1. The Central Railway of New Brunswick carries mails under an agreement with the Post Office Department.

2. To carry mails daily, each way, between Norton and Chipman, distance 45 miles, payment at the rate of four cents per running mile.

3. The conditions have not been carried out by the railway company, owing to a bridge disaster at Sargson in August last, but the railway company have substituted a stage, and performed the service. No money beyond agreement price has been asked for or paid.

1. Has the Canadian government any knowledge of a contract made by the British War Office with an American merchant for the supply of 3,000 felling axes for the British troops in South Africa ?

2. If so, was the contract made through the government of Canada ?

3. Who was the American merchant, and what was the price paid ?

The government has no knowledge whatever of any such contract as is referred to.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).

Before the orders of the day are taken up, I desire to bring to the attention of the House an item which I think reflects no credit upon the government of the day. I will read from an article in the Wiarton Canadian of March 14, and starting out with these headlines :

Shameful Tactics.'-Contemptible Act of the Grit Combination.-Conservative Mail Clerks

Transferred to prevent them from Voting. The Grit machine has commenced its work in connection with the North Bruce by-election,

and the act that has been perpetrated this week by the Tarte-Laurier combination is one of the most contemptible in the history of party politics, but it is one that will be a boomerang of telling force on the mean and cowardly Grit party who dare not force a fair and honourable contest.

Two mail clerks, Messrs. C. Pearson and R. Nelson, whose homes are in Wiarton, and who have resided here for years, have been sent to London until after the election in order that they may not be able to vote. Both gentlemen are capable and competent officers of the mail service, and during their long term of service no complaint has ever been made against them, but they are Conservatives, and to prevent them from voting for the Conservative candidate on March 20, they tire transferred to another division of the service until after election.

Was ever any act more cowardly ? These gentlemen whose homes, property and interests are in North Bruce, are forcibly disfranchised by a despotic government which dare not allow the people to exercise their free will.

And two other mail clerks whose families, whose homes and whose interests are in London, are brought down for the time being to do the work df these men. I do not know whether it is the Postmaster General, now on his way to Australia, who is responsible for this, or xhe acting Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), but if it is the Postmaster General, it is in keeping with the same tactics we have seen on his part during the late election. If it is the present acting Postmaster General, I respectfully submit that it is no credit to him. To my mind, one of the sacred rights of a Canadian subject is the franchise, he is undoubtedly entitled to exercise the franchise according to his own judgment, no matter whether he is in the service or out of the service, unless he occupies certain positions in which the law specifies that he should not vote. But in this case these parties have a right to vote. Therefore, I respectfully submit that they should have been allowed to remain where they were, and to vote if they felt disposed. I do not know whether they intended to vote or not, but if they felt disposed to vote, they had a perfect right to go and vote without being interfered with or molested. I can only say that if it is the acting Postmaster General who has done this, I would have expected better things of him; but it is quite in keeping with the tactics that have been adopted of late to prevent a free expression of the will of the people in the elections. We have a number of men up in that riding to-day who, I believe, are connected with the old Grit machine ; if they are not originators and manipulators of the machine. They are doing their fine work to the best of their ability, and in addition they have gone further and disfranchised men who have done nothing in the world to incur the displeasure of the government, except that possibly, as they were known to be Conservatives, they might exercise their right to vote the day

after to-morrow against the government candidate.

Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND (North Oxford).

Mr. Speaker, the matter was brought to my attention on Saturday last by a telegram from a gentleman in Wiarton-I think it was from Wiarton, from the constituency anyway. I at once made inquiries and gave instructions to the deputy head of the department, that these gentlemen, if they had votes should be allowed to return and vote. I may say that this practice of continually bringing up rubbish out of newspapers, written in the heat of a campaign, seems to be out of place in this House.

Mr. SPROULE.

Is that what the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) calls rubbish ?

Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.

