IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I '-IIIIIM IIIIM 2.2 «^ m m 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 « 6" ► V] r>. / '/ /f;^ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 ■■;« Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. The to tl L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. The posi of tl film □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D D D D Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul^e I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents □ Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur D D El D D D Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul^es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages ddtach^es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualit^ indgale de I'impression Oris beg the sior oth« first sior or il □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire I I Only edition available/ The sha TIN whi Mai diff enti beg righ reqi met Seule 6dition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film6es d nouveau de fagon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 7 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6tosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commen9ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —►(meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film6 d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 ; 4 ■ • 6 ■I I , i! I J H Pi rii L-: P XEIjO u L y yj J.KTTKKS UF D(>N \i.i) Macmastkr, M.P.]\ Fc)r(tLKNG\RRY I (AM' oriiEks, wVi'ii oi'iNioNs OF i'Hh fi ftridging the St. Lawrence at Coteaii. This questioii, m your article directly indi- cates, has been referred ito* Colonel Gzowskifor determin- ation, and r ' eany dtitmim ^ may be expected. You admit that *' .ve may lea^xw nhiit '^ (the interests of navi- gation) " to the decifiicni NALD MACMASTER. Montreal, 1st Decetnlttr,. 1879. — Gazette, Dec. 2Dd, 1-^%. To the Editor oftlie GtmtHk, Sir, — Your well-tiiDflfi and admirable article on " The Coteau bridge," wiiiti) ;i^ipeared in the Gazette lately, does not seem to pl«a«t Ifr. Donald Macmaster, who objects to your preeuitiiki^ referring to a subject already, as he says, '' disposed >k€7 Has your correspoiiteit ever considered the fact that i/W 8 this country possesses a coast line of about 1,200 miles, and through this vast extent of territory the several Pro- vincial as well as the Dominion Governments have expended millions upon millions of money in the improve- ment of navigation, and the building of railways for the purpose of securing for ourselves, for our whole country, an outlet to the ocean through our own terri- tory y Has Mr. Macmaster ever given a thought as to the effect which this bridge will have on the commerce of this country ? If not, he had better give his mind to the work at once. In the first place, that formerly much- abused Grand Trunk Railway is now acknowledged to be the greatest blessing ever bestowed upon this coun- try ; the millions of public money spent upon it was the best laid out (for the general good) that we can just now point to. Next is the Intercolonial Railway, 700 miles, built entirely by the Dominion Government, securing at all times a purely Canadian route to the sea ; then we have the Q. M. O. & 0. Railway — all great leading arteries from the interior to the ocean, and upon the construction of which a heavy national debt has been accumulated. Finally, we have that great national work, now nearly completed, viz., the deepening and improvement of the St. Lawrence, enabling sea-going vessels to ascend to the highest western point of navi- gation. Now, sir, I would ask again : Have the Canadian promoters of this scheme given these things any con- sideration at all ? Do they imagine that the great shipping interests of Quebec and the Maritime Provinces, not to speak of others, will calmly view the destruction of their trade to benefit foreigners ? The building of the Coteau bridge will simply tap the stream of commerce, and divert its flow though a narrow belt of Canadian country directly to the American seaboard, rendering all h^ c« vj I el g| 9 uiles, Pro- have trove- rs for whole terri- as to imerce Qind to rauch- Iged to 9 coun- was the laii just ay, 700 rnment, the 8ea ; all great nd upon Jebt has national ling and ,ea-going of navi- Canadian any con- ;he great Provinces, jstruction ing of the ommerce, Canadian idering all these great Dominion, provincial and private enterprises comparatively worthless, and causing an injury to this country which hardly any effort could hope to repair. -CANADA FOR THE CANADIANS." To the Editor of the Gazette. Sir, — My short letter in answer to your editorial, stating what I conceived to be the true issue with regard to the Coteau bridge scheme, has elicited two commu- nications from anonymous correspondents. In re-stating more fully what I believe is now properly before the public, I will not commit myself to entering into a controversy with contributors unwiUing to give their opinions the sanction of their names. The public will determine wliether they are impelled to secrecy from motives of patriotism or of private interest. The letter of Mr. Henshaw and those of your anony- mous correspondents do not affect the position laid down by me, viz : That the objections now raised to the scheme have, in one form or another, been submitted to the committee of the House of Commons, and decided ad- versely to the pretentions of the opponents of the bridge. One of your correspondents, seeing the force of this view, evades the real issue, and struggles to escape from his untenable position, by declaring that ^' the matter was never seriously discussed by Parliament," and that *' both political parties," in passing the measure, became " blind to the welfare of their country,'' in order to serve party ends. This is a serious arraignment, and, apart from its extra- gance of assertion, is somewhat economical of fact. The 10 whole measure was for at least a month before committee. After elaborate investigation it was submitted to Parlia- ment, and an Act was passed after discussion, but without division, giving effect to what is commonly called the '' Bridge scheme," providing for bridging the St. Lawrence at Coteau, if no serious objection (in so far as navigation is concerned) existed. This Act is now part of the law of the land, and the Dominion Government is fulfilling its provisions by appointing an expert to determine the question of navi- gation. Your correspondents are exhibiting their wares the day after the fair. They set their opinions not against mine, but against the undivided wisdom of Parliament. They may be rigiit ; but, in the mean time, I prefer the wisdom of Parliament. I