August 17, 1903

LIB
LIB

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

I do not know which track the hon. gentleman refers to. I have not the slightest doubt that these hon. gentlemen will endeavour to make it appear to the people that the track will run down hill both ways. Those two points that are 700 feet high are in the Matapedia val-

ley. Now, will the hon. member for Bellechasse himself tell me that it was not the central route that they had in mind.

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB
LIB

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

The hon. member for Bellechasse himself corrected the hon. Minister of Finance and told him he did not know his business.

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

Onésiphore Ernest Talbot

Liberal

Mr. TALBOT.

The hon. Minister of Finance never said that; he never alluded to It.

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

I am merely stating the facts from the hon. gentleman's remarks. The hon. Minister of Finance said : We are taking the central route. There is his speech and the hon. member for Bellechasse can find it in ' Hansard.' The hon. member for Bellechasse does not occupy any ministerial position, but he gets up and tells us that the hon. Minister of Finance does not know his business and that the road is going by way of the Maine border route. Well, we will deal with the Maiue border route. The Maine border route traverses the counties of Levis, Dorchester, Bellechasse, Montmagny, L'lslet and Kamouraska, in Quebec. Then it turns into the province of New Brunswick, and follows the valley of the St. John river. Any one who has ever been at Levis knows what the country is like in that neighbourhood. The people of Canada know what it cost to construct a little line eight or ten miles long to connect the Levis station with the Intercolonial Railway at St. Charles Junction a few years ago. We know what it cost to construct that little line through the hills to St. Charles Junction. I want to call the attention of the House to the topography of the country. The highlands between the waters flowing into the Atlantic and the Bay of Fundy and the waters flowing into the St. Lawrence

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER.

Order.

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

I do not mind. These hon. gentlemen are squirming because they are hurt. The topography of the country is this : The rivers some distance east of Lf>vis flowing into the St. Lawrence flow in a north-easterly direction from the mountain range such as the Riviere dti Loup, River Ouelle, and all those other streams flowing in a north-easterly direction. They do not flow north or north-westerly. The trend of the valleys is north-east and southwest. All you have to do is to look at the map to see that. The rivers on the other side of the mountain range flow in a converse direction. They flow almost due southerly until you reach the border of New Brunswick, when they flow southerly. What that means is that if the railway travels in a south-easterly direction it will have to cross at right angles the valley of every stream. As I have pointed out, the route runs from Quebec not in an air-line at all, as

our hon. friends try to locate it. It will run southerly from Lfivis thence it trends off south-easterly and thence trends off easterly, thence north-easterly until it gets round the point of Maine and thence easterly again. The Geological Survey reports state that the mountains are very rough, that hills are cigar-shaped and piled in irregular heaps. Even the eloquence of my hon. friend from Westmoreland cannot take the tops off these mountains and place them in the valleys. As this is rather an important discussion, I shall take an opportunity of placing on record from official reports of the surveys of the United States survey department a statement as to the topography of the country. Unlike the British and Canadian governments, the United States is alive to this question, and at the present time I venture to say they have a topographical map of Canada. We know that the Canadian government and the British government never do get anything except they get it from some other source. The American government, many years ago, made a very accurate topographical survey of the northern part of Maine and of the province of Quebec north of Maine right up to the shores of the St. Lawrence. I will take Kamouraska county first, and deal with it by townships. I will deal with the counties by townships and will give the passes and elevations in each case :

Elevation

Kamouraska- feet.

Parke tp., near pass of River Verte.. 2,231

Pohenagamook, north-west corner small lake. This is near extreme

end corner of Maine .. 1,662

Chabot tp., south of pass and

mountains north-east corner 1,849

Woodbridge tp., north of pass, southeast corner 1,878

Painchaud centre, Manix River pass.. 1,936 Chapais tp., near Lake Ste. Anne,

pass 1,868

L'lslet-

Lafontaine tp., north-west part River

du Gue pass 1,600

Garneau tp., north-east corner over

pass 1,898

Fournier tp., south-west corner, eight

miles from St. Lawrence 1,440

Arago tp., north-east corner over

mountains 1,410

Arago tp., east of Lac d'Apique over

mountains 1,567

Arago tp., west of Lac d'Apique, pass 1,664 Montmagny-[DOT]

Patton tp., over mountains 1,403-1,720

Montmagny tp., east part, pass.. .. 1,727

Bellechasse-

Roux tp., north-east part 2,358

Roux tp., lot 35, concession B 1,972

Dorchester-

Ware tp., lot 5, concession XIV.. .. 1,995 Lake Etchemin, surface 1,213

From Lake Etchemin and River Ouelle, minimum 1,306, maximum 2,854.

