Loading...
The Huron Signal, 1882-03-10, Page 4le .oa ole . akl..-�nlo- c 2 444. 4444.444444.--4-44•444.44444044 THE HURON *SIGNAL, FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 1882. ANTI -TAXATION. Bir Richard Cartwright's Reply to the Budget Speech. complete Itspesertl et Try h11adu.—TM Frames K Pntetaise—Testae w mate see or mate mem m/en. The following is a full r.p`ort of the rept t $ir Richard Qsrtwrtkht to the Hod speech of Sir Leonard Tilley. The Mail and the other leading Tory papers were afraid to publish it. Its peroral will well repay any une anxious to get at the true inwardness of protec• tion: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasing duty on the present occasion to compliment the Hon. Minister of Finance on one im- portant improvement on his previuus practice. Until now, Sir, we hare not, although we cane t say we have not urged and spurred him on— we have never been able to induce that hon. , gentleman to bring down his Budget to Parliament in a reaso nab:e time after the opening of the Legislature, auy lnuch "valuable time has thereby been Lot, wasted I might say, to very little pur- pse. Now, Sir, although the hon. gentleman has been eery slow and very long in fullowinsg'the good eximple set under the Administration of my hon. friend—still even at this the eleventh, or it may be the twelfth, hour of this Parliament, we rejoice to hail even so alight an improvement in this matter. I only wish I could push my congratu- lations further, mail that the same im- provement which has been manifested in the expedition with which he has brought down his Estimates had been displayed in the preparation if 'those estimates; I would that besides copying us in the speed with which they were produced, he had also copied us in the economy with which they were framed. I would that he had produced a policy that might in some small degree justify the vaunts with which he hos just concluded his ex- position of that policy. Now, sir, it is not always particularly easy to follow the hon. gentleman. What between the subtlety of the hem. gentleman's logic and the remarkable complexity of the hot). stentleusan s izr, nimar, what be- tween the curious convolutions of his sentences now and then, if I should make tr mistal,:e and sometimes not clear- ly understand what he means, I must say I am not entirely to blame. and although he may not have any very greet consid- eration for us on this side of the House — we do not generally receive it from that side of the House— he ought. 1 think, to have seine little consideration for those willintt and faithful followers who are so ready accept and receive every statement that hon. s!entleman m'ly be pleased t•, snake, either this year, nr the year before, or the, year be- fore -that. Nw, the hon. gentleman has elven 04 tu•nigat a new series of keleidescepic views ..f the beauties of the National Policy. If any of his f (Hewers happen to he afflicted with a sense of logic or cmd memories, they must be seinewh tr Fueled to' reconcile the position eecepied by that hon. gent- leman to -night with the position which that hon. gentle:mei has takes en many previous occasions. sir, 1 think it would he well that the hon. gentleman should decide finally what his followers are to. believe o.0 s nue • f these impor- tant questions. Are we to understand, as we understood frown that hon. gentle- man net very In,: time ago, that it is a great misfortune per the people of thie country if the bxlance..1 trade be against thein, er are we to understand that it is a good thing if the balance of trade be in their facer under certain circumstances, or are we to understa nd,as I rather think he would have us t. understand, that it is a peel thing te have balance of trade in our favor if we happen to have a deficit. bat very bad thin_; in- deed to have it in sur favor when hav- ing it in •.ur favour would prevent us having a surplus. Now, un the present occasion, the lion. gentleman, although on other •.ccasiens he was very loud in this matter of the balance of trade, has said nothing; aboatt the important fact that the balance er trade is very serieua- ty against the 1)•+minion ••f Canada for the past year.' He was ideased to tell us that he had an excess of set era( millions of dollars ever the suits lie expected to raise, but he left it somewhat dubious whether an ex'evss of several millions ..f dollars is to be held as a proof ef the wonderful accuracy •,f his eittimnte•, • r as a proof that he sue ee led in lois leap in the (lark. He has left it a mystery to us whether the real rirtne, and the real rile,sine the Nati-nel Pehcy has be- stowed aeon us. is. iia he told us three years age, that it was to reduce the ma - ports in every way, ••r whether the real end abn•l I nrpo ie .i his National Policy is to stimulate iwperts and thereby create s st:rpdtts ' .