Hon. Mr. SCOTT-I do not desire the | and water stretches, will never establish a House to understand that the portion of successful line of communication into, or the Dawson Road, west of the Lake of out of, Manitoba. No freight or passenthe Woods, should be kept up. My own gers will ever go over that road. So, I impression is-but I speak subject to cor- think, the conclusion arrived at by my rection, because I have not the dates in hon. friend from Cataraqui (Hon. Mr. my mind—that the railway from Red Campbell) is wise—that it is not advisRiver to Rat Portage will be finished able to spend much money on this Dawsooner than the time spoken of-two or son Road. Then comes in the difficulty three years. If I am right in that con- of spending such a large sum of money clusion, then the Government would not be on the Fort Francis works. They are not justified in spending any eonsiderable sum completed, and will not be finished this on the portion of the Dawson Road be- year, and may not be next; 1 think the tween Winnipeg and the North-west Angle. expenditure is quite unwarranted and useA very small fraction indeed of the travel less. Looking over a leading journal last and traffic, between Winnipeg and the evening, I came to the conclusion that the Eastern Provinces, would come by that Government had changed their policy on way nearly all of it is through the this point, and that we were to have an United States. It is also to be considered all-rail route from Thunder Bay to Winthat the gap between our boundary and nipeg. The Globe, which is a good authothe American line of communication is to rity on governmental questions, says, in be completed by August next. It has combating an article which appeared in been intimated to the Government, on the St. Paul Pioneer Press: "That a what has been considered substantial au- continuous line of railway from Lake Suthority, that a reliable company has been perior to Red River will be open at no organized to complete the link between distant day.” From this, I thought I Pembina and the North Pacific, and it was justified in coming to the conclusion was intended, as hon. gentlemen may have that the Government had abandoned their seen by the advertisements calling for old policy of part-rail part-water, with tenders, to have railway communication sundry portages thrown in, as also the from Winnipeg to Duluth open by August stoppage of any further expenditure on next. It would, therefore, be unwise to the Fort Francis Locks. From the Secremake any considerable expenditure on a tary of State we, however, learn that there road which must after a short time become is no change of policy, which the friends local or provincial in its character. What- of the Government must, I am sure, reever vulue may be attached to it, the road gret. will cheerfully be given to Manitoba, and they can make any improvements they please upon it; but with the experience we have had for the last three years, and the evident desire of the country to secure more convenient and speedy access to Manitoba, the Government would not be justified in expending much more money upon the Dawson Route. Hon. Mr. AIKINS—I am pleased to hear that there is such a near prospect of having access by rail to Winnipeg, even if American railways have to be used. I have, however, no hesitation in saying that the course pursued by the Government in opening up a highway to the North-West is not in the interest of this country. My hon. friend, who passed over the Dawson Route the past season, will join with me in the belief that the gap left between English River and Rat Portage, only to be got over by these portages INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY HEADQUARTERS. "That Hon. Mr. POWER moved :-an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General, praying that he will be pleased to lay before this House, copies of all Orders in Council, reports, recommendations, and correspondence, and any other information in the possession of the Government relative to the fixing of the headquarters of the Intercolonial Railway at Moncton." This is a matter about which one would suppose there would be very little doubt, but there is, apparently, a good deal of doubt on the subject, and it is simply with the object of removing the doubt that I make this motion. I do not propose to introduce political questions into what I have to say, except just as little as possible. The impression on my mind previous to the late had been removed by the late Government, probably meant what I have said: That the headquarters of the Intercolonial Railway had been fixed at Moncton; and the gentlemen who said that the works. had not been removed by the late Government probably meant that the workshops were continued in use at Halifax for the purposes of repairing. One gentleman who seem to be under the impression that the present Government had made the change was the bon. gentleman from Londonderry who ought to be in a position to know the exact facts of the matter, and my impression is that at the time the change was recommended that hon. gentle Railway Commission. I have nothing more to say on this matter, except that I make this motion simply in order that we may get a correct statement about a matter on which there ought to be no doubt. The history of events that happened long ago must be very hard to get at when such contradictory statements are made concerning a transaction that occurred only within the last three or four years. election in the County of Halifax, with reference to this matter, was