am. Your obedient servant, DONALD MACMASTER. Montreal, 3rd December, 1879. — Gazette, Dec. 4th, 1879. To the Editor of the Gazette^ Sir, — Mr. Macmaster has, I see, entrenched himself in the stronghold of his first position. I do not intend to attack it, having a wholesome dread of falling into legal mazes, but I will endeavor rather, in military phrase, to ''turn it." I lake it that this vital question of internal polity cannot but be finally decided on its own merits, and not on a judgment passed at a single session, just when the public mind was diverted from its calm consi- deration by exciting and, for the time being, more generally interesting matter. s fiel let <^n| IS I J 11 nmlttee. o Parlia- witbout illed the ^awrence avigation rl, and the isions by n of navi- wares the lot against Parliament, prefer the STER. I take it that our Government does not hold itself absolutely bound to accept the decision of Mr. Gzowski, on an engineering point, as settling the matter. The ;| engineering qnestion in this case is a mere nothing to the I other. It requires no high order of talent to see that a I bridffe can be built at Coteau, or even that one can be I I built that will not interfere with navigation. Where the 1 engineering difficulty comes in, is in devising a bridge to I fulfil the conditions required, at a reasonable cost. The I widespread opinion that these conditions en n not be met I except at excessive cost, was, no doubt, the main reason I why the scheme was not actively opposed last session by |many who thought it not worth their while to disturb iits death throes. But let me remind those who may yet plug this delusion, that the American people who built the Hoosac tunnel to save six miles of distance, will not be likely to hesitate at any financial difficulty in connec- tion with the Coteau Bridge. Very truly yours, G. H. HENSHAW. : Montreal, December 4th, 1879. ^Gazette, Dec. 5th, 1879. 4 led himself in not intend to ing into legal iry phrase, to on of internal } own merits', 5 session, just ts calm consi- I being, more 'o the Editor of the Gazette. SiK, — As a resident of the County of Glengarry, and therefore deeply interested in the early construction of e Canada Atlantic Railway, I deem it my duty not to it tiie correspondence lately published in your journal (|t)ncerning the Coteau bridge pass without some notice, ^he position taken by Donald Macmaster, Esq., M.P.P. j|>r this County, in his letter which appeared in your l|sue of the 2nd inst., is, with due deference to those [ffering from him, quite correct. Being the solicitor of J' - if ^.. one of the railway companies that sought amalgamation, I was necessarily in close attendance upon the meetings of the committee to which the Amalgation Bill, including the bridge scheme, was referred. The question of con- structing the bridge at Coteau Landing was most fully and extensively discussed before this committee, and every objection, good and bad, that could possibly be urged against allowing the bridge to be built was advanced by a number of gentlemen, members of that committee, including the three representatives of the city of Montreal, who left nothing unsaid from their stand- point. In addition, the opponents of the scheme had the assistance of the Hon. D. Eoss, the late Solicitor-General of the Province of Quebec, who appeared before the com- mittee and urged the claims of that Province in a most able manner. At the conclusion of the tailing of evidence and the hearing of the arguments, Sir Charles Tupper announced that the Government had carefully weighed the whole matter and considered the objections offered to the bill. That in coming to a conclusion two points To had been discussed, the one being the advisability of chartering railways which had their termini in the American States, and the other the question of navigation. As to the first point, the Government did not consider it necessary to depart from the precedent laid down by former Governments, and, therefore, would not object to |)^ the bill upon this ground. As to the question of navi- \|a gation, he said he desired more evidence, and proposed |L^ to let the bill pass as it was, but omitting the clause jLj allowing a bridge to be built, and that at next session, g^ after fuller investigation could be made upon the point, i^^ the promoters could apply for power to erect th(gg bridge. This proposal, not meeting with approval, iijj^ was finally agreed to empower the Company to erect th( ^ Gai potl f. in 18 amation, neetings nclucling a of con- nost fully ittee, and ossibly be built was rs of that of the city heir staud- me had the tor-General re the com- e in a most ■ of evidence bridge, but requiring them to satisfy the Governor-in- I Council tliat no serious objection to navigation existed (; in bridging the navigable channels; Sir Charles person- :! ally altering the draft bill to this effect. During the I electoral campaign in this Province in June last, the Hon. I James McDonald, the Minister of Justice, informed the I people that the Government were favorable to the rail- I vs^ay, and that it only awaited the favorable report of the I engineers as to the effect upon navigation to ratify the I same. It is, tlierefore, useless to raise questions which I have already been freely discussed and carefully consid- I ered by the Government and by the Parliament generally. I remain truly yours, EDWARD H. TIFFANY. Alexandria, December 6th, 1879. !rles Tupper t—Ga^ette, Dec. 9th, 1879. liUy weighed | •tions offered I 111 two points ^0 the Editor of the Gazette. dvisability of | Sir, — In the many letters I have lately read in the :raini in the gazette concerning the Coteau Railway Bridge, I have of navigation. |iot observed a single reference to the Grenville Canal, not consider it | This great work, now nearly completed, will furnish laid down by |n ample outlet for all the manufactured lumber of the d not object to f)ttawa district. It would have been better never to estion of navi- '|ave enlarged this canal if the traffic is to be given and proposed fway ; that alone made it necessary. The only town- :ing the clause jjjiips unprovided with railway facilities between the ,t next session, ||t. Lawrence and Ottawa Rivers are Lochiel, Kenyon, ipon the point, poxborough and Cambridge. South of the St. Lawrence, r to erect th( j|8 we have seen, the Counties of Huntingdon and ith approval, i' Ehateauguay are interested in another road—the new )any to erect tb*J^. T. R. extension. We may presume, then, the 14 I f lumbermen of Ottawa, the townships of Lochiel, Kenyon, Roxborou"h and Cambridge, and the '' American capital- ists " are tlie sole parties interested in the construction of the bridge. As to Ottawa, its mill men would not be