I may point out that there is a good deal of farming land in the townships just north of the Maine border. The mountain range

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

runs through the Canadian counties and the settlers are shut off entirely by the mountain ranges from the Canadian railways. If we had a colonization road by talcing a circuitous route we could reach that part of the country and could even get a freight route through there. There is no reason why such a road should not be built, but it is not going to be an air-line. No engineer will tell me that you can get a railway through a country like that and construct an air-line reaching to the sea. That is the point I am making. These hon. gentlemen are trying to bunco the country by telling them that they are going to save 200 miles, or 140 miles, or 100 miles, or even 90 miles, between Quebec and Halifax by constructing this road. The Temiscouata Railway from Rivi&re du Loup to Edmundston makes an ascent of 1,324 feet. In the early days the British government had a route from Halifax via St. John up through Fredericton and passing by way of Edmundston and they tried all the passes that I have mentioned and found that the only feasible route was that through the Temiscouata pass. They also followed the border of the State of Maine until they struck the Etcbemin river and then came down that stream and also the ChaudiSre. This was an old military road and the only route which they found at all feasible was* through the Temiscouata pass, which is 1,324 feet high. This fact is reported in books in the library, and these reports show that this is the only pass at all available in the entire route.

Coming to New Brunswick, I will take the liberty of pointing out that the country north of the Miramichi and the Nashwaak is very rough. Here is a description of it, at page 160 of the official report, which gives the cross-section of the country running north in the direction which this proposed road will run. Starting at Pickard's Mill, twenty-five miles further up the height of land between a branch of the Nashwaak and Tay rivers is 1,133 feet, then down to 640 feet, up to 1,550 feet, down to 760 feet, up to 1,660 feet, down to 1,000 feet, up to 1,540 feet, down to 316 feet, up to 1,000 feet, and so on, then down to 400 feet at Fall river.

What we want to get are the facts of the case; and when hon. gentlemen stand up in the House, as did the right hon. First Minister and the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), and tell us that this line is going to save 140 miles as compared with the Intercolonial Railway, I tell them that they are talking nonsense, and there is no use of attempting to deceive the public. Here is what the report of the Geological Survey, volume 12, for 1902. says of that country :

The areas of Lower Carboniferous rocks in the Becaguimice and Tobique valleys exhibit surface features which are less diversified than those in the localities Just described, hut at the

northern limits of the latter the Blue mountains rise upwards of 1,720 feet above the sea-a prominent mass of eruptive rocks.

The third area which presents a different topography and has a different elevation from those above referred to, is that occupied by rocks mapped by geological survey as Silurian and Cambro-Silurian which underlie a large portion of the country within the western and north-western limits of the two maps-sheets. The general surface of this area may also he characterized as rolling, though sometimes rising into ridges and mountains. The average height, in and near the St. John valley and west of it, is from 400 to 500 feet, hut towards the north and north-east it is from 800 to 1,000 feet or more. The most noteworthy of the higher elevations are Hainsville ridge, Howland ridge, Pole hill, Golden ridge, Kincardine and Birch ridges east of the St. John and Magundy and Blaney ridges, Dorrington hill, Carroll and Pocowogamis ridges and Oak mountain on the west. The soils over a large part of this area are good.

Traversing this area in the north-east and south-west direction are wide belts of granite and pre-Cambrian rocks which usually have a greater elevation than the formations on either side. Hills and ridges, lake basins, boulder-strewn moraines, and a coarse stony soil are the prevailing characteristics of these granite areas. The country through which they extend is mostly in a forest-clad, widerness condition and unfit for settlement. The northern part of the region embraced in the two map-sheet is largely occupied by these granite and pre-Cambrian rocks and rises into rugged broken plateau from 1,000 to 1,500 feet high or more, the elevation of which increases northward beyond the limits of the Andover sheet. No well defined range of mountains exists in this part of the province, but denuded remnants of that spur or lateral extension of the Appalachian system across it in the north-western part and are to be seen in Mars hill, just west of the International boundary, 1,688 feet above sea level according to the boundary survey, and Moose mountain, east of the St. John, 1,490 feet in height, with other hills about the sources of Munquart river and to the east. At and beyond the northern limits of the Andover sheet (No. 2 S.W.) we reach the south-westerly extension of the interior high lands of the province which trend from here away to the north-east in an irregular range or series of elevations to the headwaters of the Tete-h-Gauche and Jaequet rivers, attaining altitudes in some parts of 2,500 to 2,700 feet above the sea.

The northern part of the Andover sheet covers an area which is still under forest and to a large extent a terra ignota. The south-west Miramichi river and its tributaries drain the north-eastern part, while the Tobique drains the north-western. The country here is, generally speaking, broken and elevated, -with an average height of 800 to 1,000 feet above the sea, but a, number of hills and ridges reach an elevation of 1,200 to 1,500 feet. Mr. Wilson, who examined the south-west Miramichi valley along some of the lumbermen's portage route, says :

' The north branch of the south-west Miramichi flows through a broken, wilderness country, with high hills bordering its banks. The average elevation of the country about the head waters of Burnt Hill and Clearwater brooks is from 800 to 1,000 feet, with hills rising 200 or 300 feet higher, and the height along the portage road from Pleasant ridge settlement to the

Dungarvon is 800 to 900 feet. Along the main river the banks are comparatively low in mans places, but there are numerous high peaks which stand out conspicuously above the surrounding land such as Louis, Otterslide and Todds mountain. At the junction of the north and south branches the elevation is about 800 feet, where the portage road from Green hill crosses it about 700 feet, and at Boiestown, 195 feet.' A large part of the area drained by the south-west Miramiehi and the Upper Tobique is unfit for settlement. Beaufort and Golden ridge, which were at one time supposed to be thriving settlements, have of late been nearly deserted.