\te we to understand after perusing these figures, after leukins; throusrh our public Ace .ants, that the hon. gentleman holds it to he the best prs.f possible of prudent statesmanship that he has suceeedei1 in quite douOling the taxes and burthens of the people of Canada, and in ( uite doubling already the expenditure of the people of Canada within some thirteen years ( Are we to u nderstand that the hon. gentleman still continues of the same niind that it is de. arable for us to take it out of the Amer- icans. se he put it a few years ago, and are we to leek upon this remarkable in- crease which the last year's trade returns show of the imp eta from the United States as a peed ..1 the success of this pelicy of taking it out of the Americana e tells us that everything, or alm.•ec everything, is ccheaper, now that we have snore taxes arosed uton Amite every- thing. is he prepared to follow that to the logical mak, and pat en more taxes so that we may ultimately get these thiags for nothiwi ' The hoe gentle - 'man was load in explaining to the House that a certain number of thous- ands of hands, as to which I will my I something preseetly, have been added to oar population M his policy; but the, hon. gentleman said nothing, for f11011101111which will preeeetly appear. &hust the 1 *soden. which his friends at any rate charms to assert took }tape ender the Administration of my hon. friend; o.r has he got new light sprat thet subject 1 Ras he di.aowered that this pgreligious exodus bas resulted according to the townies in the remerk.hle circumstances that the great Province of Quebec by the einem has grown twie r as fast while my bon. friend presided over the deeltinies of the country as in the decade before. Till axrlrlDITUax, The hon. gentleman alluded most gingerly to the fact that he had a ,"very abort whilevery few years ago— ILOhe, an no Miuutsr of Fivanoe, had formally and ssoleunl,y stated his eon - elation that $9$.500,000 were ample to o�rry on the asks of the Government of Qent;dn, That was his statement be- fore. Now, 1 had that in the year just closed he spent 186,500,000, or $20. 000- 000, if we include the sum spsiit on DU - minion lands. I find he asks fur about $47,000,000 for the service for the pres- ent year, and we all bad him tell us he expected to require 427,730,000 with- out including supletuentary estimates, without counting $450,000 far Donnie lop lands fur the year 1882-83.. TM& aU•YLUa It appears to une that the hon. gentle- man will do well at another time to take some opportunity to explain the trittng contradictions which appear to be in- volved in the several statements made by him, and when the hon. gentleman glories in the surplos he has got and calls upon us to admire him because, owing to circumetamces over which he has no control, we have a 'surplus of $4,000,000 or thereabouts to -defy; I, in turn, ask him how that was gotOf that, $1,100,000 is derived from those two most odious and oppressive taxes, which were never imposed in any civil- ised country before, I believe, under similar circumstances at least—the taxes on breadstuffsand on fuel in a country like this. And if we added the expendi- ture on Dominion lands we would find that, deducting these two taxes, which ought never to be imposed, and which could'only be defended by the must ex- treme tiscal necessities, and adding a sunt which, for the purposes of compari- son at least, should be added, the hon. gentleman's surplus of $4,000,000 would shrink to $2,500,000. I can understand and I ani quite prepared to admit, that there are circumstances under which a surplus is just cause for congratulation. We have known in the past some such circumstances. I remember very well under the administration of the hon. gentlemen opposite when without adding une penny to the burdens of the people of this country, from its natural growth and increase,* surplus relatietly quite as purge as this of which the hon. gentle- men boasts was obtained by Sir Francis Hincks. 1 admit that that was • fair and just ground for congratulation. Had this surplus been so obtained, I would admitthst it was a fair and just ground for congratulation; but what does the reality show ? The reality shows the must oppressive system of taxation. The facts are these:—The statements made by myself an my hon. friend, which the hon. gentleman has no doubt inadverently misquoted, have been verified to the letter. Those state- ments were thee:—I told the hon. Min- ister thet if he aimed to obtain revenue he would find his tariff was a total fail- ure so long as the exports of the country continue low and so long as ' there was no general improve- ment, but that the ent our exports increased, the moment that general im- provement, which Iforesaw would short- ly arrive, Dame, that