benefited. Instead of Burlington, Whitehall and Albany, Ottawa would become the lumber depot from which supplies would be drawn in small quantities to suit the American market, and the present advantage of large sales and yards periodically emptied, would be gone. If the traffic throu'^h the four townships named has hitherto been insufficient to entice railroad men to build a line for their convenience, it is scarcely to be expected that the Dominion Government should be called upon to sacrifice the usefulness of the Grenville Canal, and to sanction opposition to our own chartered and Government rail- roads in the interest of New York, Boston and Glen- garry. No consideration of political expediency should allow this iniquity to be perpetrated. It were better that Glengarry should go back to the Grits and all that the term suggests, and that its talented representative should be sacrificed, than that all the millions already expended to make Montreal our ocean seaport should be thus ruthlessly cast away. Can there be those whose national enthusiasm rises no higher than the expediency of short communication with New York lends an inter- pretation to ? This Canada and Atlantic Tap-line project should never have been allowed to assume such formidable proportions. R. O'B. Grenville, December 8. - —Gazette, Dec. 10th, 1879. f •I 'I M 01] ')' w :" CO ,':4 kl ti til 15 benefited. ^ Ottiivva American | sales and ■ the traffic ; herto been | a line for S ,ed that the ; to sacrifice ;^ to sanction | rnment vail- 1 and Glen- iency should were better ^ and all that epresentative lions already >ort should be , those whose he expediency lends an inter- tntic Tap-line to assume sucb R. O'B. The correspondence which has appeared in our colimins on the subject of the Coteau bridge is an illustration of the interest which the subject has for the people of this city. Mr. Macmaster, who, in the interests of his con- sstituency, has thrown himself into the work of defending the bridge, has said pretty nearly all that can be said in its favor. It is fortunate for the County 6i' Glengarry that it' has a representative so watchful of its interests, and at the same time so skilful in defending them. We can quite understand how our friends in Glengarry, feel- ing that upon the success of this bridge sclieme depends the success of the railway in which they have felt so deep an interest, and for which they have made so great sacrifices, should strongly favor the project. It is very greatly to be regretted that a question which is national in its importance, should thus have a special local in- terest, which, in appearance, we are compelled to oppose, because of our conviction of the general injury which must result to the country by its success. The counties of Chateauguay and Huntingdon, we are glad to know, are likely to be served quite as well and effec- tively by the branch which the Grand Trunk are about to construct through these counties. By the construc- vj tion of that branch the special interests which induced I these counties to desire the Coteau bridge will have I passed away. If the Coteau railway could be built as a ^ I feeder to the Grand Trunk, the views of tiie County of I Glengarry would be met, and the fruition of the hopes I for which they have made so great sacrifices would be ^accomphshed. Mr. Macmaster's chief argument is that the question has practically passed out of the arena of public discus- ision, because of the action of Parliament at its last session. Upon this point we cannot agree with him. It 16 is quite true that much evidence was taken, as we stated in a former article, before the Railway Committee, on the engineering question involved in the bridging of the St. Lawrence at that point ; and it is unfortunate, perhaps, that the fact of that evidence being taken, and the atten- tion which it elicited, to some extent diverted pubhc attention from the larger and greater question involved in the construction of this bridge. The Government re- solved to take further evidence during the recess, and the bill, upon that ground, was allowed to pass. But we learn now for the first time that it ever v/ •.•s intended to restrict the consideration of the bridge project to the one subject of its effect upon the navigation of the river. The clause in the Act relating to the matter contains this proviso : — "Provided, however, that no bridge be constructed over the navigable channel of the said river St. Lawrence until the Governor- in-Council, after full examination into the question, shall be satisfied that no serious objection exists to bridging the said navigable channel at the point or location mentioned in the said Act (35 Vict., c. 83), and upon the Governor-in-Council being so satisfied, and upon a proclamation to that effect appearing in the Canada Gazette, the said Canada Atlantic' Railway Company shall have power to construct a bridge or bridges across the said navigable channel in such manner, of such elevation, and according to such plans as may be approved by the Governor-in-Counci.." There is no doubt that that proviso imposes upon the Government the duty of taking, professional evidence as to the effect of the bridge upon the river at that point ; but it is quite clear that it goes very much further than that. It could hardly be said that ** no serious objection exists to bridging the said navigable channel at the point or location mentioned in the said Act," if, upon the consideration of the subject, the Government came to the conclusion that the effect of making this bridge would be to cause serious injury to the trade of the Dominion j 17 e stated s, on the f the St. perhaps, he atten- d public involved iment re- cess, and ass. But ■a intended ject to the [ the river. )ntains this ited over the the Governor- ill be eatisfled igable channel ,5 Vict., c. 83), i, and upon a 'azette, the said to construct a 1 such manner, ay be approved ses upon the I evidence as ,t that point ; I further than ous objection bI at the point if, upon the it came to the idge would be le Dominion ; % i I ■S and yet, according to the view which Mr. Macmaster presses, it is quite clear that the Government would be compelled to ignore all these considerations, and con- fine themselves to the one question of the influence of the bridge, first, upon the water in the river, and next, upon the navigation of the river. We cannot for a moment accept the clause as being so limited in its character. It was, in fact, a clause which threw the whole question into the hands of the Government for consideration, and it imposed upon the Government the duty of considering every possible interest w4iich is likely to be affected by the construction of the bridge, before consenting to issue the