I do not point this out for any purpose except to meet the absurd statement from lion, gentlemen opposite that this road is going to save 140 miles. I have seen the saving put at 170 miles by some of their papers. I am free to say that a road leaving Levis and running south-easterly, and crossing the corner of Bellechasse near Dorchester, and by the best route that can be found through the passes, would strike the valley of the St. John river just north of Maine, which is practically cut off from the Intercolonial Railway by the mountains. But it would have to cross every river almost at right angles. In order to maintain a grade sufficiently low to make the road a good, fast freight road, it will have to be increased in length at least 15 per cent beyond the air-line distance; and that being the case, the length of the road from L6vis to Moncton will be from 453 to 455 miles. The hon. member for Westmoreland controverted the statement made by my hon. friend from King's (Mr. Fowler) in reference to this matter. The hon. member for Westmoreland stated that the road from Chip-man to St. John via Norton was the shortest route to that city. The contention of the hon. member for King's was that the shortest route was down the valley of the St. John river. The distance from Fredericton to Chipman is 42 miles; from Chip-man to Norton is 44 miles, and from Norton to St. John is 33 miles, a total of 119 miles, whereas the route from Fredericton to St. John direct is 65 miles, making a distance of 54 miles in favour of the contention of my hon. friend from King's as against that of the hon. member for Westmoreland. So that if this road goes down that valley it cannot be regarded as a short air line route. In order to have grades over which heavy freight trains can be hauled economically, its length must be increased in order to decrease its grades. From Quebec to Moncton by the Intercolonial Railway is 489 miles, whereas the shortest route that can be found for the new line is from 453 to 455 miles, a gain of only 36 miles, and in two or three places it will have to climb from 1,300 to 1,900 feet to get over the mountains; and every "time you send a train over a grade so high, you have to use so much extra steam. Under these circumstances, this line, as compared with the Intercolonial, cannot be claimed Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

to be a fast freight line in any sense of the term. The central route referred to by the Finance Minister makes the distance 538 miles, making a saving in favour of the Intercolonial of 49 miles.

Now, we will transfer our attention to the west. We are told that the west is up in arms for this transcontinental road. What is the agitation about ? We had good crops for the last two or three years in the Northwest, a great many new farmers went into the country, and very few of them had granaries. The railways and the grain buyers had very few elevators at the stations, and as a consequence there was a glut in getting the grain out, and there was a great outcry in the country. I think it is a good advertisement for the country in that way, and perhaps those who are interested in the development of the west may not be sorry for it. However, the chief causes of difficulty were that we had abundant crops and the farmers who had more recently settled had not granaries built for its accommodation, so that they had to market the grain in the fall and the railway facilities were not sufficient to get it out in a rush. These grievances have to a large extent been removed. Many of the farmers have in the last two or three years improved their facilities for warehousing grain, and the elevator men have built elevators all over the country sufficient to accommodate many million more bushels of wheat than was formerly the case. It is also a fact that the railways have greatly improved their transport facilities, as well as their facilities for handling grain at Lake Superior ports. In consequence there will not be any great difficulty in handling grain in the future. There is another condition of things which bears to an important extent on the question of the marketing of our grain. I find from the United States report of the Bureau of Industries that in the year 1900 they produced

522,000,000 bushels of wheat, and yet on the first of March, 1901, the farmers held in their granaries out of that crop 128,000,000 bushels, which shows that the farmers in the United States do not rush out their grain in the fall, or in the winter, or even in the early spring, but that they keep it and watch for a rise in the market to sell it to advantage. At the date I have mentioned there were 87,000,000 bushels of grain only in the elevators east of the Rocky mountains, and in this calculation I do not include the 36,000,000 that are raised west of the Rocky mountains. Another point in connection with the shipment of grain is this. There is no use shutting our eyes to the fact that grain does not ripen in Manitoba or the North-west as early as it does in Kansas, and consequently the people of Kansas) are able to market their grain ahead of us. I maintain that it would be to the advantage of our grain dealers in the North-west, and of the farmers as well, that they should hold the grain until after the

period when the market is glutted with grain from the countries in which it ripens earlier than in Canada. Taking one period with another, there may not be much diifer-ence, but if you take one year with another, especially in years of abundant harvests, the price of wheat is depreciated just about the time that our farmers would be selling their grain if they marketed it immediately after the harvest. The following countries have their grain ready for the markets of the world previous to the month of June in each year: Mexico, producing 9,000,000

bushels ; South America, 87,000,000 ; Asiatic Turkey, 30,000,000 ; Cyprus, 2,000,000 bushels ; Persia, 15,000,000 ; British India,

245.000. 000 bushels ; Africa, 45,000,000 bushels ; Australia and New Zealand, 67,000,000 bushels ; total, 500,000,000 bushels. Iam quoting these figures for the year 1901. Now, the countries that market their grain in the month of June are : Roumania, 72,000,000 bushels ; Bulgaria, 24,000,000 bushels ; Servia, 10,000,000 bushels; Greece and Montenegro, 3,000,000 bushels; Turkey in Europe, 22,000,000 bushels; California, 35,000,000 bushels; Spain, 108.000.000 bushels; Portugal, 8,000,000 bushels; Italy, 146,000,000 bushels ; Oregon, 18,000,000 bushels ; Alabama, 1,000,000 bushels ; Georgia, 3,000,000 bushels ; Kansas, 99,000,000 bushels ; Colorado, 8,000,000 bushels ; Missouri, 31,000,000 bushels ; total of grain marketed in June,