I think, from the first line that the hon. gentleman read, it is plain to see the kind of campaign that his party are running in North Bruce. It indicates the line of policy that they are adopting in this election. I wish to say that politics have had nothing to do with this matter at all. I believe it is in accordance with the custom of the department. They have instituted a new system of examination by which mail clerks are allowed an opportunity of becoming more proficient, and, without respect to party, they are promoted in the department according to their proficiency, as shown in this examination. The department have also adopted the policy of allowing mail clerks who have been in the service for some time, working on a short branch, to have an opportunity of increasing their knowledge and proficiency by being transferred to more important lines. As far as I am concerned, the first I knew of the matter was upon receipt of a telegram on Saturday, not from a Conservative, but from a prominent Liberal, drawing attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman states, and suggesting that these persons should be allowed to vote. I gave instructions that, if possible, arrangements should be made to allow them to vote, so that, there is no party consideration in the matter at all. I do not believe that the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) knew anything about it. On the contrary, the matter occurred simply in the ordinaryi course of the department. I would be very sorry to think that this department wouid take advantage of their position to use their employees in that way. If it is possible, in connection with the service they are performing, they should be allowed to return and cast their votes for whichever party they may choose.

Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).

What I am going to state is not newspaper rubbish that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) has referred to, in speaking of

Mr. SPROULE.

what the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has read, because, I was in the mids); this election only a few1 days ago and heard for myself from one of the men who was sent from the London division to Wiarton, what had taken place. I may tell the hon. acting Postmaster General that he has done his party very good service indeed by issuing the order which he says he has issued to allow' these men who were sent from Wiarton to London to come back and exercise their franchise. The feeling there was most intense, not only with Conservatives, but, with Liberals as well, and I have not the slightest doubt that if these men were prevented from voting, and no one supposed that the change was made for any reason other than to prevent them from voting, the Liberal party would lose many votes by the action of the government. I was there and I had an opportunity of ascertaining what the feeling was. I feel assured that the Liberals there consider that a great wrong had been done to two very honourable men who, I was told, did not take any part in elections beyond exercising their reasonable right to vote. They were men who were in no way offensive partisans. They were good citizens and those sent from London knew no reason why they were transferred from London to Wiarton ; neither do I suppose those who were transferred from Wiarton to London, could give any good reason why they were transferred. The reasonable assumption was that it was done wholly and solely for political purposes, and the simple designation of this statement by the hon. acting Postmaster General as rubbish, I think, will not go very far in the town of Wiarton, when his words are reported there. One can readily see the intensity of the feeling in that place when even a Liberal had to wire. They found that the matter was operating so strongly against them that a Liberal had to take the matter up in order to break the force of the injury which the action of the government was going to cause to the party in this election. I am very glad, even though the Conservative candidate may not secure some of the Liberal votes that this matter would have brought to him, that this great wrong has been righted and these men are to be permitted to go back and exercise that which is the right of every British subject. I hope there will be no neglect on the part of the acting minister in giving orders that these men shall be allowed to go back and exercise their franchise.

Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.

I wish to make a personal explanation. I did not say that the matter was rubbish ; I referred to the way in which it was written up in the newspaper. It is quite proper, I think, that such matters should be brought to the attention of the department.

Hon. Mr. PRIOR.

A nice distinction.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).

Mr. Speaker, when my right kon. friend who leads the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) gets into what we may refer to as a tight corner, he is very versatile and resorts to various expedients. Sometimes, as in the case of the custom-house officer last year, he even becomes pathetic. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) generally endeavours to get out of such a difficulty by asking a question. My hon. friend, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright)) generally endeavours to evade any trouble of that kind by indulging in sneers at the opposition. I do not think the hon. gentlemen, at whose speeches the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce saw fit to sneer, need pay much attention to those sneers under the circumstances. The hon. gentleman adjourned the debate at halfpast nine at night, came back next day, told us that there was nothing in the speeches of these hon. gentlemen to answer, and then occupied an hour in endeavouring to answer them. I do not think that there is any particular occasion for the hon. gentleman to adopt that tone with us on this side of the House, because I know of no hon. gentlemen in this House whose armour is more vulnerable at many points than is that of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, and if I thought it was worth while to waste the time of the House with a discussion of that kind, I could very well devote five minutes to the hon. gentleman, but I believe that under the circumstances, the House will justify me in refraining from entering into any discussion of that kind, which is not very profitable, and which does not tend to advance public business in this House. Now, the hon. gentleman, in years gone by, has posed as something of a Diogenes in this country. He went about with a lamp looking for an honest man and a great many of us were inclined to place a great deal of confidence in his assertions in that role. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that, in the way in which the hon. gentleman has dealt with the budget which has been brought down by the hon. Minister of Finance, he has preserved very well the role of a Diogenes. Let us compare, for a moment, a few of the things he said the other day with what he said in days gone by. He told us that everything is very comfortable and very lovely in this country, and asked : Why should there be any change ? He admits that there is a probability of depression in the future, as the

hon. Minister of Finance admits that probability, and he says :

We have had it clearly before our eyes, and we design to regulate our future conduct in accordance therewith.

