bill, reported it. and it was lead a third time and passed. TEA AND COFFEE DUTIES. McCulloch's Commercial Treaties, and quoted a clause which confirmed his opinion. Mr. WORKMAN approved of the proposition of the Finance Minister, and thought it would give general satisfaction to the trading community. Hoz. Mr. HOLTON asked whether it would be approved by the consumers of tea and coffee. Hon. Sir FRANCIS HINCKS said it would not affect them. Hon. Sir FRANCIS HINCKS moved the House into committee on the resolution for the repeal of the tea and coffee duties. He explained that the resolution he now proposed was to the effect that all tea and coffee imported from any country, other than the United States, should come in duty free; but that a similar duty should be charged on those articles imported from the United States as the Americans impo sed on tea and coffee imported from places other than the countries of its production. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said it appeared to him that this was a violation of the Treaty obligations with the United States, by which we were bound not to make any discriminating duties. In any case he did not believe in retaliatory legislic lation, and did not think we should impose a burden on our people, because another country imposed burdens on theirs. Hon. Sir FRANCIS HINCKS thought that the proposed measure would not interfere with our trade obligations with the United States. Mr. JONES, (Leeds and Grenville,) ob jected to these cries of retaliation and free trade being raised whenever any tariff ques. tion was discussed. The people of the United States legislated for the benefit of their own people, and did not consider whether it was retaliatory or not; and we should adopt the same course. Hon. Mr. HOLTON said this was another step in the reactionary course adopted by the Minister of Finance since his return to the country, and he trusted there was independence enough in the House to refuse to do the bidding of the Finance Minister, who had been recreant to his principles in the matter of free trade. He did not think the House should be asked to follow the example of Yankee protectionists, and impose onerous burdens on our own people to benefit only a few importing houses. Hon. Sir FRANCIS HINCKS denied the imputation that he had been recreant to his principles in the matter, and reminded the hon. gentlemen of a policy similar to that under discussion, which he adopted some twenty years ago. It was now adopted in order that the neighbouring country might not place us at disadvantage; and some of his friends in Montreal, strong free traders, had approved of the proposition. The question raised by the member for Lambton as to our treaty obli gations, was important; but he felt sure that the resolution did not interfere with those obligations. He then referred to Hon. Mr. HOLTON contended that it would affect them more than under a free trade policy He denied that, because a few importing houses in Montreal approv ed of this measure, it was therefore a good one. If the Finance Minister had said that the duties were necessary for fiscal reasons, it would have been another thing; but, in the absence of that fact, the pub should have the benefit of absolute free trade in these, the primary necessaries of life. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE observed in one of the statements that had lately been published, that the merchants of Chicago and Detroit would be able in future to bring in tea four or five cents per pound cheaper by railway than by sea. The result of this increased facility for importing would be that merchants in the western part of the country, in Manitoba and other parts, would be able to bring tea from the United States cheaper than it would be possible to bring it from Montreal. The course which the hon. gentleman proposed, however, would be discriminating against the introduction of tea from that quarter in favour of its importation by Montreal. The hon. gentlem in had no right to propose that, for it was a vicious kind of legislation. Hon. Sir FRANCIS HINCKS said there were merchants in Toronto, and he dared say there were merchants in other western cities also, who imported direct from China. They were entirely satisfied with this arrangement, and under it they could import direct from China, by way of San Francisco, free of duty, so that they could bring tea in quite as cheaply as it could be obtained from American merchants. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE was aware that they could import direct by rail by bonding at San Francisco; but that would involve the employment of an agent, or the opening of a branch house in that city. It was no argument for the measure that the merchants were in favour of it. The House was not legislating for the tea dealers, but for the public; and he believed that the proposition would have a more or less injurious effect. Mr. CONNELL said the proposed arrange ment would have the effect of compelling merchants in the Lower Provinces to import from England, or direct from China, instead of from the United States, as now. He did not think that would be fair. Let the United States take their own course; and he did not see why, because they did, that our merchants should be deprived of the advantage of buying in the United States, or wherever else they could buy cheapest. The principle upon which the measure was founded was wrong, and the effect of it would be to injure small dealers and throw the trade into the hands of a few. Hon. Mr. TILLEY said it was only yes terday the Government had received a telegraphic communication from a Halifax merchant, whom he knew imported direct from China, asking whether, under this arrangement, teas imported direct from China through the United States would be admitted free of duty. That would be the case under the proposition before the House; there was no doubt of it. It was true the general effect of the arrangement would be to stimulate importations, either from England or direct from China; but importations to Canadian merchants through the United