588.000. 000 bushels. The countries that market their grain in July are : Prance, 304,000,000 bushels ; Asiatic Hungary, 184,000,000 bushels ; Southern Russia, 402.000,000 bushels ; Nebraska, 42,000,000 bushels ; total marketed in July, 932,000,000 bushel's. The rest of the world markets its grain during the latter part of August and September and the last months of the year. I know that merchants have to be paid and that the farmers have to meet their obligations, but I believe that our North-west farmers should, as far as possible, hold their grain until a favourable market ; and, generally speaking, it would be to their interest to go in for a system of storing their grain rather than to rush it out when the markets are unfavourable.

Now, a word in connection with the question of rates, and let me draw the attention of the House and of the country to the policy that has been inaugurated recently by the Conservative government of Manitoba, led by the Hop. Mr. Roblin, in controlling, not owning railways-controlling railways, mind you. If I were to have an option as between government ownership on the one hand and government control on the other with private ownership, I would go for the government control. The result in Manitoba demonstrates that private ownership of railways with government control is what the people of Canada should have. Last year there was left in the pockets of the farmers of Manitoba, on account of the reduced rates on the grain

carried by the Canadian Northern Railway alone, a sum of $400,000. This was the beneficent result of government control of that railroad. I had a conversation with Mr. Roblin a few days ago, and owing to the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway has been obliged on account of the competition to reduce their rates-the result of this government control over this Canadian Northern Railway will mean, on the estimated crop, that the farmers of Manitoba will be the gainers by $1,500,000 on account of the reduced rates secured by the Roblin government. I take the Duluth rate, and if our country develops as we expect it will develop, that rate should prevail in Canada; I find that the rate from Winnipeg to Port Arthur is 10 cents a hundred pounds, or 6 cents a bushel ; from Port Arthur to Buffalo 2 cents ; from Buffalo to New York, via the Erie canal, 4 cents, which makes a total of 12 cents from Winnipeg to the city of New York. The ocean rate varies from 2 to 7 cents, depending on the season of the year ; but, at all events, if you take the ocean rate of 4 or 41 cents, you have your grain transported from Winnipeg to Liverpool for 16 cents a bushel, and the people of the town of Lindsay pay very nearly that for the grain which they ship to the city of Montreal. The point I want to make is that freight rates are not controlled by railways, but that the water routes are the controlling influences in connection with freight rates. The rate from Chicago to Buffalo, all rail, in 1902, was 11J cents per 100 pounds, or 7* cents per bushel. Compare that with the all-water route from Chicago to Buffalo,. one and three-fifths to two and three-eights, or an average of one and a half cents a bushel, and you find that the grain by the water haul is five and seven-tenths cents per bushel from Chicago to Buffalo. Take the all-rail route from Chicago to New York during 1902, which was from seventeen and a half to twenty cents per hundred pounds. The exact figure for that year, as given by the Chicago Board of Trade, was 10-62 cents per bushel. That is the exact cost by the all-rail route from Chicago to New York. Take the water route, and I want to point out that the low figure is brought about by competition with the Lake Erie canal. The lake route from Chicago to Buffalo and the rail route from Buffalo to New York make an average of 5-89 cents per bushel. That was the rate from Chicago by water to Buffalo and by rail thence to New York. Now I will take the water all the way. From Chicago to Buffalo, and thence by Erie canal to New York was 5-26 or just about half a cent less than the water and rail route. The lake and canal route was a half a cent a bushel less in round numbers than the lake and rail route, and the reason is this, that the railways were forced to come down owing to competition with the Erie canal. It is pointed out that

tlie Erie canal only hauls 7,000,000 bushels, and the train for Buffalo hauls some 14,000,000 bushels. But all that western grain comes into Chicago before navigation closes, and is carried to Buffalo by those large steamers, and there placed in the elevators. One hundred and thirty-two million bushels of grain were placed in the elevators at Buffalo last year. A11 that has to be hauled by rail in the winter when the canal is frozen. But in summer the canals haul infinitely more than the railways.

Take the all-rail route from Chicago to Montreal, its rate is the same as to New York or Portland or Boston or Quebec. They are all classed in the one grade, and they will haul a train clear through to Boston from the city of Montreal, over Victoria bridge, and they will not get one farthing for hauling it all the distance from Montreal to Boston. In addition to the lakes and canals, what other factors are at work to cut down the freight rates in winter ? From St. Louis to New Orleans by steamer the rate for carrying grain is ten cents a hundred pounds for grain in sacks. For grain loaded in bulk it is four and a quarter cents a bushel to the Gulf of Mexico, and the rates from the gulf ports to the markets of the world are very little more than from the port of New York.