as follows: -I was under the impression that in the year 1870 (my authority for it was the gentleman who represents the County of Cumberland in the Commons, in a speech which he made at Halifax some two or three years ago) it was decided on the recommendation of the Intercolonial Railway Commissioners to remove the headquarters of the Intercolonial from Halifax to Moncton. Perhaps that may not be the fairest way of putting it. Up to that time the headquarters of the Government railways of Nova Scotia had been ́situated at Halifax-the principal workshops, and the office of the Traffic Super-man was a member of the Intercolonial intendent and other offices of that kind were in the city of Halifax. In 1872, I think it was, the railway was completed from Halifax to St. John, and, unless I am mistaken, it was in the year 1873 that the offices-what are called the head offices of the Intercolonial Railway-and the principal workshops for the whole road were located at Moncton. The locating of the principal workshops of the railway and the principal business offices at Moncton are the things that were generally meant by the people of Nova Scotia when they complained that the workshops and offices had been moved to Moncton. If it has been stated, it was stated incorrectly, that the workshops were removed from Halifax, because the old workshops which existed in Halifax before the change that I have just spoken of remain there still, and are used as repairing workshops in which a number of engines have been repaired, and other work done, from 1872 or '73 up to the present Hon. Mr. McLELAN The hon. time, just as before. I don't know mover of this resolution has reference to whether my impression about the thing is me in this matter, and though I agree altogether correct or not, and it is for the with the last speaker, that this Senate is purpose of ascertaining that fact I have hardly the place to bring election questions asked for the information mentioned in for decision, I may be pardoned for makthe resolution. There is a good deal of ing a few observations. The hon. gentlemisapprehension on the subject. For ins- man from Halifax states that I took part tance, during the recent election campaign in the discussion on the removal of workin the County of Halifax, there were state-shops during the late election there. Referments made by gentlemen on opposite sides in that contest which were almost in direct contradiction of each other. My own impression is, that there was perhaps no intentional misrepresentation, but the persons who made the statements looked at the matter from two different standpoints. Those who said the workshops Hon. Mr. HAVILAND said he thought it would be a very bad precedent if this Chamber, which was supposed to be free from violent political partizanship, should be selected as a tribunal to settle questions that might arise between rival political parties during the heat of an election, whether for the Dominion House of Commons or a Provincial Assembly. It might do very well for a question of this kind to arise in the House of Commons, but he thought the Senate was no tribunal to give decisions upon such matters. ence having been made to me in the public prints, I was called upon in a short letter to give certain facts bearing on a particular point. The question there seemed to be, which Government had removed the workshops ? The result of the discussion appeared to be that the party charging the late Government with having removed them, proved by their own evidence that of locomotives for the Intercolonial, but there has actually been no removal. The getting into financial difficulties when gentlemen supporting the present Govern- they had only completed one or two, the ment published a letter from the foreman, balance were given to the Richmond Mr. Appleton, who stated that they had shops to construct. This transfer I peras many engines to repair as they ever sonnally attended to, and know that it had. It appears from this that the work- made quite an addition to the work. shops cannot have been removed from If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Power) would Halifax. The hon. gentleman seems to refer to the report of Mr. Brydges, made: have directed his enquiry to the recom- after the change of Government took mendation for the removal of the head- place, on the 20th of June, 1874, he will quarters to Moncton, and to who gave find that Mr. Brydges, under an Order in that recommendation. The Commissioners, Council of the 12th of May, 1874, was ap-looking at the position of the road, and its pointed as a Commissioner to examinevarious branches, considered it import- the Intercolonial Railway and its workant to have the principal works ings. Mr. Brydges, on the 20th of June,. central to the greatest number of miles reported upon the whole road, and upon of road. North of Moncton there the Mechanical Department among others.. were 374 miles of railway; west of Monc- He will find that at that time there were ton, to St. John, 89 miles, and east, to very nearly as many men employed in thePoint Duchene, and south, to Truro, 127 workshops in the city of Halifax as at the miles, making Moncton central to 590 workshops in Moncton. He will find in miles. Therefore, they concluded that in Mr. Brydges' report, page 44, that hethat centre there should be some arrange- says the total number of men employed in ment made for the construction and repairs the Mechanical Department was, at Moncof the rolling stock for that 590 miles of ton, 198; and at Richmond, 