proclamation, which they are authorized to issue, should they determine to do so. We dismiss, therefore, as utterly untenable, the ground that this question has, as to its general influence upon the trade and commerce of Canada and upon the rail- w\iy and shipping interests of the Dominion, passed out of the arena of public discussion. We notice that the Globe, as might naturally be ex- pected, has a long article upon the subject. We do not propose to have any controversy with the Globe in relation to it. Starting, as we do from entirely different standpoints, it is almost impossible that we could meet on common ground in relation to the commercial in- terests of the country. The Globe has always held that it is rather to the interest than to the disadvantage of the Province of Ontario that it should do business with New York rather than with Montreal, in so far as they are compelled to do business with an ocean port at all. The building up of trade by our own channels has not to-day, and has never had, for the Globe, any charms. In 1858, when Sir Alexander Gait introduced his tariff*, one of the leading features of his policy was the adop- 18 tion of the ad valorem, as opposed to the specific system of duties ; and that change was made with the special object of increasing trade by the St. Lawrence, by mak- ing the duty chargeable upon the price of tlie articles in the country of production. The Olobc at that time bit- terly opposed the policy upon the ground that it was intended to build up Montreal, as against New Yorli in- terests. From tiiat day to the present, the same policy has been pursued. Whatever pertains to this city or to trade by the St. Lawrence, has a natural enemy in the Globe ; and, tiiat being the fact, it is only natural that our contemporary should support the Coteau bridge pro- ject, the effect of which is to divert to American channels the trade of this country. The miserable pro- vincialism which forms the foundation of its policy, has always been a leading feature of its a{>peal8 to the public. It requires only to know that the Province of Quebec, and still more, that the city of Montreal, is likely to be benefited by the pohcy, to secure its bitter opposition. The argument recently advanced by the New York Sun in relation to this question is precisely that which the Globe advances. Here is that argument, iii the language of the New York paper : — •• Montrealers, who had expected to reap a rich harvest from the opening up of this short route, were dismayed last winter to find that New York capitalists had secured the charter of a Company ivhich had been organized to build an air line from Ottawa (the eastern terminus of the Canada Central) to the New York system of railways crossing the St. Lawrence River at Coteau Rapids. Despite their opposition, aided as they were by the Grand Trunk and Great Western Railway Companies, the bill permitting the New York capitalists to construct the line was sanctioned by Parliament, the Government reserving the right to say whether they should have power to bridge the St. Lawrence. Col. Gzowski, a well-known Canadian engineer, has been employed by the Dominion Governmeut * 19 to report an to whether a swing bridge at tlie Coteau Rapids would interfore with the navigation of tlie St. Lawrence. If he should report in favor of the bridge, the road will be constructed at once, and will bo ready to compete with the Grand Trunk and tlm North Shore roads of Quebec for the traffic which may be enticed by the new route from the upper lakes.'* Coming from a New York paper, that argument is per- fectly natural and reasonable. The American capitulists realize that by means of this bridge they can tap the trade of the Northwest and divert it from Canadian channels ; and as the people to be injured chiefly by that diversion are the people of Quebc^c and the Maritime Provinces, the Globe looks on with entire complacency. We can hardly believe the Government will do the same thing. After spending twenty millions of money on the Inter- colonial Railway, after spending about eleven millions on the North Shore Railways, after all the expenditures which have been made in harbor improvements in Montreal and Quebec, after the efforts to make Halifax a winter port, we can hardly believe that the Govern- ment of to-day will deliberately sanction this project in the interests of a lot of Yankee speculators, and to the serious prejudice of the advantages which were expected to be gained by this large expenditure of money. There is no possible interest in this enterprise except Ameri- can interest ; and, as we have said, it would be a remark- able commentary upon the resolution to build up Cana- dian interests by means of the National policy, if per- mission were given, at the instance of American Railway companies, to carry out this Coteau bridge project. — GajsettCy Editorial, Dec. 8th, 1879. 80 THE SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY. We publish this morning a letter from a correspondent from Winnipeg on the subject of the Sault Ste. Marie Railway, and the interest which that enterprise is excit- ing in Manitoba and the Northwest. Our correspondent is very much alarmed lest the enterprise should practi- cally fall into the hands of the owners of the St. Paul and Pacific Railway, or, as it is now called, the St. Paul, Min- neapolis and Manitoba Railway. He urges that the most desirable connection would be with the North(;rn Pacific, and intimates that there is an intention on the part of the latter Company to extend their railway from Duluth, at the head of Lake Superior to Sault Ste. Marie. We sincerely hope that our correspondent is well informed upon this point. It would, no doubt, be a matter of very great interest to Canada if the line south of Lake Su- perior were at once constructed, especially so, if an inde- pendent branch were also constructed from tiie Northern Pacific to St. Vincent, to connect with tlie Canadian Northwestern system of railways. Without this latter, judging by the past, the former, that is, the line south of Lake Superior in connection with the Northern Pacific, is not a matter of much consequence to Canadians. The figures which we have published in relation to freight traffic, have shown that the Northern Pacific, owing to its having unhappily fallen into the hands of Canada's great enemies, Smith and Company, of the St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Railway, have been acting on the principle of charging about double rates to the Canadian shipper. If the Northern Pacific can succeed in disentangling itself from its unfortunate alliance, and is able to carry out the improvement suggested by our ' 9 ^ ->■ SI f > ' corrospondont, there i« nt* (Atubt that it will command a very mnch larger pitrt .