a purely agricultural country in the works which they have undertaken, which way that is sought by this charter? by the terms of their charter they are I think hon. gentlemen will find bound to complete before the 16th April, that there is no precedent in any 1884. Now what will be the effect if this statute, in force at the present moment proposed charter is granted to the other that will shew any thing of the kind; it company, and if it has the powers which it cannot be shown that any such charters claims? Simply that we shall have two comhave been conceded by Parliament. Now panies, having the right to build a line two years ago, if I am not misinformed, on a route which will not be peculiar to an application was made to this Parlia- either one, and the consequence will be ment by another Company for the purpose most likely the abandonment of the line of constructing a line of railway over this by both companies. It will also greatly same territory. The Montreal Province impede the company, which has now the Line Railway made that application. It right to the road, from obtaining the was however refused, as I find on referring necessary money to prosecute the work. to a report of the Standing Committee on In view of these facts, and of the deterRailways in the House of Commons, which is dated 19th March 1880. In that report I find the following decision :

"That it appears to the Committee that it would be proper to give the Montreal and Champlain Junction Railway Company an opportunity during the current year to make a bona fide beginning and prosecution of the road, and therefore that it would be proper to postpone the consideration of another Charter."

HON. MR. POWER-Hear, hear.

mination of the company, which has now the charter, to construct the road within the specified time--and that they are perfectly willing to allow this proposed charter to come into force, if it be only left in suspense for two years--I do think that Parliament should respect the charter which has already been given, and that the amendment which I have submitted for the consideration of this House will be assented to by the hon. gentlemen who are promoting this Bill. If it is not, I HON. MR. GIBBS-My hon. friend hope this House will respect the rights of opposite says hear, hear, and I presume those who now have a charter to construct from the way in which he says it that he is the road, and will enable them to proseprepared to state that this Company had cute vigorously the work which they have not a bona fide intention to construct that taken in hand. I may say further that road; from the peculiar intonation of the the company which has undertaken the hear, hear, which is heard so often from work have already expended a sum of the hon. gentleman, I infer that such is upwards of $300,000, which is certainly an the conclusion which he draws from earnest of their bona fide intention to go the statement I have just made. Well, on and finish it. Therefore, in considerawhen Parliament refused to give this tion of these facts, and of the respect charter which was asked for by this com- which Parliament always shows to charters pany they went to the Legislature of the of this kind, I think I may safely appeal Province of Quebec, and there, afte a long to this House to sustain the amendment struggle, extending over a number of weeks, which I have now submitted, and which they did obtain a charter. The terms I shall ask the House to refer to Commitwere that they should construct the line tee of the Whole, for the purpose of within twelve months, and they were very debating it. profuse in their promises to build the road immediately. But the fact is, that they HON. MR. BELLEROSE-I must say had so much difficulty in floating their I have been surprised at the speech of the bonds that they could not prosecute the hon. gentleman who has just taken his work as vigorously as otherwise would seat. His arguments, which at first sight have been the case. I believe that they seem to be very strong, are really very did construct some 231⁄2 miles of railway, weak when they are compared with the in the direction of Dundee, and they are facts. The hon. gentleman, in speakwilling to prosecute vigorously the ing of the expenditure on the construction construction of this work, pro- of the Montreal and Champlain Railvided they are allowed by Par- way, has mentioned the sum of $300,000, liament to go on and complete the but did not state that nearly the