180; so that road. This left the sections from Pictou on the 20th of June, 1874, seven months. to Truro, 52 miles, Truro to Halifax, 61 after the change of Government, there miles, and the Windsor Branch, 45 miles, were within 18 of being as many hands or 158 miles more, that would form an-employed at Richmond as there were at other division which would naturally fall | Moncton. It will thus be seen that the to the works then at Halifax. The Commissioners gave a recommendation for the construction of workshops and offices at Moncton; this recommendation was sanctioned by the Government, and workshops were erected there. The charge was made by the friends of the present Government, that the Commissioners had recommended the removal of the workshops that had been in existence at Halifax ever since any portion of the Halifax road was opened. The result, I think, has proved that even if that recommendation was ever given by the late Commissioners, it had never been acted upon by the Government, for up to the time of the change of Administration, it was shown by letters from Mr. George Taylor, who was then superintendent, and from Mr. Johnson, who was mechanical foreman of the workshops, that no tools or machinery had been removed, and that there was more work being then done at the Richmond workshops than had ever been done at any time previous. In confirmation of this, I may add Montgomery & Co., of Halifax, had contracted to build a number charge which has been brought against the late Government of having removed. the workshops from Richmond, does not. hold good, if Mr. Brydges' report be correct. I need not weary the House by going into this matter, as we have the particulars before us, but in the same report the hon. gentleman will find that Mr. Brydges recommends that the workshops should be removed from Richmond, because he found the rate of wages to be less at Moncton than it was at Richmond. He makes the rate of wages, the main consideration for the removal.. How far that. report has been acted upon, 1 am unable to say, but in the supplementary report he states that his recommendations. were approved by the Government, and, instructed by the Minister of Public Works, he went down to Halifax and diømissed the mechanical superintendent, Mr. Johnson, and a number of others from the Richmond workshops.. But I find that he has not been able to carry out his recommendation in full, of removing the whole of the workshops from Richmond, but he has probably kept them from being enlarged to meet the natural increase of the work. There are now some eight workshops along the line. There is one at Riviere du Loup, one at St. Flavie, one at Campbelltown, one at Miramichi, one at Truro, one at Pictou Landing, and one at Richmond, so that it will be found that the workshops have not really been removed from Richmond; that there are workshops there and at all the points I have named. But what is probably correct is, that since this report of Mr. Brydges, in June, 1874-after the change of Government-the whorkshops at Halifax have been curtailed. He states in the report that the ground is not favorable for enlargement; and I have no doubt but that the difference in the number of men now employed at Richmond and Moncton | is more than in June, 1874. That difference, hon. gentlemen will see on page 44 of the report, was only 18, so that if there has been any curtailment of the workshops at Richmond, it has been since then, and I hope the hon. gentleman will get such reports as will set the matter at rest. Hon. Mr. DICKEY said he rose not for the purpose of discussing this motion, but of protesting against this House being used as an arena for such discussions as the present one. The hon. gentleman who made this motion had made it expressly, and in terms, for the purpose of removing certain doubts in his own mind, in consequence of contradictory statements made in the recent electoral campaign in his own county. Was it wise that the time of this House should be taken up in fastening a charge upon an hon. gentleman who took a prominent part in the campaign who was not a member of this House, but whose statement could be challenged if necessary in the House of which he was a member. He thought the hon. gentleman would best consult his own dignity by withdrawing this motion after the satisfactory statement of the hon. member for Londonderry. He did not know what course the Government would take upon this motion, but he would protest against this House being used to settle election squabbles that had originated in a campaign in Nova Scotia. Hon. Mr. SCOTT said there could be no possible objection to the motion going. It was a very ordinary one, asking for papers to be brought down. He was sorry to say that he had not caught all the ex pressions made use of by the hon. the mover, and he could not say how far this might reflect on the position of any hon. gentleman in the other Chamber. He thought it would be very unfortunate that any statement should be made that would reflect on any gentleman in the other House. As the motion simply asked for information he would let it go, and the papers would be brought down. Hon. Mr. POWER said he had studiously avoided saying that any hon. gentleman had stated what was not true. He had said that there was a good deal of doubt and misapprehension on the subject, and he was anxious the doubt should be removed as far as he was concerned himself, and as far as other interested persons were concerned, and he was sure that there was nothing improper in that. The