«oii(Uint is wrong, is in jissuniiup libjit nhis Saiilt Ste. Mario scheme has special reference to ifti*' Ini^uie of our own Nortliwest. What is proposed to ^ H>y this road is the carrying trade of the American W.««:«*m States. As Chicngo has made itself tiie great retiwvtwir for the traffic of the rail- ways running Ya\^ ud libui (?ity, so we douht not that 8t. Paul or Miinicdpoli*; aire .fi«*tined in the future to hecome the reservoirs for traffit- .«iill further West. The great intciest, therefore, urljiitftj the Sault Ste. Marie scheme has for Canadians is that. Iky connection between St. Paul and the Sault, it will luufc^ an air Hne between St. Paul and the ocean vessek art Montreal and Quebec. It is the carrying trade of the WttnCwm States that is sought to be secured by this brantftj iraaiway to the Sault. No one can look at the map wiiirikrtut realizing how great an in- terest Canada has iu iMf enterprise. The great object of our policy should be xm build up our own ocean ports, and thus promote that tioiwi^ trade which is of so great value to tiie proKj.>errtT (of a community ; and it is by tapping American W^^itMin railways that this can most effectively be done. W* propose, in fjact, by means of this Sault Ste. Marie «dijeme, to do for Montreal and Quebec, and for the dtLT]|ng>iiflg trade centred at these ports in summer, and for MaMtox in winter, precisely what our Yankee friends aite tmying to do for New York iind Boston by means cjf ttlbt Coteau bridge. We are not, therefore, much conotmuiJ a» to whether the St. Paul, Minneapolis and MiiiUiiTtDfta Company benefit by the scheme or not. It it* a Ikiritimate scheme in the interests of Canada, and if the jttwstance of Messrs. Smith and Company can be BecDinnl ca the construction of the rail- k 22 way from St. Paul to the Sault, we bid them God speed in their enterprise, and welcome all the influence they can bring to bear for the promotion of that scheme. — Gazette, Editorial, Dec. 8th, 1879. To the Editor of the Gazette. Sir, — I have carefully perused your editorial article of yesterday, in which you criticize the view expressed by me — that the objections now raised to the construc- tion of the Coteau bridge have been disposed of by the Dominion Parliament, and that the only question remain- ing for solution is whether there is any serious objection, so far as navigation is concerned, to bridging the navi- gable channel of the St. Lawrence at Coteau. You cite the section or the statute, and state sub- stantially that the " serious objection " is not re- stricted to the consideration of the question of navigation^ but that " it is quite clear that it goes very much farther than that." In your view, a " serious objection " to bridging the channel might still be found if tiie Govern- ment came to the conclusion that the eft'ect of building this bridge would be to cause serious injury to trade. The misfortune for this view is that it is in violent conflict with any reasonable interpretation of the statute, and that it is directly at variance with tiie an- nounced policy of the Government at the time the bill was permitted'to pass in committee. The terms of the proviso leave no doubt that the point upon which the Government must be " satisfied," is, that no injury to navigation will result from bridging the navigabh^ channel. Any more direct reference to navigation would be sur- plusage. Happily, there need be no misapprehension as to what ^ f K f > II 23 ,^. Parliament intended. When the bill was finally sub- mitted to the Committee of the House of Common, Sir Charles Tupper, then Minister of Works (who previously intimated that he would then announce the policy of the Government), declared that two objections were urged against the bridge : one, the inadvisability of chartering railways that have their termini in the United States, and the other, that the construction of the bridge would be injurious to the navigation of the St. Lawrence. Tlie Government conceded the question of policy, and de- clared that there was no reason why, in this instance, it should depart from the practice of previous Governments in permitting the construction of international roads ; that tlm only question for the Government's consideration was the effect upon navigation. The Minister proposed that, as the evidence was conflicting on this point, the bill should be allowed to pass without the bridge clause, which the promoters of the road might have inserted at the next session, provided they could show that the bridge would not obstruct navigation. Mr. McLennan, M.P., the principal promoter of the bill, was unwilling to leave the bridge clause undisposed of, and suggested, with the concurrence of the Minister, that the bill should be al- lowed to pass with the fourth clause amended as follows : "The said Canada Atlantic Railway Company shall have the powers conferred upon the Coteau and Province Line Railway and Bridge Company, by the Act 35th Victoria, chapter 83, with reference to the construction of a bridge or bridges over the River St. Lawrence and Beauharnois Canal ; provided, however, that no bridge be con- structed over the navigable channel of the said River St. Lawrence, until the Governor in Council, alter full examination into the question, shall be satisfied that no serious objection exists to bridging the said navigable channel at the point of location mentioned in the said Act' 'Abi\\ Victoria, chapter 83 : and upon the Governor in Council being so satisfied, and upon a proclamation to that effect appearing in tlie Canada Gazette, the said Canada Atlantic Railway Company shall 9 24 have power to construct a bridge or bridges across the said navigable channel, in such manner, of such elevation, and according to such plans, as may be approved by the Governor in Council.