I have here the reports of the industrial commission of 1900. I find on page 578, tlie evidence of a prominent merchant of Chicago, by the name of Carter. On being questioned by representative Lorimer, he said :

Q. (By Representative Lorimer.) (Interrupting.) Just state them in-your own way.-A. As to our water transportation I would say this, first of all, that the future growth of the industries of this country, I believe, and the opportunities for our people to compete successfully in a fair race for the commerce of the world, requires that they should have the best and cheapest methods of transportation throughout this country ; and I think I can place before you a few facts which bear directly on this question, and which show conclusively that water transportation furnishes great advantages to the people of this country over the best that the railroads are able to furnish. I find in the records of the annual report of the secretary of the Board of Trade of the city of Chicago these figures : For the year 1897 the average rate of freight on corn from Chicago to New York city, via lake and canal, including the charges at Buffalo, was 4 53 cents per bushel. That was the average rate during the season of navigation ; and the average of rail rate for the year, taken from the public schedules, was 11'43 cents per bushel from Chicago to New York. The average rate by lake and canal on wheat for that year 1897, Including the charges at Buffalo, was 12-5 cents per bushel. In 1898 we were not able to obtain the charges at Buffalo. They were very irregular, running from three-quarters of a cent to nothing, so I have to exclude that in the calculation of the carrying charges. The charge by lake and canal for the year 1898 was 3-81 cents per bushel on corn and 4'45 cents per

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

bushel on wTheat all the way. The all-rail-charge that I have for 1898 was 9-8 cents, and on ! wheat 12 cents. From these statistics it is very easy to deduct these facts, that on the grain that was exported by the producers of this country in the year 1898 the difference be-I tween the charges for carrying by rail and water would approximate $25,000,000 in favour of water carriage.

To show tlie benefit of the New Orleans and the Galveston rates, I might point out that all through the report you can see the influence which the Mississippi steamers and the railway route to Galveston, but especially the Mississippi river, exert on grain freights :

Q. You say that the rates to New Orleans and the Gulf ports affect the Atlantic sea-board rates. To what extent do they affect them?-A. The largest grain-producing states are Nebraska and Kansas, I believe, Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas, particularly of co.rn. The rates on grain from Illinois south to Kankakee and New ; Orleans at the present time is 12 cents per hundred for export. That would naturally make the rate from the same territory to the South Atlantic ports. The average difference in the ocean rate is about 4 and a half cents per hundred ; that is, the ocean rates are four and a half cents lower at Atlantic ports than at New Orleans and Galveston under natural conditions. Of course, this varies with the demand for tonnage. Every rate from the west of the Mississippi river up to the Platte river, to a certain extent the north line of Nebraska, is affected by Gulf competition ; that is, more or less of all grain that originates west of the Missouri river and south of the north Nebraska line, and in Iowa west of Des Moines and south. The Chicago, Burlington and Quincey, leading from Des Moines to Omaha, is affected by Gulf competition, and all of Illinois on the line of the Illinois Central only ; that is, I mean it is the only business which does actually move south from Illinois that affects other territory to a very great degree. Prior to the [DOT]; of tie

Gulf ports, prior to 1889, immediately at the close of navigation at Chicago, the rate on corn to the eastern seaboard was advanced to 25 cents per hundred pounds. The rate I have just given you for export is considerably less, and the rate has not advanced to the eastern seaboard within the last five years after the close of navigation.

Q. By reason of Gulf competition ?-A. By reason of Gulf competition.

Q. Has business through the Gulf ports increased to your knowledge during the last five years ?-A. Very greatly. Galveston has increased in grain more than 1,000 per cent in the last five years.

So that we find that the old Mississippi river boats perform an important part. And when my hon. friend the hon. Minister of the Interior quoted a rate of 5 cents from Kansas City to Chicago, I want to tell that hon. gentleman that I hunted every book on transportation rates in the library and in the city of Ottawa, and I cannot find any such rate. But I can point out to him that the Transportation Committee in the Interstate Commerce Report in 1902. No. 480, page 141. on appeal to the Interstate Commerce Commissison, their ruling is :

8S97

The charge of twenty cents on the one hundred pounds of corn and oats from the Missouri river to Chicago

-that would include Kansas city, because Kansas city is on the border-

-and five cents less to the Mississippi, is excessive-

-that 5 cents is to catch the steamers going down the river-

-is excessive, and to be reasonable should not exceed seventeen cents to Chicago and twelve cents to the Mississippi river, east side.

No. 483 would look as if they want a little more than 5 cents a bushel on grain from Kansas City to Chicago, because, on the haul there of 240 miles they charged 40 cents per hundred. In the same book. No. 483 :

The rates of forty-six cents per one hundred pounds on grain and fifty-one cents on flour and meal between the grain region in Kansas and a large district in Texas are the same for distances shorter than 250 and longer than 800 miles, and are unreasonably high for the longer and grossly excessive and extortionate for the shorter distances.