States would come in free of duty. Mr. CONNELL said that was all very well, but the plan would nevertheless work unfairly, by throwing the business into the hands of a few individuals who were able to engage in the direct trade. He did not see why it should not be free. Mr. FRANCIS JONES said scarcely any hon. gentleman got up to speak upon any question connected with the tariff who did not mention the subject of free trade. Now, what was free trade? He would like to know what hon. gentlemen really meant by it. Was England a free trade country, where $350,000,000 were raised by taxes levied upon the productions of foreign countries? Why, in the country every thing imported from abroad wis taxed, except a few raw materials, which were cessary to carry on the manufacturing enterprises of England. Was that free trade in the meaning of hon. gentlemen who used the phrase so frequently? (Hear, hear.) Why, it was necessary for this country to raise revenue by means of duties on imports, and if these duties were not levied on tea and tobacco, and other articles, the production of foreign countries, they must be placed on articles which the people of this country produced. When gentlemen spoke of free trade he would like them to say plainly what they meant by it; what articles they would wish to see taxed; or, if none, where the revenue was to come from. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BOLTON said under this arrange. ment New York merchants might send teas to Canada, and by simply making a decla ration that they were imported directly from China, get them admitted free of duty. He did not see, therefore, that the law would be effectual in securing what it professed to secure. Hon. Mr. TILLEY could not understand how it could be held to be a direct impor tation if an American merchant imported to New York and then from New York to Canada. There would be no privilege of free admission in that case. It would be different if a Halifax merchant, for instance, ordered 1,000 chests of tea in China, and they were landed in New York on their way to the Dominion, they would be allowed to enter free of duty. Mr. BOLTON did not see how it would be possible to discriminate between the two cases. Hon. Sir FRANCIS HINCKS said it would be very simple. The invoices would show whether the shipments were made in China to a New York or a Canadian merchant. The motion was then carried and the committee rose and reported. Upon the question of concurrence, Hon. Mr. HOLTON said it was useless to continue the discussion upon the subject, or to offer any amendment. He would contine himself to a verbal protest against this reactionary policy, this re-imposition of duties not required for the purposes of revenue upon a primary necessary of life. He believed that the measure would be fully understood by the country, and that any effect which might be produced by prolonged discussion would be equally caused by a simple statement of the proposition of the hon. gentleman. He (Mr. Holton) did not intend to raise any point of form against concurrence in the resolu tion, nor did he propose to divide the House upon it. The resolution was then concurred in, and Sir Francis Hincks introduced a bill founded upon it. CANADA SHIPPING COMPANY. Hon. Mr. ABBOTT moved concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to the bill to incorporate the Canada Shipping and Forwarding Company.-Carried. THE INTERCOLONIAL. Hon. Sir FRANCIS HINCKS moved con. currence in the resolution adopted in Committee of Supply, for granting $5,400,- | paratively small ports. He then referred 000 for the Intercolonial Railway. Hon Mr. MACKENZIE asked for explanations respecting the Miramichi Bridge. He had been informed upon high engineering authority that the decision arrived at by the Government, namely, to continue the original plan of construction, was one which was almost certain to prove unfavor able, in other words, that if it was attempt. ed to raise the structure upon the bed of hardpan that lay between the surface of the earth and the rock, instead of pene trating to the rock itself for a foundation, the weight which would rest upon the hard pan would be too great, and the inevitable result would be that the bridge would sink, and thus destroy the connection of the railway at that place. The statement that had been made to himself upon this point was very strong and conclusive. It was a very grave matter if the principle bridge on the road was built upon an unsuitable foundation, and he thought it was a subject in regard to which the House might legitimately call for explanations. Mr. WALSH said the whole correspon derce on the subject had been before the House for some time past. The question of the sufficiency of the stratum forming the foundation only arose with regard to the North-West branch of the river, and the bridge on the south west branch was being proceeded with according to the original plan. When the question came up it was deemed to be of sufficient import ance to require the opinions of engineers not in connection with the regular staff; accordingly, Messrs. Keefer and Gzowski were called in, and though they recommended a different course of construction, they agreed with Mr. Fleming as to the sufficiency of the foundation to sustain the bridge. He was not aware that there was now any doubt on the subject. On the further consideration of the vote for public buildings, Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE referring to votes for custom houses, said he had previously suggested that the Government should have some defined plan about the construction of these buildings, and the places entitled to them should be designated in some way that would prevent the Government from asking votes open to the objection of being considered simply for political purposes He then quoted the amount of revenue, Customs and Excise, collected at Three Rivers and Pictou, the places where the custom houses were to be erected, and the number of vessels enter. ing at and clearing from each port, and maintained that there could be no excuse for the erection of