*' I have read with astonishment that you *^ now learn " for the first time that it ever was intended to restrict " the consideration of the bridge project to the one sub- "ject of its effect upon the navigation of the river." This remark was quite applicable before the bill eventuated in legislation, but since the passage of the Act, so far as I have been able to ascertain (apart altogether from the reasonable interpretation of the proviso), the sole ques- tion in reserve is one of navigation. On this point I beg to cite an autiiority that I know you will respect — your- self. In the issue of the Montreal Gazette of the 30th of April, 1879, I find in that condensed summary of legis- lative wisdom, entitled " Parliamentary Notes," the fol- lowing confutation of your more recent opinions : — " The Coteau bridge question was finally settled to-day, in a manne^ that satisfies the promoters, and affords a guarantee that no one sectional interest will be allowed to predominate to the disadvantage of others. The bill ha^ passed committee, with the addition of a clause reserving to the Government the power of deciding whether or not a bridge will be injurious to navigation. This is in addition to the legal requirement that the plans must be approved by the Governor in Council. Dr. Tupper very forcibly pointed out the serious respon- sibility that a Minister of Public Works would incur by setting aside the opinion of his chief professional adviser, and the charges that might be made against him hereafter if the bridge were allowed and serious damage were caused by it. "In referring to this Coteau bridge scheme, it is impossible to overlook the valuable services rendered in its favor by the member for Glengarry, Mr. John McLennan. His recognized position as a commercial man, his great ability, the popularity which he enjoys in an exceptional degree in the House, and the wonderful skill which he has displayed in the conduct of his case, ail contributed to the measure of success which has been thus far achieved. If, as the result of this bill, the County of Glengarry secures the construction of the railway / ^ S i £5 >^ y for which the rear townships in it have made a great sacrifice, and from which so much is expected, it will owe tlie fact to the good sense which prompted the electors to secure the parliamentary influence which the presence of a representative like Mr. McLennan insures for the constituency." The whole tenor of this criticism points to the final settlement of the question, *^ reserving," to use your own language, *' to the Government the power of decidinja; whether or not a bridge will be injurious to navigation." Beheving, as I do, that you have the interests of this country at heart, I regret to see that the tendency of your recent articles on this subject has been to excite section- al prejudices that should never be encouraged, and to throw^ upon the Government responsibilities from which it has been relieved by the action of Parliament. If your view is tenable, that the Government can defeat the provisions of this Act, and recede from the avowals of the Crown, then legislation is, indeed, a sham. I have no fear that the Government will entertain your suggestion. Its responsibility is to give effect to the will of Parliament, in good faith, regardless of sectional in- terests. In recognition of this duty, an expert has been appointed to determine the question of navigation. I cannot refrain from referring to the inconsistency of denouncing the " Yankee speculators" who have dared to propose, with their own means, to build a road for us that may *^ tap " our system of railways, and commend- ing, in the same article, the adoption of the same tactics by Canadians with reference to the American lines. I': is quite moral for us, with the Sault Ste. Marie line, to " tap " the American railways in tlie Western States, but save us from the inroads of the down-Eust Yankee capitalist ! That species of argument bears its own con- demnation. ... ,; „, . : :v J ; I 26 You are under a misconception in stating that the only interest in this bridge scheme is American. But grant- ing that this assertion is true, upon what principle of public policy can you deny to foreign capitalists the privilege of investing their money in Canadian enter- prises ? Why may not the Americans as freely invest their capital in Canadian railu^ays as Englishmen have invested theirs in American ? The wail against this new avenue from the Great West to the seaboard is unreason- able. It is stigmatized as an American enterprise to create a prejudice against it, though not a mile of it runs through American territory. Is the Grand Trunk an American enterprise-r-with half its length and both its termini in the United States? It is true it is Can- adian, in the sense that it has cost the public exchequer of this country an enormous sum of money — an amount wliicli I freely admit iias been amply compensated by the great countervailing advantages of that line to Can- ada. Yet it daily carries the produce of the West past the City of Montreal to tiie American seaboard. In fact I believe the Grand Trunk has been Canada's greatest benefactor. But not only the Grand Trunk, but the Government roads, are, after all, business enterprises that cannot be relieved from tlie competition for the traffic of the country that our rapidly expanding West demands. It is contrary to every principle of public policy that free competition for public carrying and traffic should be strangled by legislation — or obstructed by prejudice. The enterprises of yesterday must adjust themselves to the demands of to-day. A Chinese policy is ill-adapted to the bounding strides of Western civili- zation. The history of railway^i is the history of pro- gress, and the more railways we have constructed by private enterprise the better for the country at large. El 27 Particular sections may temporarily suffer, but others will be benedted, and the people generally convenienced and enriched. What the people want is cheap and easy access to the public markets. The existing monopolists are opposed to this, because competition means a reduction of freights. But the interests of the people and the in- terests of the monopolists are essentially different. I am not one of those who think that the great city of Montreal will be unable to grapple with any new con- dition of things that may be brought about by the con- struction of the Coteau bridge or any other public work. Montreal is the natural summer shipping port for the produce of the great West, and the traffic will come here if we can offer the business inducements that other ports can. But even Montreal must learn that its lease of im[)ortance is not interminable, and that its real voice and influence should be asserted by ways other than the promulgation of prejudices that are only appreciable by itself With every consideration, I am, sir. Your obedient servant, DONALD MACMASTER. Montreal, 9th December, 1879. —Gazette, Dec. 12th, 1879. We pubhsh this morning a long letter from Mr. Mac- master, in which he contends, as in his former letter, that every consideration, except the mere question of the navigation of the St. Lawrence, has been set aside by the action of Parliament, and that, therefore, we iiave no right now to urge arguments against the construction of the Coteau bridge, based upon the general commercial interests of the country. Mr. Macmaster quotes from . I 28 H'Si'4, the Parliamentary notps of the Gazette at the time, in proof of his statement. In so far as these notes compli- mented Mr, McLennan upon his conduct of this case, we repeat everything now