So it will be seen that these 5-cent rates are not known in that part of the world. Now, the reports of the Chicago board of trade and the Buffalo board of trade, both of which I have here, show that the export rate is considerably less than the local rate in shipping to New York. We find that by rail and ocean, that is, by rail and then by steamer to Liverpool, the rate was 20 85-100th cents per hundred, or 12 51-100th cents per bushel. From Chicago to Glasgow the rate is 21 75-100th cents per hundred, or 13 5-100th per bushel. The same rate is quoted from London. And when we find that the rate from Winnipeg to Liverpool is 16 cents per bushel, we find that our good friends in the North-west have nothing like the reason to complain that the farmers have in the province of Ontario. If our farmers in the North-west had a little better transportation facilities-and undoubtedly they will have them in a year or two-if they had more granaries and elevators at the stations, and if there was not the same need for selling the grain in the winter time, this rate of 16 cents from Winnipeg to Liverpool-I am not speaking of the rate from country points to Winnipeg-compares very favourably with the rate from Chicago to Liverpool, and is far more favourable, considering the distance, than the farmers in my own county of Victoria or in any part of western Ontario can get on their grain by Toronto or Montreal. I claim, mark you. that this is where government action should come in. With every road the government assist, they should make a hard and fast agreement under which they would have the right to reduce rates as in their judgment may be deemed necessary, subject to certain appeal. As was pointed out before, through 279

action of this kind on the part of Premier Itoblln and the Conservatives of Manitoba, the farmers of that country last year saved $450,000. And this year the Canadian Pacific Railway, in sympathy with the lower rates of the Canadian Northern, has been forced to reduce its rates from 74 cents on grain to Fort William, which will save to-the farmers of that country this year noless than $1,500,000. Now, another reason why this northern route, in case it is ever constructed, cannot compete with the Grand Trunk and other routes all-rail to Chicago is this: Observe a freight train going out of any of the eastern centres for the west, and you will see that it is laden with merchandise of one kind or another. The cars come east loaded and they go west loaded. If they cannot carry anything else, they haul coal and commodities of that nature. Where will our northern road have return freights ? They may undoubtedly have, in time, and I hope they will have, freights from the old land to the west. But for many years they cannot depend on any local freight west. They will not be able to haul a ton of coal from the far east of Canada to our western centres, for the coal can be got more cheaply from the west. Therefore. this is another reason why it is absolutely impossible for this great transcjn-tinental road which these people are talking of constructing, becoming a great lreight-hauling road at reduced rates. They r ay haul the freight, but not at reduced rates. When the Minister of the Interior spoke of a rate of 15 cents from Winnipeg to the seaboard, to use a vulgarism, he was talking through his hat. Now, to show him that he is not posted on the question of rates, I will point out to him the rulings of the Interstate Commerce Commissison with reference to rates to points on a number of. great roads, and the names will show at a glance that they are important roads : Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul, Chicago and North-western, Chicago, Minneapolis, St. Paul and Omaha. Burlington, Cedar Rajiids and Northern, Minneapolis and St. Louis, and Illinois Central. These are the rates that were determined by the Interstate Commerce Commission as applicable to the freight lines leading to Chicago, Milwaukee and Minneapolis. I nay say that the Illinois Central was generally from 2 to 4 cents lower :

For the first 160 miles 154 cents ; up to 200 miles, 17i cents ; 240 miles, 181 cents ; 280 miles, 19J cents ; 320 miles, 20J cents ; 360 miles, 21J cents ; 400 miles, 224 cents ; 440 miles, 234

cents ; 480 miles, 241 cents ; 520 miles 254

cents. '

These are the rates which the hon. gentleman will find at-page 497 of the Interstate Commerce Report, volume 8, from September, 1896, to May, 1898.

Now, reference has been made to the abrogation of the bonding privilege. And I wish to say a word on that. I am not

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink

S899 COMMONS


one of those who sit up at nights worrying about what our neighbours to the south are going to do. But I know from association with gentlemen in the United States of America, particularly in western centres, that if the United States government abrogated the bonding privilege or attempted to do so, I do not say that they would go in for annexation to Canada, but I do say they would raise such a row with the authorities of that country as has not been heard since the days of the civil war. More than that, the Chicago board of trade alone would not tolerate it a minute, and that is one of the most powerful organizations on the continent of America. The city of Boston would not tolerate it for a moment, because a large portion of its traffic f oes through Canadian channels. I wi!l show you what the report of the Buffalo Merchants' Exchange says on a kindred question : While at the present time trade conditions with our neighbours to the north are exceedingly favourable to this country



' Exceedingly favourable to this country.' I wish some of the lieutenants of the right hon. gentleman would make a note of this. -there is a growing sentiment in Canada that present conditions should not continue and that the sentiment of ' Canada for the Canadian manufacturers ' by the adoption of a protective tariff, is rapidly growing. In view of the fact that Canada is the third best customer of the United States and that our exports to Canada are more than our combined exports to all the countries of South America, it would seem tp be a good reason that the United States should adopt a policy more friendly to our neighbour, and that negotiations should be opened through the Joint High Commission for a treaty that would continue friendly and promote better commercial relations between Canada and the United States. Similar resolutions would be the mandate of every commercial city north of the 42nd parallel of latitude on the continent of North America. Last year the city of Buffalo alone exported to Canada some $15,000,000 worth of goods. Such a hold has the transportation question upon that city that the state of New York had an appropriation Bill to improve the waterways of the state, that is the Erie canal, the Oswego canal and the Champlain canal. The Erie canal connects with Lake Champlain, and they had an appropriation to give that a thousand ton barge capacity and they were willing to vote $31,000,000 to improve the waterways of that state, that is the Erie canal, the Champlain canal and a little slip into Oswego. None of these canals are open any longer than ours. These people have learned by hard experience the value of waterways, and they know that the only controlling influence you can exert over the railways is to improve the waterways and keep them in good order. Let me show you what they are doing. The city of Buffalo alone last year imported by lake 124,626,000 bushels of


