Hon. Mr. KAULBACH the Opposition said it was worth nothing. - Last year in alternate blocks in the North-West from the Government. There is another view to be taken of those land sales; it Hon. Mr. HAYTHORNE It does is this: The hon. Postmaster-General not matter what the Opposition said it stated, in his address in introducing this was worth last year. They are not measure, that the privileges contained in chargeable with the affairs of the coun- the charter were all, comparatively, of try, and I, for one, do not undertake to little value. I forget the exact amount defend what others may have said the he estimated them at, and amongst those land was worth. It is said that a wise he regarded as trifling was freedom from man will alter his opinion, but an un-taxation. I would ask hon. gentlemen wise man never. Supposing the Opposi- to consider the effect of that exemption have altered their opinion, they are tion on property belonging to the Synacting like wise men. But, though I dicate situated in or near these towns could confirm my opinion as to the value and villages to which I have just drawn of those lands by quoting prices obtained your attention. Consider what the effect in the vicinity of American lines, I on a village settlement would be of the perfer to bring before this House proof Syndicate being allowed to hold lands which is not easily contested for this free of taxation in the best and most elireason; the statement to which I am gible sites for business in the Northnow about to call the attention of the West. The effect must evidently be that House is a statement made as to lands their lands, being free from taxation, can within our own territory, and it is made be held by them for years for a rise, or by an authority which I think neither let them on lease, and they will thus inthe Secretary of State nor the hon. gen- terfere with the prospects of rising tleman opposite who has just interrupted towns and villages. To my mind, nothing me will undertake to challenge. The can be more clear than that the Comstatement is as to the sales of land belong-pany, in justice to the settlers in that ing to the Hudson's Bay Company in Man- new region, should not have their lands itoba, and the North-West Territories. or property exempted from taxation. It is made by the Governor of the Com- But I have another recent instance of pany, at a meeting of the Company held the value of lands not in our own country at their Chambers in London so recently but over the border. This, also, is from as the month of November last. I will an independent source. from a source read the words of Sir Eden Colville, in which, perhaps, is not so decisive as readdressing the members of the Company gards the value of lands in our own terat that meeting, and I think the state- ritory as the one to which I have just ment cannot be questioned. He said alluded, but still one of importance, that they had sold 443 lots in Winnipeg, because it shows what the bona fide value covering 88 acres, and realized £5,500 of lands situated in countries similar to sterling. They had also sold lots at West our own is. Now, so lately as the comLynne and other sections, which realized mencement of the present year, January £2,300 sterling. Now, what do you sup- 2, 1881, I find it stated by the New York pose these lands were purchased for? correspondent of the London Times that I presume they were purchased by men the United States Government had comof business for purposes of business pleted its negotiations with the Sioux purchased by men who evidently regarded Indians, whereby the Indians granted the prospects of the North-West as favor-right of way through their reservation able. But I come to the rate at which for two railways — the farm lands had been sold by the Com- North-Western, pany during the past year. He (the Gov- Milwaukee and Central lines, and ernor of the Company) said that of farm- the Indians for that right of way ing lands they had disposed of 27,500 acres, realizing £30,000 sterling. That may be assumed as a fair estimate of the value of our lands such as the Syndicate will be allowed to select for themselves in the North-West-such as they will receive - Chicago and and the Chicago, are to receive five dollars for every acre of land taken by the railways. Now, I think those two quotations of the value of land similar to our own in character- in fact, in the Hudson's Bay Company's case, their lands being intermixed with our own, are very conclusive as to subsequently the Legislature made good the real present value of lands in the highways and cross roads so that few parts North-West. It does not, of course, of the Dominion are better accommofollow that lands at a distance from the dated with roads than the Province of railway would be worth as high a price Prince Edward Island. But those farms as that, but it does follow that a large occupy the whole area and are rendered portion of the lands we are about to accessible by the roads passing in front alienate to this Company are really worth of them. But if I understand the scheme five dollars per acre at the present time. of the Government, it is intended that But let us now consider the manner in these even numbered 640 acre blocks which these lands are to be alienated. It be devoted to free grants and pre-emption is, of course, a far less important ques- settlers, whether the Company have suction, but still it is one which, I think, ceeded in disposing of their own