moment the tariff which he chose to aggregate would, with- out any further burdening of the people have produced fully as large a surplus as the hen. gentleman has boasted of to -day —at all events fully as large a surplus, as I shall show, if you deduct those ob- noxious duties on coal and •bread stuffs. What did my hon. friend beside ole state ! The Boa. member pointed out what has since proved to be correct, that whereas the hon. gentleman stated that *ll he did Wes to add $2,000,000, he had s.. grimly overloaded the taxation, and had gone so far beyond what was actually 'required that this ts'iff would produce 87,000,000 instead of $2,000,000. The facts were that the $7,000,000 which my hon. friend stated would be produced, I and more, were nuost unfair and oppres- sire taxes taken out of the pockets of the p•.•ple, when only $2.000,000 were required. readers AYt) EXPORTS. New i will tell the hon. ventieman what were the conditions, in niy judgment. at all events, under which the National ' Policy might fairly claims to be credited with this surplus and improvement. Let ' th.sse hon. gentlemen show, if they can, i that those increased exports on which i the whole increased ingaorts depend are due to the National Policy. Let them whew that the increased imports are due to the Natimral Poli -y, and then I for nay }}art will freely and fully admit that • the National Policy has had something to do with the increase of this surplus. But, Mr. Speaker, it we find that facts utterly and entirely contradict that ah - surd assertion, that the exports have in- creased from causes over which those hon. gentlemen would exercise no mere control than over the position of the e. uinoxis—if we find they are due ab- solutely and wholly to the increase in the lumber trade, exports of animals aad their products, and of agricultural pro- duce, then I say those hon. gentlemen stand condemned as imposters, who have laid claim teen improvement whichtheir policy was not able to prevent,but which it certain) did nothing do create or sti- mniate. What are the bread facts of the ease ! They are throe:—That in 1879 we exported exclusive of bullion and estimated short returns, $90,000,000 worth of products: that in 1880 we ex- p .rted 070,000,000, and in 1881 very nearly 081.000,000. Now, ser, how was , that trade up : Why, intim years,from 1879 to 1881, our exerts of the fe este res t ram $E1.260,000 t. • $'15.000,000: .012.000.000 .•f that 420,000,000 were due to the increased expovts .d lumber: and also in the ease of animals and their products the exports rose frons $14,- 000,000 to 021,8?.1,000. There, sir, iyou have the whole isaervwse. Doer the hon. member eapeel we weeks believe. will he even resters to assert here. that his policy has cestribeted to the Moralise ! of the exports .4 limber ne d animals and their pr deete truss the Dowrieirm If -he does. I wish that he or some of his ++' friends would cxtdeseewd to show us 1 how. 1 shall show him aad dais Home, and I think the owuntry. that what his policy hes dose is that direction has Men to retard and lapis* the growth of those two crest indasstries, that the hon. gentleman is not Petalled te ase iota of credit for the Increase of *epochs which have taken place, and out of whish the impute have been paid. How does the hon gentleman propose to deal with these da, facts contained in the Trade and Navigation Returns, and as well known to him as to hots. members on this side of tho House. but, pbl , sir, the hon. gentlentaa, as he dealt with other difficulties, doss not deal with them at all. The hon. gentleman is, however, blessed with colleagues a little more logical than himself, and I will give to the House an extract from a &peach made by one of his colleagues in which an explanation is offered tend- ing to show that the National Pokey, the policy of taxing everything that the producers of these articles use, did con- tribute to increase our exports of lumber and our exports of agricultural and ani- mal products. On a certain occasion the hon. Minister of Public Works was ban- gnetted in the good city of Hamilton, and after dinner the hon. gentleman was good enough to explain how it was that the N. 1'. had contributed to the in- crease of these exports. Said he:— '•The fact is that as soon as that great policy was proclaimed, so great was the immediate revival of confidence in the people that they at once set to work to plough re land, to grow more cr.ns, and to raise more cattle. Well, the hon. gentleman in order to establish his friend's ase, found it ne- cessary to assert this. ,But if the hon. gentleman had been with me a few j weeks later, when I read that wonderful expositiou of the effects of the N. P. to a couple of thousand of the best agricul- turists •in Western Canada, and heard the shouts of uncontrollable