hon. gentleman from Prince Edward Island (Hon.. Mr. Haviland) had objected to anything of a partizan nature being introduced here; but a great many resolutions adopted in this House were of that character. He had only made this motion to elicit information which he thought any member of this House was entitled to, when it was in the hands of the Government to give it. He had said nothing whatever against the selection of Moncton as the headquarters of the railway; that was a matter about which he, as everyone else, had his own opinion. He thought it would have been very much better to have left the headquarters at Halifax, but that was a matter not now under consideration. The hon. gentleman from Londonderry had called attention to the report of Mr. Brydges. He (Hon. Mr. Power) had seen it quoted in a letter of the hon. gentleman to the Halifax Herald, and he did not think there was much importance to be attached to it, because it was not carried into effect. The letter of the superintendent at Richmond showed that there was as much work being done there now as at any other time, and, as he had just said, if Mr. Brydges did report in favor of the removal, his recommendation had never been carried out.. He presumed the reason why the disproportion between the number of men employed at Richmond and at Moncton is greater now than at the time the hon. gentleman from Londonderry had spoken of, was that in 1874 the road had not been completed, and the work was being done,, at that time, only from Moncton to Hali- | circumstances, and the adjournment would fax, and from Moncton to St. John. Since affect only five regular sitting days. I then the road had been opened north, and hope the motion will not be opposed. there were more hands required. Hon. Mr. McLELAN, said there were shops north of that now. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 4.20 p. m. THE SENATE. Thursday, Feb. 21st, sorry Hon. Mr. WILMOT--I am indeed that I cannot support this motion, I assure my hon. friend it is not because I would be unable to reach my home during the recess. I am sure such a motive would not actuate any hon. gentleman from the Maritime Provinces. We oppose it because it is a bad system. There is nothing to prevent hon. gentlemen from going home if they choose, but I think they need not go for want of occupation. Many important questions can be dis The SPEAKER took the chair at three cussed in this House while we are waiting o'clock. After Routine proceedings. AN ADJOURNMENT. Hon. Mr. BELLEROSE moved "that when this House adjourns on Wednesday, the twenty-seventh instant, it do stand adjourned until Thursday, the seventh of March, proximo, at Eight o'clock in the evening." He said—I hope no objection will be made to the motion that I now submit to the House. I know that last Session objections were raised to a motion similar to this, yet I noticed that when we resumed our sittings after the recess, for a long time we met every afternoon and sat only for fifteen or twenty minutes at a time, waiting for legislation to come up from the other House. It is known to us all that of late the other House has been adjourning every afternoon at six, and there cannot possibly be any bills from that body before two or three weeks yet. Moreover, there is very little on our own order paper-nothing that we could not do in a few hours after we re-assemble after the recess. Under these circumstances, there can be no reasonable objection to the adjournment I propose. I know there is an objection. It comes from gentlemen who cannot reach their homes during the time the proposed recess would last, and I beleive that is the most serious difficulty. I would remind them that whether we have a recess or not, they would have to stay here. We all know that the adjournment I propose would not delay the work of the Session. During the recess proposed, there are three days on which we would not meet under any for bills to come up from the other Chamber. There is a very important question, of which the hon. Senator from Montreal (Mr. Bureau) has given notice—the remonitization of silver in the United States and the effect it may have upon this country. We all remember the silver nuisance, and the trouble it caused in this country some years ago. Such subjects deserve careful consideration. and there are many of them which might occupy our time in this House. If the Senate wants to maintain its position in this country, these long adjournments should not take place. I am not disposed to act as a dog-in-themanger, but I am opposed to a long adjournment. Hon. Mr. HAYTHORNE—I coincide entirely with the views expressed by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. Are This House has been brought together at a considerable expense to the public, not to be adjourned, but to work. I left my home for that purpose, and I am ready to devote myself to any business that may be brought before us. It seems to me a grave reflection on this House to say that we have nothing to do. there no committees organized, and have they no duties to perform? Though we hear so many reflections cast upon the conduct of public affairs, are they to pass without notice in this House? Yet we hear of hon. gentlemen talking of going home for eight days on a stretch in the middle of the Session. If the object were to bring this House into discredit, no better means could be adopted. The hon. gentleman who spoke last used great plainness of language, and I endorse what he said about the inexpediency of adjourning the Senate for eight days. I was op |