lands or ought to receive attention; it is one not. I observe that the figuring of the which affects the prosperity of new set- alternate blocks can be conducted in two tlers very particularly, and anyone who, or three different ways. My impression like myself, has spent a large portion of is that, according to the Government his life in the reclaiming of lands and plan, the even numbered alternate blocks knows what it is to be surrounded by a are to meet at the angles. There is, settlement of kindly neighbors, must however, a system of numbering those thoroughly appreciate the advantage of blocks, which will cause them to lie in having settled lands on each side of him. parallel lines, and the objection would be I know very well that the hon. the Post- rather less in the latter than in the master General anticipates that those former case. In the former they would lands belonging to the Company will be have the effect of separating the cleared settled probably as soon as the Govern- farms from each other, supposing that ment lands. That may be his impression. the company's blocks remained unoccuHe is quite right in entertaining it pied. I take it that a farm of 160 acres and expressing it if he thinks so, but in one of those blocks would be 20 others may entertain a different view. chains frontage by 80 chains deep, and it My view is that if this Bill should pass would abut front and back on the Comthis House and become law, that the pany's lands. The side lines of the outCompany will act pretty much as sug-side farms in each even numbered block gested by my hon. friend the ex-Secretary of State, in his speech this afternoon that they will operate financially in the way he suggested, and that they may probably hold their land for an increase of value. If I have understood properly the system on which the lands are to be alienated, it is open to many grave objections. The alternate blocks of one square mile seem to me to be incompatible with convenient settlement. In the province from which I come, we were for many years grievously distressed by a land monopoly, I was going to say even worse than this we are proposing to establish by this Bill, but there were one or two redeeming features connected with that system. One was that our proprietors took very good care to lay off their settlements for the convenience of the inhabitants. The farms were laid out in parallel lines, and access was generally given to them by convenient roads. In the first place the proprietors had to make main roads themselves, but would also run alongside of the Company's lands, and the consequence would be great inconvenience as to fences. I have heard it stated that the settler would gain by such an arrangement, that pasturage on the unoccupied Company's lots would be exceedingly valuable. But those who speak in that way probably forget that the use of those vacant lands as pasturage implies the necessity of fencing those side lines, or herding the cattle, an expensive and dangerous arrangement an unfavorable one in any case to the settler. It seems to me the arrangement under the Allan contract, and that proposed under the Act of 1874, are both of them preferable to the one that is now adopted by the Government, in the interest of the settlers. However, like everything else connected with this Bill, I suppose the arrangement is past re-calling. Hon. Mr. MILLER Would not the duty of fencing devolve on the Company, who own the lots? That is a question of means. The Company are not liable to taxes, and a settler has a poor chance in defending his rights against a powerful company. That point to which the hon. gentleman has called attention, illustrates the dangers of a vast monopoly like this. How is an isolated settler, or a few isolated settlers to contend with a wealthy company like this? Hon Mr. MACDONALD In Ne braska and Dakota there are no fences. For hundreds of miles, you will see fields of grain and no fences. Hon. Mr. HAYTHORNE - Supposing a man has land under the plough, and next to him is a company's lot overrun by cattle. If these lands were owned by a farmer like himself they would probably have a mutual arrangement, or a local law would compel each man to perform his share of the line fence. It is a very common and natural arrangement, and if cattle are allowed to run at large, it must be clear that the land under cultivation must be fenced or the cattle must be herded. Another point connected with this question of land is the great advantage it gives the Company over set tlers. We may fairly assume that many of the occupiers of these 160 acres lots are farmers whose lots have been acquired by pre-emption, and in the course of time as they prosper by their industry, and as their families grow up about them they may desire to enlarge their bounds. The Company sits by with parent indifference, but not really disinterested. They own the adjoining land and they know very well that, as the farmer's prosperity increases, he must have their land at their own price. It is impossible to anticipate all the evils that the monopoly may give rise to, but this is one that we may reasonably expect to occur, and it might be met by rendering the lands of the Company subject to taxation. That was the other point to which I alluded just now the second redeeming feature in the land monopoly of our own province. Here the unoccupied lands were taxed at a higher rate than the cultivated lands of the tenants, and, where a man held