laughter which greeted it, he would have under- stood that, although logical, it was not likely to be effect've—at any lute, with the hard-headed farmers of Western Canada When 1 asked those 2,000 farmers, numbering among them as gond agriculturists as can be found in the Dominion, and among whom were a great many supporters of the Hon. Min- ister of the Interior, whether there was one among them who had been induced by the immediate revival of confidence to set to work and plough more land, grow more crops, and mise more cattle, not one could be found to stand up and say he had grown a bushel more of grain or a pound more of beef. The actual fact is in direct contradiction of this in- genious theory. Immediately on the introduction of that policy, as every one acquainted with Western Canada knows, that was a large and lamentable exodus of many of our best farmers the nigh the whole western region --not, I am sorry to say, to our, own North-West, but to Dakota, Minnesota, and other portions of the United States. Mr. Plumb—And to Texas and Kan- sas. Sir Richard Cartwright—If' the policy had any effect at all it wigs not to in- crease the number of acres under plough, or the amount of crops and cattle raised, but sensibly and materially to dimish them. I said, and I repeat, that the hon. gentleman's tariff, as a revenue tariff, was an utter failure as our exports continued small. Take the revenue.re- turns for 1879 and those for 1880, and you will find deficits ranging front $2,- 000,000 to $1,500,000; and not until these exports increased to the figure which I named was there the slightest sign of expansion or the slightest appear- ance of the surplus of which the hon. gentleman boasts. It is clear, and I • think, clear to demonstration, that had we had to -day the tariff which existed in 1878 we would have had ample reve- nue without adding one iota to the bur- dens of the people. I invite the atten- tion of the House to this simple fact. In 1875 our total exports amounted ho $67,500,000, in 1881 to $81,000,000. Now it is known to all practical men that the vulume of our imports, and con- sequently our revenue, is necessarily re- gulated by the volume of our exports for the of the preceding year or two. Therefore it is :las that if in 1881 we exported, as we did export 014,000,000 worth more than in 1875, our revenue under my tariff would have prtfortlon- ately increased. What was the revenue in 1875 1 The revenue from Oustnms amounted to 015,361,000. Now, if yes make your proportional allowance for the very large increase of exports which took place between 1881 and 1875, you will see that 1s am stating the literal fact when I ss that so far as•it is possible to calculate in a matter of that kind, there is not the slightest or remotest doubt that with such an eflpert as we had in 1881 that tariff would have produced at least $18,000,000, and that without at all burdening the people. But the hon. gentleman was gond enough to allude, although in a gingerly fashion, as I said, to the fact that our imports at pre- sent were slightly in excess of our ex- ports. I dare say the House will rec..l- lect that in a public document emanat- ing from a brother colleague, great credit was taken, and groat stress laid upon the fact. that, although there was a defi- cit for the first time in the history of the Dominion, the exports in 1880-1 think, it was—had exceeded our imports. Well I am not going to delay the House by entering into a disquisition on the merits of the balance 1,f trade theory. I am, I confess, myself of the opinion, which does not appear to be shared by hon., gentlemen opposite, that if we are lucky enough to exchange $63,000,000 or $70,000,000 worth of goods fur $80,- 000,000 or $90,000,000 worth we are largely the gainers by tho transaction. That is a theory however which ggeentle- men like Smith, Mills, Peel. 01adstuoe, Cobden, Bright, and Fawcett are still deluded enough to entertain, but it is not th. theory of the how. Minister of Finance. That hon. gentleman enter- tains quite a difeeent ides. First of all let me correct one error into which he has fallen. The bows. gentleman has chosen to MMelode in the relative amount of exports and imports what are celled short returns is talawd ports. Now, i do not thing he is quite right in includ- ing those for two reasces Air Leeman! Tilley—i did not fasted* them. Air Richard Cartwright—Those abort return ere bat a ries mater of guess work. Mr. Mackenzie Sowell --Has not that been practised for the past ten years i Air Richard Cartwright—i an quite aware rd that, and in soaking my state- ments i hare usually called attention to the fact AM it is a neer* matter of sur- mise. Msf the., is a apeeial reason why this should not be omitted in just now. As every matt who lives on the frontlet knows, thew exists