buildings at those com. to the proposed custom house for Newcastle and Chatham, N. B. Those places, he believed were some five miles apart; but, as latterly the expenditure of public money had taken the Newcastle direction, he supposed that the building would be placed there instead of the more important port of Chatham. He also quoted the revenue collected at those ports, and the number of vessels entered, maintaining that there was no necessity for buildings at these places either, and he believed the adoption of such a practice would inevitably produce abuse. There was an established order in the Custom Department regulating the salaries in accordance with the revenue collected, and he advocated the adoption of such a principle to regulate the erection of custom houses. He then showed the amount of work done at the ports of Guelph and Sarnia, neither of which places had custom houses. He had intended to propose an amendment which would embody the principle he advocated, but at the present stage it would be useless to do so, and he should therefore content himself with calling the attention of the House and country to the practice introduced by the Government of erecting buildings where they were not necessary, and with no other object than the spending of a sum of public money in certain localities; either to gratify political adherents or to accomplish some political purpose. There were other items which he considered wrong, but those he had mentioned embraced the objectionable features of the matter. He considered the votes a wanton waste of money, and gross injustice to other places where such edifices might be erected, with some regard to public expenditure and with some relation to the amount of revenue collected. The resolution was then carried. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY. It was then moved to receive the report of the Committee of Supply. In the course of receiving the report. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE referred to the item of $10,000 for arbitrations and awards. He said that the arbitrators had only had twelve cases before them since Confedera tion, and not one since February, 1870, while the cost, up to the present time, had been $14,987.24 for salaries and expenses of the Arbitrators, and a large amount in addition had been paid by the Government in the shape of professional fees to gentlemen appointed to act as counsel. It was quite clear that the Arbitrators were totally incompetent to discharge their duties, and that they were not professionally or technically capable of acting as Arbitrators, and the Government showed that they admitted this in entrusting the settlement of disputes to professional gentlemen cutside the public service or in conjunction with the departments. Two cases had been settled by the chief engineer of the Public Works Department, and he quite ap proved of that course, and when it was inconvenient to entrust the whole question to an officer of departments, he believed some professional gentleman should be called in for the occasion. It might not be pleasant for the Government to announce such a decision to the arbitrators, but the House ought to announce its belief in the unsoundness of the present practice. With a view of placing his views on record, "that the resolution be not concurred in, but that it be provided that no portion of the money so voted shall be applied to wards the payment of salaries to the Dominion Arbitrators, inasmuch as all arbi. trators on awards respecting contracts for public works require technical and profes. sional knowledge, and inasmuch as the Department of Public Works was obliged to commit the settlement of disputes to the arbitrament of an expert from the Department, thus absolving the arbitrators from the discharge of any duties for the past two years, Hon. Sir J. A. MACDONALD believed the board was useful and did good service, and had done good service in protecting the revenue of the country, and at the same time doing substantial justice to con tractors. In cases of dispute between the Government and individuals, there must be some mode of settlement, for there could not be a total denial of justice, and the Crown could not settle despotically what amount should be allowed and no more; and the member for Lambton would scarcely advocate such a practice as that. He believed this more particularly, Lecause the member for West Durham pressed and forced upon the Government the insertion of the arbitration clauses of the Penitentiary Act. The experience of Canada and also of the United States had shewn the necessity of such a tribunal as this, and that necessity could not be disputed. If such matters were sent to a jury it was quite sure that their sympathies would always be enlisted on the side of the individual, for it was always the case in suits in which any large corporations were concerned. Years ago, therefore, this tribunal was fɔrmed, and it was perfectly successful, and the fact that there only had been few calls for their services was no argument against their Hon. Mr. Mackenzie. usefulness. Of late there had been but few public works, and consequently few references to the arbitrators; but it was most undesirable, just as large public works of every kind were being commenc. ed, and many disputes might arise, to break up the board and leave contractors to the tender mercies of the Minister of Public Works, or send cases to be tried by exceedingly expensive, as was evident by a jury. Special arbitrators would be found the case of the construction of the Parlia ment buildings. The present arbitrators were only allowed a tixed salary of $1,000 and were liable to be sent to any part of a year and their actual travelling expenses, the Dominion to examine witnesses on the spot. board were men of strong common sense, The gentlemen now on the understanding the value of evidence, good business men, and having all the elements of a jury and much more, and it would be extremely unfortunate, particularly at the present time, to break up the tribunal. It might possibly be prudent to have only one legal gentleman