editorially that was said at that time. Tiiere is no doubt whatever that Mr. McLennan managed his case witii consummate skill, and that, but for him, the argument in favor of the bridge would not have been listened to for five mimites. We repeat that the County of Glengarry was fortunate in having such a representative as Mi:. McLennan in Parliament ; and we now say, as we said before, that the county is equally fortunate in having as its representative in the Legisla- ture of Ontario a gentleman of the ability of Mr. Mac- master, and one so watchful of its interests as he has shown himself to be. But we still repeat that there was notliing to justify the statement that the whole question was restricted to tiie one subject of the interests of navi- gation. That, undoubtedly, was a very prominent one. The evidence taken before tlie committee had all refer- ence to it, and the mind of the committee was undoubt- edly directed very largely to it. It was, therefore, not unnatural that the writer of the Parliamentary notes should have dwelt upon that feature ; but it is simply nonsense to say that the larger and more important ques- tion can be ignored by the Government in the consider- ation of this subject. Mr. Macmaster attempts to place this question upon the ground of morals. He asks us wherein is the moral- ity of our desire to tap American railways at Sault Ste. Marie when we refuse Americans the privilege of tap- ping our trade at the Coteau. This, however, is not a question of morals at all. There is no immorahty in the Americans attempting to tap our trade. There is no im- morality in tapping it if they can get permission to do r ^ 29 BO. It is simply a commercial question, to be considered as a question of commercial advantage. Our interest is to bring down upon our own lines of railways and means of communication, all the traffic we possibly can, from whatever source we can obtain it, so as to build up our shipping interests by means of that traffic, and thus de- velop the general prosperity of our country. But surely it is too much to say tiiat while we attempt to bring down the traffic of the great west upon our line on the one side, we should deliberately give to the Americans the opportunity of carrying it away for the development of their ocean ports and shipping interests to the preju- dice of our own, on the other. That is what Mr. Mac- master asks us to do. Even with this Coteau bridge built, it would still be a great advantage to get the traffic of the great west over Canadian lines crossing at Sault Ste. Marie, but the advantage would be very greatly enhanced if that traffic were shipped from Canadian ports instead of from American ones. Nor can we understand the argument of Mr. Macmas- ter that the city of Montreal must not expect any foster- ing care on the part of the Government. Montreal asks no fostering care on the part of the Government as against other Canadian cities. It has a right to ask that it should be protected against the Government's action in the interests of American railways and American cities. That is fill that we contend for in connection with this matter. We repeat that there is no interest in this echeme worth a feather's weight consideration as against the injury which it will inflict upon the great shipping interest of the country, except an American interest. We are quite willing, nay, quite anxious, tiiat Americans, or any one else for that matter, should build railways in Canada, if they are willing to do so. But I I 80 Americiins are not likely to do this for our advantage. The fact that they are willing to do so ought fairly to challenge an enquiry into their motive ; and v^hen that enquiry leads, as' in this case it does, to the conclusion that this generosity on their part simply consists in a vv^illiugness to tap our lines of communication w^ith the object of diverting our trade to their home lines, for the benefit of their own ports and shipping, we may fairly decline the generous gift. The people of Montreal and Quebec, we doubt not, are quite prepared to stand their chance in the general competition for the trade of the great West. All they ask. is that they shall not be han- dicapped by their own Government in the interest of their foreign rivals ; surely that is not an unreasonable request. — Gazette, Editorial, Dec. I2th, 1879. For the past ten days the columns of the Montreal Gazette have been largely devoted to correspondence and editorial articles anent the project of erecting a rail- way bridge across the St. Lawrence at Coteau. The Gazette attacks the project with a determination some- what remarkable ; while the opposite side of the question is ably supported in letters from Mr. D. Macmaster, M.P.P. for Glengarry. It is to be hoped that our friends in Glengarry will not allow themselves to be exercised over the stand taken by the Gazette. It proves nothing except that public opinion in Montreal appears to be opposed to the bridge. It does not alter the attitude of the Govern- ment, nor the judgment of Parliament ; much less does it undo past legislation. The question of policy has now no existence ; it was disposed of during last Session, and can only be revived to any purpose by the introduction /*' I » ■ „ 81 of a bill to avoid the legislation then passed. The government has given no sign that any change has taken place in its views since Sir Charles Tupper stated in Committee, that two objections were nrged against the bridge : one, the inadvisability of chartering railways that have their termini in the United States, and the otiier that the constrnction of the bridge would be injurious to the navigation of the St. Lawrence. The Government conceded tlie question of policy, and de- clared that there was no reason why, in this instance, it should depart from the practice of previous Govern- ments in permiting the construction of international roads ; that the only question for the Government's con- sideration was the effect upon navigation. That question now awaits decision on the report of the Government Engineer, who, no later ago than Wednesday, was busily engaged in examining the proposed site. He will pro- bably report without delay, and until then further dis- cussion is useless, for the simple reason that there is nothing to discuss. The whole history of the Coteau Railway is one which presents a tempting field for comment, and we shall pro- bably deal with the subject at no very distant day. — Cormvall Reporter, Dec. 13th, 1879. /v' THE COTEAU BRIDGE— PROS AND CONS. The projected Coteau bridge is still the subject of much controversy in the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario. As a public journalist, anxious to know and say what is right and just toward all parties, I