now, what. did net exist before, an enormous nupurta'ieu of smuggled goods into this country, gaits ss much as any short returns from inland ports in the United States. Tak- ing wbatareknowu andprovedwe« export- ed, and when weknew and proven we ex- portedleaving out short returns on the , one snd and un other, yuu will find et the balance the f trade is lust $10,000,000 against ua Let es read what the hon. Minister 4 of Finance *id on this subject three years ago. I quote from his own budget speech of 1879. He said :— "There are other difficulties. The volume of imports has not much dimin- ished. Regarding the matter as I do, I think it is to be regretted that the volume of imports has not been mate- rially reduced." This was at a time when tl e value of imports was $80,030,000. I look upon large imports ever since the Dominion was organized, showing a large balance of trade against ua, as one of the causes 44 the ubles with which' we have to Ebu end one of the difficulties than it is our duty to remedy. Inverts have been decreasing to a certain extent, but are still very large, showing distinctly and clearly iu any judgment that the ought to be still further diminished. It appears to me that we should turn our attention to the best means of reducing the volume of our imports from all parts of the world. Thetis his policy expound- ed in 1879, when our imports amounted to nearly $80,000,000; but we find that now our imports, exclusive of bullion, amount to $90,488,000, the hon. gentle- man has not a.word to say about the duty of the Government to remedy this state (1 things of possible. About it being apparent to him that we ought to turn our attention to the best means of reducing the volume of our imports from all parts of the world, it may be news, or it may not be news, to the hon. gentleman to know that in the Mother Country, to which he was just inviting us to direct our attention in connection with some other matter, during the last twenty five years, the balance of trade against England was something like £2,000,000,000 aterliug, or $10,000,000,- 000. That he will find,if 'he chooses tolook up the\English trade and navigation re- turns. 'It might interest him also to know that in spite of that the English imports of bullion were about $500,000,- 000 more durithe same period than the English eorts . of bullion. Now I am in no respect concerned about this same disastrous balance of trade, but I do subntit, air, that unless there has been a total reversal of the laws which, according to the hon. gentleman, ought to govern our conduct in these matters then i suppose that this 810,000,000 against ua is a most deplorable fact, and the hon. gentleman ought, as he said he would, toturn his best atrentiun to remedy thisterribletlow of imports from all parts of the world. Sir, the hon. gentlemen has one ground, and only one, for con- tenting these statements. If the 'hon. gentleman be prepared to show that he and his colleagues were really the au- thors of the good crops which have in- creased our exports, and, which is also an important factor in the case, that they have contrived that there should be bad crops elsewhere, • and so o add to the prices, which we receive for our gala, then I would say that the hon. 1gentleman had made out a gooal c sae forhis N. P. ;but not till then. Unless he is prepared to declare that the p great ex- ensiun of business in the United States, to which an extremely large proportion of his surplus revenue is due, was caus- ed by his having taxed considerably more every article which the Americans `had to send us. When we speak of the j injury inflicted by this over -taxation, I would call the attention of the House and the hon. gentleman to this well !known fact; whenever you attempt to raise a revenue by heavy indirect taxa- • tion, you must of necessity add very largely to the burden ..f the people over i and above the amount which goes into the Treasury. That there is no poasi- hility of avoiding, nor will all the calcul- ations which. the hon. gentleman has I given in the slightest degree affect a fact so well proven as that. Now, air, it is 'not a point which necessarily militates against the National Policy pc, s.. It is !conceivable, it may ho argued, that se 1 great are the tither advantages of that policy that it is worth our while to sub- msit togs taxation of thirty or forty or 'fifty millions in order to enjoy it, but there can be no excuse for concealing t the self-evident fact that wheneder you !raise a revenue by indirect taxation you .ti hamper commerce in a thousand ! ways; you so interfere with profitable !production that you add most enor- mously to the cat to the taxpayer; and that when you put $4,000,000 into the !treasury, even under an orlinao— revenue tariff, when the rate of tax• ation is not high, von certainly