LIB
LIB

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

I have converted my hon. friend from Centre Toronto. I am delighted to be able to announce to the House and to the country that I have a convert in my hon. friend from Centre Toronto, as to the virtues and benefits of the Trent valley canal. In addition to that, I would say that when hon. gentlemen are squandering this money, I cannot see why they should blow it in in one place, where it could do the country no good. I cannot see why they do not take part of it to build the Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal, and in place of making it a twenty-foot channel, what is wrong with making it a fourteen-foot channel, and making long locks ? A barge 300 feet long and drawing 14 feet of water will handle a lot of grain. I do not see why

they 'do not do something in that way and thus reduce the freight rate to the farmers, and in this way also assist to build up the eastern part of the country. I do not see why they do not take a little slice of this hundred million of dollars that they are squandering and construct the St. Andrews locks below Winnipeg. This would benefit the city of Winnipeg a great deal. They could then have free access to the extreme end of Lake Winnipeg. At the same time the government might take some of this money and improve the Assiniboia river, so as to give steamers an opportunity of competing with the railways for 300 or 400 miles away up this magnificent old stream. Then another little touch of it might be taken for constructing locks from the Saskatchewan river in the rapids near where the Saskatchewan river enters Lake Winnipeg. Then steamers could start from the foothills of the Rocky Mountains and bring grain down the north and south Saskatchewan rivers, Edmonton and Medicine Hat. The Saskatchewan river is navigable for 50 or 60 miles above Edmonton, and the farmers could send their grain by way of the river, land it at Winnipeg and thus compete with the railways from the west. I cannot see why they are handing the cash all over to the Senator. We can hardly pick up a newspaper at the present time in which we do not see that a steamer is aground in Montreal harbour, or on the end of Anticosti island, or in the Straits of Belle Isle. Steamers are going aground every day in Canadian waters and -this is a lovely advertisement for Canada in the eyes of the world. I do not see why the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) and the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) do not take hold of this question and see that the Canadian waterway from Montreal to the sea is made such that we are not a disgrace in shipping matters to the commerce of the world. Instead of wasting all this money as they are wasting it, I would like to see a little of this hundred millions diverted for this purpose. I think it would do no harm if a school for the instruction of pilots were established in this country I remember once coming up the St. Lawrence. It was at the time that the right hon. leader of the government was returning from the old country. We were out in the channel, and we expected to meet the mail steamer. I was a little anxious because I wanted to catch the train.- We waited for hours and no steamer came. We could hear them firing cannon on shore, and we noticed the flash from each gun. we took the time between the flash of each gun and figured out the distance, and I remember drawing the attention of the right hon. first minister to the fact that the pilot was seven miles out of his course in the middle of the St. Lawrence river. I think it would

Topic:   S899 COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

do no harm if we had a school for instructing pilots who are employed upon the St Lawrence. Therefore, a slice of that hundred millions could be expended in that way to the benefit of the Dominion of Canada generally. Then, it has been my privilege to visit the maritime provinces, and I am proud of the magnificent harbours we have there and the future prospects of that conn try. I would like to see not only the grades of the Intercolonial Railway improved, but I would like to see the docking and shipping facilities of St. John, Halifax, St. Andrews, Sydney, and all those other magnificent ports improved so as to assist iri the development of the maritime provinces. Now is our time to start, and instead of spending money at the order of a man that cannot wait-for a Senator who cannot wait-in place of obey ing his order, let the government assert its authority and power, withdraw this Bill and bring in a measure that will be of bene fit to the people of Canada.

One point more and I have done. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) referred to the Hon. Mr. Blair in very uncomplimentary terms. He said, speaking of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals :

He puts me in mind of a story I read a few years ago as to a riot in Chicago. A United States regiment of regulars who had been engaged in a campaign under General Miles against the Sioux Indians, were on their way to quarters in the east where they were to be granted a respite from their labours. They were ragged and toil-worn but they were veterans evidently, and as they were drawn up in line a person on the side-walk said to the soldier nearest to him : you would not shoot us fellows would you ? He replied : I would not unless the captain told me to.

I want the Postmaster General to fiote this :

Now, the difficulty with the ex-Minister of Railways is that he did not shoot when the captain told him to. It is necessary to have discipline in an army, it is necessary to have discipline in a party.

Remember that, those back-benchers, please :

Individual men may have very strong individual opinions-I belong to that category myself-but it is unreasonable for an individual to suppose that a party must accept his opinions and act upon them, and it is in the highest degree injudicious for that individual to kick over the traces because he cannot govern the party, for, in doing that, he destroys what little influence he might otherwise possess.

