charts. There is another instance where a serious charge was
made against a Minister of the Crown, and the Government ea;Ml on
their majority in Parliament to vote down and refuse any inquiry
whatever into the matters charged. This was notably the case
when in 1891 Mr. J. F. Lister, M.I*., brought serious charges against
Hon. John Haggart in connection with the Section B. contract. On
the 13th September, 1891, he made thefollpwingtnotion :
"That James Frederick Lister, Esquire, the member represent-
ing the electoral district of West Lambton in this House, having de-
clared from the seat in this House that he is credibly informed, and
that he believes that he is able to establish by satisfactory^evidence :
"That in the year 1870 Messrs. Alexander Mannings Alexander
Shields, John James Macdonald, Alexander McDonell, James
Isbester and Peter McLaren entered into a contract with the Gov-
ernment of Canada for the construction of a portion of the Canadian
Pacific Railway between Port Arthur and Kat Portage, known as
Section li.
" The said contract and the works in connection therewith were
completed by the said contractors to whom they were a source of great
profit
"During the whole period covered by the said contract, the
Honorable John G Haggart, now Postmaster- General and a member
of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada. \vas a member ^of the
House of Commons for the South Riding of Lanark, and still is -
member.
" That the said Honorable John G. Haggart became and w*s
beneficially interested in the profits of said contract which accrued
t»> the share thereof standing in the name of the said Perer McLaren,
and has received large sums out of the said profits, and has oilier
derived direct and substantial pecuniary benefits therefrom
" That during the progress of the said works, and while the said
Honorable John G. Haggart was so interested therein, members of
the said firm were called upon by memli-rs of t i unient of
Canada for large contributions for jxilitical pn; -id sn;-h con
tributions were paid out of the mone s of the said TUMI, and with the
knowledge and assent of the said Honorable -lohn <;. II a tjira 1 1 were
charged against the profits of the firm ; and while the -aid eontrihn-
tions were so demanded and p.iid, ttie said firm of ••• mtr.; : e in
various ways dependent upon the Government by reason of many
matters being unsettled and in dispute in relation to the said con-
tract, which were at the time of such contributions or subsequently
settled not unfavorably to the said contractors
"That a Select Committee be appointed to enquire fully into the
said allegations, with the power to send for persons, ]>ai>er> and re-
cords, and to examine witnesses upon oath or affirmation, and to em-
ploy shorthand writers to take down such evidence as they may deem
necessary, and to have the evidence printed from day to day for the
use of the Committee, and that the Committee do report in full the
evidence taken before them, and all their proceedings on the refer-
ence, and the result of their enquiries, and that rule 78 of this House
77
as to the selection of committees be suspended and that the said com-
mittee be composed of Messrs. Mills (Both well), Edgar, Ban-on, Lister
(who shall not have the right to vote), Dickey, Wood (Hrockville),
Girouard and McLeod"
This motion was voted down by the usual Government majority.
Public Expenditure Has Increased Alarmingly.
Since Confederation in 1867, the public expenditure has increased
alarmingly. Commencing with $13,486,092 in 1867-8, it Had risen to
$37,585,025 in 1893-4. On July 1st. 1868, the estimated population of
the Dominion was 3,520,000. On July 1st, 1894, the estimated popula-
tion was but little over 5,000,000, showing an increase of population
during the period a fraction over 42 per cent , while the increase of
expenditure for the s ime period was $24,098,933, or 178 per cont. The
increase of the net debt during the same period was 8170,454,588, or
225 per cent.
Mr. Mackenzie came into office November 8th, 1873. ^The ex-
penditure for that fiscal yea- amounted to $23,316,310, 1877-8 was his
last full fiscal year in office and the expenditure for that year was
S2."»,503,158. An increase for the term of only $186,842. For a portion
of the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1878, Mr- Mackenzie's administra-
t4on was responsible as it held office till October 10th, 1878, making
three months and ten days of the year, and if a comparatively exact
statement of the increase of expenditure under Mr. Mackenzie's ad-
ministration is desired, the supply bill for 1878 9 will furnish the
data.
In no year during Mr. Mackenzie's administration did the ex-
penditure exceed the amount of the supply bill for that year. The
supply bill for 1878 9 amounted to $23,669,000, and his administration
would not have exceeded that amount Had he remained in office
therefore till July 1st, 1879, the increase of expenditure during his
administration would have been -$353,000. That the expenditure for
1878-9 actually reached the sum of $24,455,381 is due to the fact that
for nine months of year Mr. Mackenzie's successors administered the
finances.