take at least $5,000 000 out of the pocket of the taxpayer. When you do it. under a • tariff like this it is almost impossible t., estimate the total amount, but it is cer- tainly vastly in excess of twenty-five per cent. True, there is the convene to thtt. After you have raised your taxes to a certain point you may then, without fear, go on and add as much as you please. But except in very few eases that has not been dime by til, and my position is briefly this: Although it is true the hon gentleman has secured $4,000,000 of a surplus in the Treasury, it is none the less true that under his tariff he has done that at an enc ernes cost to this country—a cast, i believe, of not less than $8,000,000 or $9.000,000 —and I will tell him for one thing, amt will show him presently. that in one ar- ticle alone, that of sugar, he has taken K000,000 net of the !esthete of the people, and put $!,600,000 iwto the Trea- sury. Ift'PLaID goer OF Milo. Nnw, I will take two special pouts toughed upoa by that bow. gentleman. Mire of all I propose to refer to s gttee- tion of great ietetwt to the masses of this community, end that is the 'ready increased ant of livings. Noir. sir, the hon. gentleme % and his friends are apt to deal with the q.setinn by xane& as - mortices, not giving details,as indeed, he dealt with it to -night. Tey do not appear to be able to see that these argu- ments are ssK•awatradictniy. i1 these snot are able to produce queen thiwas as cheaply a they weld elsewhere. what need have we, or what need have they, for a protective tariff? (Rear, hear.) ca Why, sir, the se is clear. It is be- cause, and only beanies, Canadian manufacturers, as • rub, cannot pro- duce as cheaply as these of other coun- tries that they require to shut out bI a tariff wall the products of other coun- tries. Probably the ion. gentleman dues not hear • the cumplsiste d the poor. He does not hear the complaints of then with small fixed incomes. The boa. gentlemen has been of late consort- ing with men who are Waking their thousands and tens of thousands in the operation of this tariff—(hear, h'aar)— who have the greatest pussible desire, and I fear the greatest possible inclin- ation, to prevent that lion. gentleman frunm appreciating fully the mischief lie has done, and in concealing frons him the facts which he ought to know, and awns of which at least I hope to bring to his attention to-niglit. The hon. gentleman cannot see how ise has in- creased the coat of living; the hon. gen- tleman does not know apparently that iu every yard of coarse tweed the poor man uses his tariff compels him to pay 25 or 30 or 40 per cent, not perhaps more than in 1878—which has very little to do with the matter—but 25 or 30 or 40 per cent, more than that same article could be obtained for elsewhere if it sear not for his tariff The hon. gentleman cannot understand how he has added 0o the cwt of living when on every yard .•E coarse Dutton the than who co sumer it is obliged to pay one-third mure at the fair market price than if there were no tax and no tariff to pay. He cannot un- derstand how the man who purchases a pair of coarse blankets finds the cost 01 living increased, when he is compelled to pry GO per cent, snore than.the ar- ticle would Dost could be purchase it in bond without the duty paid. He can- not understand how the cost ..f living is increased, when on every gallon of call oil the poorest man consumes he his to pay from lb to 20 cents mure than it could be obtained for but for his tariff, and but for the absurd and mischievous regulations which in the interest of a monopoly he bas imposed en it. He cat,nut understand how it cusses to pass that the cost of living has increased, though he knows that on every barrel of sugar weighing 300 lbs., the public have to pay $f) more than they would pay if there were no taxes at apt. The hen. gentleman cannot- see this, he cannot understand it, he merely denies the fact. I venture to say that if in the course of his peregrinations through the country. he will call on my hon. friend beside me (Mr. Mackenzie,) when he happens to be in Sarnia, and if he will go across the river to Port Huron, my hon. friend will be able to show hies in the course of half an hc.r's walk a variety of shoos in which he will be able to . procure those articles at the prices I have rained, and much cheaper than he could purchase the same arti- cles on this side of the border. t tr if he will accompany my hon. friend from South Grenville (Mr. Wiser,. sir my hon. friend from Kingston Mir._ (;unn,7 either of these gentlemen will be able to show him a Precisely similar state id things. 