Just, Mr. Speaker, as if some one skating on thin ice and being warned of the danger would say : I clearly realize the danger and as soon as I fall in I will govern myself accordingly. That is the position of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright). Instead of preparing for the future in these years when our revenue is large, he advocates spending all the money we can get out of the pockets of the tax-payers ; he advocates spending some $8,000,000 more, and then he says : When the hard times come we will regulate our conduct accordingly. I might ask, in passing, why it is that this government which professes to take credit for the good times in Canada during the past four years, proposes to allow this anticipated depression in business to take place. Why does not this government, which has brought these prosperous times to us during the past four years, take good care that no depression should come to this country ? That is a fair question to the hon. gentleman when he takes, as he is inclined to take, credit to his government for these good times.

The hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) contrasts the trade of Canada during the past four years with that of former years. There is one matter I might have expected the hon. gentleman to deal with which he neglected to deal with, and that is : That during the four years from 1893 to 1896 under a Conservative administration our imports from England amounted to $145,000,000 ; while during the past four years under a Liberal administration our imports from England amounted to $143,000,000, or to be exact, there was a decrease in the last four years as compared with the former four years of $2,214,000. On the other hand the imports from the United States during the four years from 1893 to 1896 amounted to $224,000,000, and during the past four years they amounted to $343,000,000, a total increase of $118,000,000. Now let us see what the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) said about matters of that kind no further back than 1897, when speaking on the Trade and Navigation Returns (Budget debate ' Hansard ' 1897, page 1244) :

Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.

These returns show that, in the very last year of their term of office, we exported to England, apparently, $66,000,000 worth of our products, we exported to the United States $44,000,000, we bought from England $32,000,000, and from the United States $58,000,000 worth. There, if you will, is a genuine practical discrimination to an enormous extent, against England and in favour of the United States, under the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite.

What are the facts to-day ? In the year 1896, we exported to England, $108,000,000 worth ; we exported to the United States, $69,000,000 worth ; we bought from England $45,000,000 worth and we bought from the United States $110,000,000 worth. Therefore, while the balance of trade (if you may use that expression) in our favour as between ourselves and England was $34,000,000 in 1896 ; it is $63,000,000 now ; and while the balance of trade against us with the United States was $14,000,000 in 1896, it is $41,000,000 in 1900. Yet, while the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) stated in 1897 that the facts then constituted a genuine practical discrimination to an enormous extent against England ; he now stands up in this House and tells us that a very much worse ' genuine practical discrimination ' against England is perfectly delightful and pleasing to him and does not call for a word of criticism or a word of explanation. The view of the hon. gentleman in 1897 is borne out by what was stated in a leaflet published by the Cob-denite Club of London, England, which says :

In spite of the preferential tariff the percentage of American goods entering Canada has continued to increase, and the percentage of British goods to decline. The tariff has therefore failed absolutely to effect the purpose for which it was intended.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us look for a moment at the financial statement on which the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding), congratulated himself and the country to such a very great extent. He has shown us that during the past four years we have had a net surplus of $14,095,194, and he shows us by his estimate for the coming year a surplus of $6,350,000, or a total surplus during these five years of $20,445,194 ; and in addition to that, taking into consideration his estimate for the current year we will have an addition to the debt of $8,796,373 ; so that he will have expended not only his entire surplus but he will have expended on capital account more than $8,000,000 besides.

Now, my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) referred to the surplus which Sir Leonard Tilley was able to present to this House in 1882, and also in 1883 ; but the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) did not show to this House as I propose to do, what the opinion of the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) was with respect to these surpluses in 1882 and 1883. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) congratulates himself upon the surplus now, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) congratulates the country. In 1882 it was not so. An editorial utterance of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in 1882 in the columns of the ' Morning Chronicle ' (Halifax) was as follows : [DOT]