invited a gentleman, who is as capable of giving a fair, judicial opinion, unin- fluenced by local considerations, as any one in the Do- 82 rninion, to tell the people of both Provinces what, in his judgment, is the real state of the case. The following is his r<'ply : — " Sir, — It is difficult for a citizen of Montreal to avoid being biassed in his judgment on the question of allow- ing a bridge to be constructed over the St. Lawrence at the Coteau. In the controversy which has been recently carried on between the Montreal Gazette and Mr. Mac- master, M. P. P. for Glengarry, it seems not improbable that Montreal sympathy has been to a great extent with the Gazette, What seems extraordinary is that the bill authorizing the construction of the bridge was not more strenuously opposed during its passage. It is, however, improbable that sectional opposition would have had much weight with Parliament. Mr. Macmaster has cor- rectly defined the established policy of the Canadian Parliament to be the encouragement of free competition in our railroad enterprises. It was at one time believed that the Canada & Atlantic Railway Company, under another title, would be a fieeder of the Grand Trunk, and that its traffic would be carried over that road to the seaboard. It has been found practicable to obtain a shorter line, and it would be felt by the population of the very considerable district of country which will be served by the railway to be a great hardship if it should be prevented from availing itself of the offered facilities. " The question must be discussed without reference to the possible obstruction of the navigation of the St. Lawrence. That contingency has been fully provided for in the Act, and is quite beside the present question. It is difficult to comprehend upon what grounds the Do- minion Government could venture to interpose any ob- stacle to the construction, by a chartered company, of a public work, which has been expressly authorized by it, in his owing is to avoid )f allow- riMice at recently ^Ir. :Mac- robable tent with t the bill not more however, have had iv has cor- Canadian impetition e believed j,ny, under Crunk, and oad to the ) obtain a pulation of ich will be f it should d facilities. eference to of the 8t. y provided it question. ids the Do- ►se any ob- npany, of a ;horized by 88 Parliament, provided the Governor-in-Council shall be satisfied, after full examination into the question, lliat no serious objection exists to bridging the navigable channel at the point of location mentioned in the Act 35 Vic, Cap. 83. It would seem clear that the Governor-in* Council is bound to carry out the provisions of the Act of Parliament, subject only to the restriction already mentioned. Mr. Macniaster has advocated the cause of his constituents with great ability, but it must be ad- mitted with strict impartiality. There is hardly a rail- way in the Dominion of those recently projected that has not been objected to on the grounds of its competing with established lines, but Canada at a very early period of her railway history adopted the policy of free compe- tition. As Mr. Macmaster has pointed out, Montreal is at this moment strenuously advocating the diversion of the traffic of the Western States to the St. Lawrence, and the Grand Trunk lent its powerful aid in the construction of a bridge over the Niagara River to facilitate the diver- sion of traffic to the United Stales railroads. Under these circumstances it would have been scarcely possible for the Dominion Parliam.Gnt to have refused the Canada &; Atlantic Railway Co. the means of gaining access to the the seaboard by the most direct route merely for the purpose of benefiting the city of Montreal, or rather the Grand Trunk Railway Co., for it is far from certain that the city or its inhabitants would derive any benefit by the traffic destined for the United States seaboard, and that is the only traffic that will be taken over the bridge in the event of its construction. No reference has been made in the foregoing remarks to the obstiuctioi) of the navigation. There can be no doubt that the Minister of Public Works will take care that the plans for the con- templated bridge are subjected to severie criticism} but, 84 on the assumption that all engineering difficulties can ' be surmounted, the construction of the bridge would seem to be inevitable." I agree with my correspondent, when he deems it " extraordinary that the bill authoiizing the construction of the bridge was not more strenuously opposed during its passage." Everything that can be said against it now might and ought to have been suid ilieu. The Editor of the Montreal Gazette was in his phice. as member for CardwelJ, aod might have spoi^en had he chosen ; the members lor Montreal, as well as others representing constituencies in Quebec, were in the House, and should have been al've to the interests of the Province, but the bill was allowed to pass unchallenged. As Mr. Mac- master puis it: — ''Quebec only began to exhibit its wares the day after the fair." For it is beyond reason- able question or doubt that an Act of Parliament was passed, authorizing the Governor-in-Council to grant permission to a chartered company to build a bridge across the St. Lawrence River at Coteao, " provided that the Governor-in-Couucil shall be satisfied, after full ex- amination into the subject, that no serious objection exists to bridging the Davigable channel." No other issues " were raised, or contemplated, and the Gazette is seriously in error in attempting to include other objections under that clause. Talk about " absurdity " and " nonsense " does not alter facts. But it is strange that it never occurred to the Gazette to suggest that an Act may be repealed or a law may be amended. The Gazette is "out of court" when it says that other objections besides the danger of interfering <- with navigation may be considered under the Act as it .: now stands ; but it may bring itself within the pale of . fair argument if it will say, The Act is passed, but it may ;^ 35 be repealed. As Bocrawthat is admitted, we have good reason for openiug ifti^ tiiacuasion, and the discussion turns upon this : WjI nfW g»)od to be done to other lines, and to the Dorni»)ittD ptnttmllVf by building the Coteau bridge, compensate ifixr aue injury the Grand Trunk will inevitably suffer? lit i» q.iite true that the bridge if built will give us himnher competing line and another means of gaining a!Ct>*? che seaboard, but wl)at shall we lose by tiiat ? W.** «MnnoC tell with anything like certainty, but we imix fee quite sure that Grand Trunk traffic would he verr aiain«^'ially inteifered with, and Mr. Vanderbilt wotiid iiux^- a ehance of working his will in Canada, Wiiat vbe