1 would like to ask that hili. gentleman whether it ever occurred to hint why it is that people amugele goods across the lines. What extreme and absurd felly it weu,141 be fur ' t man to run the risk• of the penalties; r vi.led against' einvgeline if he could ..basun goods as cheaply in Canada ale he could in the United States.' I tell Lint this, 1and I make soy statement ..n the author - I ity of Inc of the tartest importers If dry-go.nls in the D o:t:i:ri•",n, that there are merchants iu the 1'nite l St ttea who are preptre.l to deliver e..na ie ('anode to any 4.1 the hon. gentleama'g's suppoat. en who want to tern act Lorient penny under the tariff at the rate of softie ten per cent, • higher than the -in - 1 voice prices in the United States. but 1 they do not calculate to p.y the 35 er 40 per cent. duty which the hen. gen- tleman s tariff levies open them. THE. OSL TAY. As I said before, all these thin. ::re• mysterious to my hon. friend apparent- ly, but when the hen. gentleman cones t.. deal with the duty- ear c .al. then all the lien. eentlennan's wanted astuteness returns. He is prepareillto explain that: he is pre;.ared to do mere, to illustrate his explanation, and a most remarkable 11- lustreti-,n it is. Not long ago I saw a quotation from an eloquent speech of his, in which, dealing with this .1uestien of coil, he gave an explanation not diff- ering very much from 'that with which he favoured us a little tune alto. R•hat the hon. gentlelnal say-. in, the matter of this luny nn coal is: I hail my diffi- culties once, but now everything is plain. Sometimes the consumer pays the duty, aid u.metimes the producer. The hon. gentleman is like the student in the old days who was asked whether the sun went round the earth or the earth went round the sun, and who compromised the matter by declaring that s•'snetinaes the earth went round the sun and some- times the sun went round the earth. It is much to be regretted that all have not the advantage to secure the nerviees ..f that student amongst us to -night. I am convinced that, under the guidance ..f the hon. gentleman, Le could be trained into a most admirable Fiunce Minister. There is the right raw material, the accommo- dating nature, the reluctance to push things to extremes, which so eminently characterize that hon. gentletnan; and I ata prepared to endorse Dim to some extent. I am prepared to admit that the consumer pays the duty lust as often as the earth gore r.und the sun, *red that the producer pays the duty just es often as the sun goes nand the earth; but, sir, doctors and even colleague will differ oh thew questions now and then, aad i have observed that the bon, re atlemaw'a eolb.gaes in dealing` with this question of the duty en cal have cot always taken the view that he takes. We are awes that not long ago an elec- tion took place in the Provisce of Nova Senb•, in which the Minister of Rail- ways took a very active part, and this was bow he explained the dety on coal to a listening audience at Picoe:—"The pdiey of the Liherwh," said the hon. gentlemen 'tis to take the dety of coal and saddle on yew, the people of Nova Semis, your share of the $$00,000 now paid into the revenue by the one and a half millions of Ontoriing." And Is. went en the day after to say that the people of Ontario paid $4(11.000 t i ease, coil ccaal, of which t&xes Nova ilautia j s relieved,aamd Mr. Carotichsel,saidthe hug. gentleusan, is auziuus that Nova Scuba shall be saddled with i•. That is a statesutaulihe utterance—est utterance caleulated to remove entirely all those fears of disunion and sectionalism which the hon. Minister .f Finance ago justly dlored shd be excited ms( ur. p.eppsslahiun.oulAnd I think, If•I antououta mistaken, the Minister of Railways went on to paint out to his Nova &titian audieaoe that Outario lutenist& were greatly at discount in this scatter of coal. He said, and laid truly, that 'you can get coal at the pit's mouth for fifty or sixty cents a on whale they have to pay $4.114 or $.i a tun, and we have given you puple of Nova Scotia au ad- ditional protection of 50 or 00 cents in addits.n to the natural produc- tion at $4.50 to, enable you to deal. with these million and a half of (lumber- ers of the earth of the Province of On- tario." Other gentlemen who are de- serving of the notice of this House have a still different story to tell with respect to this coal duty. Hero is what the President of the largest railway at pre- sent existing iu Catued& bas to say:_ "Materials &y:— "Materials of a,l kinds," says Sir henry Tyler. "are deere4 than they were ever before, and in p articular the price of cal has increased to the event of the duty imposed. He could horsily con- ceive of anything more injurious in a nation like Canada than to place a duty oar coal." That was the opiuiuu of the president of the Grand Trunk Railway— slightly different from the Minister u[ Finance—and as his company pity' some 850,000 or $1;0,000 of that impost, be may be suPe»ed te know something, at all