a large area to speculate on the enhanced value it would acquire by the enterprise and industry of his neighbors, he was obliged to sub ap. even mit to such taxation as rendered his speculation one of doubtful profit. The same result would occur in the NorthWest if the Government had not rendered the land exempt from taxation there. But so it is, hon. gentlemen, and, when you establish a company of such vast resources and influence as this Syndicate must, in all probability, possess, they will set all the ordinary powers. of the constitution at defiance the very Government that establishes. them they will soon learn to treat with contempt. They will say we hold the fate of this Government in our hands." Perhaps at some future election they will give the Government to understand that if they trouble the Syndicate with any remarks as to the non-performance of their engagements, the influence of the Company will be thrown into the opposite scale at the coming election, and in that way the influence of this great corporation may be brought to bear upon Governments, and, perhaps, to some extent, upon Parliament. The task, which would be easy for us now, of rejecting this proposal or causing it to be brought forward in a qualified shape, would, become one of enormous difficulty hereafter. Only the united expression of public opinion against such a body, from one end of the Dominion to the other, would enable Parliament to take hold of such a grievance as that and abolish it by force, of course giving the Company remuneration for their outlay and for their interests. I hope yet that this House may be induced to adopt a resolution affirming that principle, and that some means may be taken which will render them in the future amenable to Parliament. There are many points of this measure which I might allude to, but I find that my voice fails me; I shall, therefore, be brief. There are some things connected with the future of our North-West of so much importance that I cannot refrain from offering a few remarks. For instance, there is one important event that is soon to take place on this continent which cannot fail to affect the interests of British Columbia particularly in the most important manner. I allude to the prospect of the construction of the Panama Canal. We have seen the enormous results in Europe that have followed the successful opening by De it is our duty to step in upon an important crisis like this, and by resisting the progress of hasty, ill-judged, and imprudent legislation to give one more opportunity to the people of passing an opinion upon it. This, I take it, is the proper role of the Senate of Canada. Much of our time, hon. gentlemen, is occupied in, I was going to say, unprofitable routine; it may be so. There may be many things which if we keep on our premises may not be of daily use, but may at times prove to be of enormous value. Such is the case with this body; we seldom resist legislation coming from the other House; but I think occasions may arise, and on this occasion one has arisen, when it is necessary for the Senate to exercise its privilege without fear and without favor. I appeal to this House now; I pray and beseech this House to take time on this occasion, and to give the people an opportunity of further expressing their opinion upon this contract. It may be, hon. gentlemen, that those parties who have thus rushed forward this measure, without the knowledge and approval of the people, may yet repent of their rashness and the time that ever they forced this great measure so hastily through the Canadian Parliament. Lesseps of the Suez Canal. By that canal the distance between the English Channel and Calcutta was reduced by five thousand miles; and in like manner the distance from New York to Calcutta was reduced by a similar distance. In my opinion still greater results will follow the construction of the proposed canal across the Isthmus of Panama. We know that the scheme has been successfully floated, the capital has been found, and the difficulties which existed with the United States have been overcome. One can hardly conceive the great advantages which western America will reap from the completion of that bold undertaking. I have been accustomed to think of the Pacific Railway as a road which would bring its traffic from the North-West eastward, and in the opposite direction its freight would be comparatively light; but I can imagine when this canal is constructed it will prove to be the route that will be taken by the produce of the western prairies and eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains to Europe. I think this canal will exercise a most important influence for good on the future of British Columbia and upon our Pacific Railway. It is one of the features which ought to convince us of the improved prospects of our undertaking, and should add additional value to the lands we possess in that region. I have said before I have never despaired of the future of our new territories. It seems to me that in advance of the plough we shall find pastoral pursuits will occupy the attention of the people who may settle on the well watered region at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, and that fine grazing country SO recently covered with herds of buffalos will, in the near future, be occupied by herds of cattle. I think it is quite within the prospect of those who may live ten or fifteen years longer to see those plains occupied by the