on the Board to arrange and organize the evidence, but not more than one. Hon. Mr. HOLTON- And an engineer. Hon. Sir JOHN MACDONALD did not think there need be an engineer, as the members ought to be sufficiently men of perts of all kinds. It would be impossible business to appreciate the evidence of exs to get a body acquainted with every branch of public interest, but a body of the present kind, moderately paid with a fixed of the country, men of integrity, and salary, and liable to be sent to every part bunal wanted, and he would be very sorry men of business, was just the kind of trito have the motion carried. Hon. J. H. CAMERON objected that the for the evil he complained of. member for Lambton suggested no remedy Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said he had shown that the Government themselves passed over the arbitrators, and had for some tion to professional gentlemen. He show time past entrusted all matters of arbitraed that in three cases the arbitrators had reduced the amount of claims by $203, $11,000, and he beleived that many apwhile their own expenses amount to over peals to arbitration arose very greatly from the desire of contractors to take advantage of the want of professional knowledge on the part of the arbitrators. In one case a claim was made for $49,000, and, after long proceedings, the arbitrators awarded more than double the amount of the original estimate of the Government officers. He thought such cases should be submitted to professional men of known standing, or to the Chief Engineer | ded to take up the most pres ing works of the Public Works Department. He, of first, such as the Welland and St. Lawrence course, believed the arbitrators to be per- Canals; but the Sault Ste. Marie Canal sonally above suspicion, but he objected would not be lost sight of. to the entire system as at present carried out. Hon. J. H. CAMERON, referring to the case mentioned by Mr. Mackenzie, believed that the award was not really so large as in justice to the contractors it should have been There could be no question of the necessity of the tribunal in question, and if the present gentlemen were not efficient, new ones could be appointed. He, however, maintained that they were every way eminently fitted for their posi tions; but, it should not be endeavoured, by a side wind, to place the Board on a different footing from that provided by the Statute law. Hon. Mr. HOLTON said the gentlemen opposite had entirely misconstructed the remarks of the member for Lambton, for he did not say there should be no arbitration, but that the present system possesɛed the confidence neither of the coun try nor of the Government. He advocated a board composed, not of farmers and artizans, but entirely of professional men. Hon. J. H. CAMERON replied, maintaining that the arbitrators were appointed by law, and that the proposition was not a proper way of disposing of the matter. Mr. JONES [Leeds] could not agree with the suggestion that the Board should be composed of lawyers, as they were quite as liable to differ as farmers and artizans, who were quite as capable of coming to a proper decision in matters submitted to them as were lawyers. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE'S motion was declared lost on a division, and the item was concurred in. Mr. CUMBERLAND desired, before passing away from the Public Works item, to express his regret that the Governmenthad not included some vote for the con struction of the Sault Ste. Marie Canal, especially considering the great liberality which had been shown with respect to other canals. It was most desirable that the canal should be constructed, and he need only refer to the report of the Canal Commissioners to show the economy and feasibility of the undertaking. Having regard to the rapid increase of the trade of Lake Superior, he hoped the Government would keep a watchful eye ou the work, and would very shortly take it in hand. Hop. Mr. LANGEVIN said that last year the Government obtained a vote for a complete survey of the canal; but it was impossible to undertake all the works at once, and the Government therefore deci Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE agreed as to the necessity of the work on commercial grounds, and in addition he would not suffer such a humiliation as Canada had to undergo last year for twice the amount necessary to construct the work. On the item of mail subsidies, Mr. BOLTON proposed a resolution making it incumbent on owners of all vessels running between ports in the Dominion, and receiving subsidies, to furnish detailed statements of all voyages of such vessels. On the suggestion of Hon. Sir JOHN Mr. FOURNIER moved that the House do not concur, but that it be resolved that nothing in the present circumstances of the Dominion justifies the expenditure of so large a sum as $1,549,400 in the mainte nance of a militia force, and that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to take into consideration the propriety of largely reducing the amount. The members were called in and the motion rejected.-Yeas, 27; nays, 75. Concurrence was taken on various items, and it being six o'clock the House rose. AFTER RECESS. EXPLANATION. Hon. Mr. CHAUVEAU wished to call the attention of the House to a statement which had been made by the member for Lambton and circulated through most of the newspapers. He was not in his seat when the statement was made, or he would then have taken the opportunity of putting himself and the Government right on that very important matter. ment was that the resolution which he moved on the New Brunswick School Bill had been placed in his hands by the GovHe wished to deny that asser ernment. tion. The resolution was initiated and prepared by several other members and himself, and not by the Government. The state THE RECENT ABDUCTION AT LONDON. Hon. Mr. BLAKE asked the Government to convey to the House any information in their possession in reference to the statement contained in the press, to the effect that a person has been seized in open day, in the City of London, Ontario, and carried |