events, of what he was talking about. I would like to know what those shiver- ing wretches who fare to experience abs extremity of our cold winter weather, when the thermometer Is twenty degrees below zero, have hi any with regard to to the benevolence which adds fifty or sixty cern* t , the price of each ten of coal they purchase. I cannot better un - elude my remarks on the subject than b giting.to the House a resolution which was iutroaluced by a very .distinguished and nuah)e c/l a of the hon. gentle- man— a matt wholooms large is the pub - lie eye—no less a person than the pun, sent Speaker of the Senate.' On this quests m, some few yeah ago. the Hos. Mr. Macpher.o.n moved in the Agitate:— "That in the opinion of this Buns*, by subjecting to duty of Customs ea pro red to the Bill—bre•dstufds of any d, or rice, awl, and coke, salt, or any of the natural products ennmeratd in schedule C of the present tariff, and which at present are admitted into Can- ada free of duty—a principle would be partial in its operation between the Pro- vinces constituting the Dominion, that would injuriously disturb trade and tend to engender sentiments of -sectionalism and disunion in the minds of the people of Canada" i Well, sir, we en this side nI the House may be pardoned if we entertain some doubts as to which of the three --the President of the Senate, the Hon. Min- i iaterof Finance, or the Hon. Minister of Iaailw•ays—hae exactly got at the true 1 inwardness of this same duty on coal. The Hon Minister of Finance tinds it itsipo.ssible to see how this duty can be unfair to the mass of the poulation. Well, sir, the hen. gentleman, observe, when be wants to ascertain how a duty is "tar;; t•,.effect the consumer, how it is _eine t» affect the great mass of the 1 penile, wisely goes to the manufacturer of the article which is to be protected. 111-11e finds out what the producer think.; but what the consumer thinks or feels appears. and poerhaps is, to hila a matter f cotut,..ratise indifference. Now, sir, I have ponsued, I ata about to say, a I different plan. When I want to ascer- tain hew a system of taxes affects the poorer portion of this community, I en- c!oavorel to moo tain from those of them who keep accurate accounts of their do- uaestic ex oenditures what sums they spend on the various articles which are taxed, and in that way I think we can fins' out with some degree of precision t ,a what is the true incidence of the hon. gentleman's tariff. Now, sir, I have here two cases --one of a man earning about 83(0 a year, usual to about $1 per diem, and another of an artisan who re- ceives *lout 8400 a year, equal to about 81.30 per diem. Let us see how these oven are taxed. I rind that in the first instance thep are obliged to expend some $40 or $50 in the purchase of six tons of sap; I find that they are obliged to. pur- chase about six barrels of flour, &bopt lbtl pounds of sugar, and to expend for clothing about 862 for a family of six; and they will consume sane 14 gallons of coal oil in the course of a year. Now, I let us see how em an income of $400 a year these taxes will foot up. There is a specific tax on flour equal to $3, and a I specific tax on coal equal to $3, on the coal oil they use they are obliged W pay at least 82.50 more than but for the operation of the tax they could obtain that article for elsewhere, while on .their cl•.thing, which is necessarily, the largest taxable item, taking the average of the hon. gentleman's tang it is impossible ' that they should pay less than $21 a year. Their sugar arts them at least 0b in taxes, and if we put on the averse allowance for excisable articles, we find that, without taking into somas* the , rest variety of articles of food, 1 touts, 1*, ,ks, and other minor o which every wrking man uses—os an s I ., imam, (d $400 a year the absolute known Dominion taxes amount to not less than $43.50, not taking into account 1 municipal taxes, which mast average at least $10 a year more. In the eases trey 1 in the case of a family M five. hiving on 1 an income of $300 • year, I And, taDow- ing for socio taxes, that the tax- i salon is not lees than $3? a year, net counting municipal taxes. h may be, sir, to the Hon. Minister of Finance a matter of perfect insigniflsene that a man who receives an income of $300 • shuold be d o to year the stent dtaxej37, andby hie tha1R Doobs enstiniett who has an income of $400 s year should be taxed t. the extent of $43 for De- miniown purposes; but i doubt extremely whether these men themselves are not beginning to wake up to the fact that that they are taxed most oppressively and anjostly ander the tariff herneeeea n�the hon. rathsetee. Mr, owe et theme the , a mac some ltetN edema - Gen, wrote to ahead whom i em to connect these facts—and I wit)w the Ron Winisir ryf F'itnaniewes • vd x