The hon. member for North Norfolk was as dumb as an oyster for 18 years, and he voted steadily in this House against his own convictions. He obevid the parlv lash; he showed the servile spirit that is in him. Let me read this extract from Dicey, the famous author, on the English constitution, and I trust that the rank and file of the Liberal par*:y will see from it what is the spirit permeating British miii-

tary law. I see the legal light from Hants smiling.

Topic:   S899 COMMONS
Permalink
LIB
LIB

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

1 trust that the spirit that permeates British milita:;' law may actuate these gentlemen over there in their civil capacity as representatives of a free people. Dicey at page 295 says :

Every subject, whether a civilian or a soldier, whether what is called a 'servant of the government ' (such for example as a policeman) or a person in no way connected with the administration not only has the right, but is, as a matter of legal duty, bound to assist in putting down breaches of the peace. No douht policemen or soldiers are the persons who, as being specially employed in the maintenance of order, are most generally called upon to suppress a riot, but it is clear that all loyal subjects are bound to take their part in the suppression of riots. It is also clear that a soldier has, as such, no exemption from liability to the law for his conduct in restoring order. Officers, magistrates, soldiers, policemen, ordinary citizens, all occupy in the eye of the law the same position ; they are, each and all of them, bound to withstand and put down breaches of the peace, such as riots and other disturbances ; they are, each and all of them, authorized to employ so much force, even to the taking of life, as may be necessary for that purpose, and they are none of them entitled to use more ; they are, each and all of them, liable to be called to account before a jury for the use of excessive that is, of unnecessary force.

I would like this to sink into the mind of the hon. member for North Norfolk, and I would like to remind him of this fmthet extract from Dicey, page 308.

Topic:   S899 COMMONS
Permalink
?

The POSTMASTER GENERAL.

What has this got to do with the subject ?

Topic:   S899 COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

I will explain to the Postmaster General what it has to do with it if he has the patience to wait. I dare say that he has got the hon. member for North Norfolk under his thumb, so that he cringes and bows under the rule of the government, but I trust that there are men sitting behind the Postmaster Genereal who will not be so servile. I trust that there are men sitting behind the government who will assert their right of citizenship and manhood, and who will teach the government that they will not stand such an iniquitous proposition as that placed before them. Dicey at page 308 says :

When a soldier is put on trial on a charge of crime, obedience to superior orders is not of itself ct dGf6QCG*

This is a matter which requires explanation.

A soldier is bound to obey any lawful order which he receives from his military superior. But a soldier cannot any more than a civilian avoid responsibility for breach of the law by pleading that he broke the law in bona fide obedience to the orders (say) of the commander-in-chief. Hence the position of a soldier may be, both in theory and practice, a difficult one. He may, as it has been well said,

be liable to be shot by a court martial if he disobeys an order, and to be hanged by a judge and jury if he obeys It.

I am afraid the member for North Norfolk would be hanged. I dare say many

an honester man has escaped the gallows.

His situation and the line of his duty may he seen by considering how soldiers ought to act in the following cases.

An officer orders his oldiers in a time of political excitement then and there to arrest and shoot without trial a popular leader against whom no crime has been proved, but who is suspected of treasonable designs. In such a case there is (it is conceived) no doubt that the soldiers who obey, no less than the officer who gives the command, are guilty of murder and liable to be hanged for it when convicted in due course of law. In such an extreme instance as this the duty of soldiers is, even at the risk of disobeying their superior, to obey the law of the land.

An officer orders his men to fire on a crowd whom he thinks could not be dispersed without the use of firearms. As a matter of fact the amount of force which he wishes to employ is | excessive, and order could be kept by a mere i threat that force would be used. The order, therefore, to fire is not itself a lawful order, that is, the colonel or other officer who gives it is not legally justified in giving it, and will himself be held criminally responsible for the death of any person killed by the discharge of firearms.

Soldiers might reasonably think that their officers had good grounds for ordering them to fire into a disorderly crowd which to them might not appear to be at that moment engaged in acts of dangerous violence, hut soldiers could hardly suppose that their officer could have any good grounds for ordering them to fire a volley down a crowded street when no disturbance of any kind was either in progress or apprehended. The doctrine that a soldier is bound under all circumstances whatever to obey his superior officer would be fatal to military discipline itself, for it would justify the private in shooting the colonel by the orders of the captain, or in deserting to the enemy on the field of battle on the order of his immediate superior. I think it is not less monstrous to suppose that superior orders would justify a soldier in the massacre of unoffending civilians in time of peace, or in the exercise of inhuman cruelties, such as the slaughter of women and children, during a rebellion.

So much for the argument of our hon. friend from North Norfolk. I do not think it is necessary even to order him into line. I have noticed for some time that that hon. gentleman has kicked over the traces very frequently; but as soon as he sees a little notice in the papers that the Joint High Commission is about to meet in the course of a few weeks, he forthwith comes back and we see him crawling at the feet of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour. He does not wait to be told to shoot, but he goes off at half cock.

Mr. Speaker, the question is a large one, and I could dwell upon it at a greater length; but I hope that before the matter proceeds much further the House and the country

will be treated by the Prime Minister in the proper way, by his coming forward and apologizing for having placed such a proposition before them, and withdrawing it like a man.

Topic:   S899 COMMONS
Permalink

August 17, 1903