short-horned descendants of the celebrated herd of the hon. member from Compton. Looking at the whole features of this contract; looking its position is known. The Montreal at the vast interests present and future which are indentified with it, I think it becomes this House to consider its position-its immunity from the influences that affect other legislative bodies-possessed as we are of irresponsible power, Hon. Mr. HOWLAN moved the adjournment of the debate. The motion was agreed to. MONTREAL BOARD OF TRADE AND SECOND READING. Hon. Mr. RYAN moved the second reading of Bill (J) "An Act to Incorporate the Montreal Board of Trade and Corn Exchange." He said: The object of this Bill is to amalgamate two mercantile institutions existing in the City of Montreal. The Montreal Board of Trade has been before this House and the Legislature very frequently, and Corn Exchange is an association which has also made itself very useful in carrying on the grain trade of this country. I think there is nothing in this Bill really to explain beyond what I have said; the object is to unite those two bodies into one, that they may have read-| Notice had been given to the shareing-rooms and places of meeting in one holders and to the public that the quesbuilding and under one auspices, and it is tion of liquidation would be again subto continue to each of the bodies the mitted to the shareholders. This was powers which they at present hold under the general annual meeting, called for their original charter. the re-election of the directors, and an The motion was agreed to, and the Bill additional notice was given that, after read a second time. VILLE MARIE BANK BILL. SECOND READING. Hon. Mr. TRUDEL moved the second reading of Bill (I) "An Act respecting La Banque Ville Marie." He said: The main features of this Bill ask for a reduction of the capital of the Bank from $1,000,000 to $500,000, and the repeal of the Act passed last session by this Parliament, entitled "An Act to provide for the winding up the affairs of La Banque Ville Marie." It is necessary that I should say briefly the circumstances under which the Bank comes once more to seek for legislation. When this Bill was asked for last year, it was not precisely under a petition of the majority of the shareholders of the Bank at that time. It was then under some difficulty, but the directors had no desire to liquidate. An important institution provided means for meeting its liabilities on condition that liquidation should take place; but since the Bill was passed the bank met its obligations with such ease that the institution which had made as a condition that liqui dation should take place, was the first to express the opinion that the bank should go on with its business. Still, as the Bill was passed providing for the liquidation, a meeting was called for the purpose of electing liquidators. At this meeting the regular proposition to appoint liquidators was made, but the shareholders, instead of electing liquidators, adopted as an amendment that the bank should go on with the business. This amendment was carried by a large majority of the shareholders, so that the position of the directors was this; that they had to resume business since the appointment of liquidators was refused. Afterwards, they called another meeting, at which the question of going on with the business was put, and it was carried almost unanimously. This last general meeting was held on the 15th of January the general meeting, the assembly would constitute itself into a special general meeting, in order to examine the question of liquidation. Of course there was some opposition. I will not explain the circumstances of that opposition, but, strange to say, the man whom my hon. friend on the Opposition side represents, and who is the only man, had been the first to sign the petition asking for this Bill. I call the attention of the hon. gentleman to it, because it is an important feature that the first name on the petition for this Bill is the name of the hon. gentleman who opposes it. A few weeks before,this gentleman had issued a circular to the shareholders, in which he said very clearly that it was in the interest of the bank to go on with the business and not to liquidate. At the time of this circular, this gentleman had 600shares in the bank; he sold his stock, retaining only thirty shares, or $3,000, and now that he has reduced his interest in the bank, he pretends to dictate to the majority of the shareholders. This gentieman, who belonged to the board last year, came with the avowed purpose of forcing his opinions upon the shareholders as to the liquidation of the bank. The whole board was elected by a vote of more than 2,800, defeating this gentleman, who had only 98 votes in his favor; that is, a number of votes about equal to that which he represented either by his shares or by proxies, showing that he is practically the only man who voted. for the proposition to liquidate. Not content with this defeat, at the special meeting which took place, after the question of liquidation was put, another vote was taken, and he was again defeated on three consecutive votes; first on the vote to go on with the business of. the bank, the second deciding to reduce the capital, and third to authorize the petition for this present Bill, and on each of said three votes about the same majority was against him. Now that petition against this Bill is accompanied by a special report to the effect |