During Mr. Mackenzie's administration the contracts and obliga-
tions left by his predecessors rendered an increase of the debt neces-
sary, and of course rendered an addition to the annual interest charge
unavoidable, but so great \vas the economy and prudence of liis ad-
ministration that during his term of office, the controllable expendi-
ture was reduced by the sum of $1,781,000, and the taxation from cus
toms duties fell from $14,325,192 in 1873 4 to §12,900,659 in 1878-9, a
decrease of $1,424,533.
By selecting the period commencing July 1st, 1881, and ending
July 1st, 1891, an exact comparison can be made for the dt!cande
between the increase of debt, of expenditure, and of customs taxa-
tion on the one hand and the increase of population on the other
hand.
Population, 1881, - 4,324,810
Population, 1891, . 4,832,230
Increas^, - 508,429
Percjntu<re of increase, 11'66
78
Net debt, 1881, - $155,395,780
1891, 237,809,080
Increase, $82,413,250
Percentage of increase, 53
Expenditure. 1881, W $25,502,554
1891, 36,343,567
Increase of expenditure, $10,841,013
Percentage of increase, 42
Taxation by customs duties, 1881, $18,406,092
1891, 23,399,300
Increase, $4,993,208
Percentage of increase, 27
Increase of the Controllable Expenditure.
The statistics relating to the increase of the controllable ex-
penditure since 1878 ure of a most unsatisfactory character. The
increase of population between July 1st, 1878. and July 1st, 1893,
have not exceeded 21 per cent, advance upon the population in the
tir.st year named. During the same period the proportion of in-
crease in controllable expenditure has been very much greater. In
1878 the expenditure on account of Administration cf Justice,
Arts, Agriculture and Statistics, Fisheries, Quarantine. Indians,
Legislation, Militia and Defence, Public Works, Superannuation,
Excise, N rthwest Territories Government, Mail sub*i lies and
Steamship subventions, Civil Government, Adulteration of Food,
Mounted Police and Miscellaneous amounted to $5,256,424. The
expenditure for the same purposes in 1893 amounted to $10,384,272,
an increase of 97 per cent, during a period when the population
increased 21 per cent. Some of the items of increase need no com-
ment as will be seen by reference to the following statement:
Arts, Agriculture and Statistics, 1878 $ 92,365
i893 258,635
Increase $166,270
Percentage of inrre;ise 180
Fisheries, 1 878 $ 93, .>6 j
'893* 482,38'
Increase $389,119
Percentage of increase -4*7
Quarantine, 1878 $ 26,340
1893. 101,954
Increase $ 76,610
lYrn 'iiUi.^e of increase. 287
Indians, 1878 $421,503
1 ;yj 956»552
Increase $535,044
Percentage of increase 1*6
Militia and Defence, 1878 _ $618,136
1893 i,4i9>745
Increase $801,609 «
Percentage of increase 129
Public Works, 1878 $997,469
1893 : 1,927,832
Increase $93°>363
Percentage of increase 93
Superannuation, 1878 $106,588
1893 263,710
Increase $157,122
Percentage of increase 147
Excise, 1878...,. $215,024
1893 387,673
Increase $172,649
Percentage of increase 80
Northwest Territories Government, 1878 $ 18,199
1893 276,446
Increase $258,247 ,
Percentage of increase 1,420
Civil Government, 1878 $823.369
l893 l,367,57o
Increase .$544,201
Percentage of increase 66
Mounted Police, 1878 $334,74tS
1893 615,479
Increase $280,748
Percentage of increase 83
It is time to call a halt. The march of corruption has
nued too long. With increase in debt, expenditure and i..-i\a-
jion, ?o far outstripping increase of population, the result, if w
lot change our course, will be serious if not disastrous. Already
jhe consequences of extravagance and currupt waste of money un<l
^sources are severely felt. The population of the country is nt a
.nostill. Without increase of population our undeveloped re-
jurces cannot be utilized. Without a radical reform in the admin-
istration of our public affairs the increase of population and the
jorresponding increase of wealth and property will be meagre and
insatisfactory. Is it not time for patriotic citizens of all shades of
jolitics to give the situation of the country careful consideration,
ind is it not evident that the record made by the party in power
uuce 1878, warrants the belief that the principles, the purposes,
ind the methods of its leaders now in office render them incapable
)f giving the country an honest and economical administration of
ts affairs ? To other men must be assigned the task of extricating
,he country from the difficulties that LUW confront it.
LI
ru'd
1
w
r under N
[. 1'
1IKUK
. . . .
'.-•II < f
ii ) 1 V
•
11, 16
X. W.
Natural in<
t of Tar
trie
Occu;
Platf
.
.
I III
i
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCI
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRAI
F
5C81
L5
1895
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11