whole of that expenditure had been myself reside on the North Shore Railway, incurred before 1880, when that Com- but I am nevertheless a promoter of this pany came to Parliament, and made on the southern shore, because it is in the promises and engagements-what I might interest of the whole people. I am not call a compromise with the Parliament of here to favor companies, but to do what is Canada. Is it because his case is a bad right to the public; though I know there one that such arguments are to be used, are sometimes in Parliament men who so that they may obtain votes in this consider first the interests of companies. House to aid them in securing their I have seen that often in my lifetime, but I object? It seems to me to be so. The have never admired it. I think here, here in facts are, that two years ago-in 1880- Parliament, we ought to judge of these the Montreal and Champlain Junction things from another point of view, and if Railway Company, having shewn some two companies are anxious to be rivals, four years before their intention of doing and are willing to expend their money, is something for the counties of Huntington it for this Parliament to tell them, "No, and Chateauguay, asked for a charter. you won't; though it is in the interests of That charter was given at once, and when the public, you won't expend your money; it was about expiring, almost nothing had keep it for yourselves!" Yet that is the been done; only a small part of the road argument of the hon. gentleman who has had been constructed--a few miles ;-and just spoken. I, for one, am far from subwhen the greatest part of that sum of mitting to such an argument, and I hope $300,000 was expended. Then, two this House will see its way to doing what years ago another Company came here, is right to the public, and if these two and presented a petition to this House, companies are willing to expend large in which they had the support of the sums of money to build that road, let us counties in the southern part of Lower not interfere with them. But the hon. Canada. That was the Province Line; gentleman has even led the House astray. and what did they ask? Simply to have Did he not say that both of these lines the right to build a line of railway from were running close to one another; that St. Lambert to some place near Dun- they were parted only by a few hundred dee, about the same line as this for which yards? I challenge the hon. gentleman we ask a charter now. That bill was read on that point, and I say the distance is the second time in the other House, and often as much as eight and a half miles. referred to the Committee on Railways, But the hon. gentleman took only the and I ask, what was done there? The vicinity of Montreal, the great central Committee were in favor of having the point from which the railways would start, charter; and it cannot be denied that it I think it is anything but fair for the hon. has never been the practice of the Parlia-gentleman to take his measurements at ment of Canada to say that they will not that point and then to say that it would grant a second charter, because a railway not be right to give charters to two roads has already been chartered to run in the running so close to each other. I know same direction. The hon. gentleman what the Grand Trunk Railway has done who moved the amendment knows full in this instance, as in many others, and I well, as I do, that there are several do not complain much of their action, for instances in which two railway companies they have undoubtedly been a great boon have been incorporated, and are to-day to this Dominion. But, I ask, are running at a short distance from each we to say because the Grand Trunk has other, which traverse the same direction. been a great boon to this country, that As I said at another time, will not this for centuries to come we should allow the company run in the same direction as the consideration of what the Grand Trunk Occidental, the North Shore, or the Que- has done, to prevent our granting to any bec, Montreal, Ottawa and Occidental other Company the right to work in the Railway? But who, in the Province of public interest, and so to cheapen the fares Quebec, thought of going before Parlia- to the public? Certainly not, and I hope ment, and saying, "Oh do not grant that, the House will see that such is not the we have another railway, and you will case. The road which is under discuscreate competition." Such a condition of sion has been before the Committee things is in the interest of the public, I of Railways in the other House, as

the road."

I said before, and the majority on with old iron rails, the greater part of that Committee were willing to give them being 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 feet them a charter; but a certain sense of duty long; they had been in use for years on pointed out to some of those gentlemen the Rivière-du-Loup line and were brought that they should give the Grand Trunk a from there to this road. This was chance. They thought they should per- done because the Grand Trunk never haps wait and see whether they were intended to have it a through line, but honest in their promises, whether they simply desired to make it a local line, on would keep faith with Canada. Sir Charles which a mixed train would be run every Tupper, who was a member of that Com- morning and night, for those who were mittee, stated: residing there. That is the reason they "Sir Charles Tupper would prefer to see a did not care about laying it with good line of this kind constructed without Ameri- rails. In view of these facts, has not the can capital, but if it could not be done other-new company a right to come to this Parwise, he would sooner see it built by Americans liament now and say, "We have done our rather than an important section of country should be left without railroad communication. duty, and more; we have waited two He suggested that as a charter had been given years, instead of the one your committee so late as last year to another company, they suggested, and we now ask for our charshould allow the Bill to stand over for a year, ter." The greater number of the memand if by that time substantial progress had not been made the charter should then be bers of this House will remember that Mr. given to the present company. He thought Scriver appeared before our committee, that as the company were seeking municipal and stated that he himself, having been aid they could hardly pledge themselves to sent by his municipality, went to Mr irrevocably proceed with the construction of Hickson, the manager of the Grand Trunk Railway, after the twelve months I call special attention to these words, as had passed away which had been preshowing the true intention of the Mon- scribed by the Committee on Railways of treal and Champlain, or theGrand Trunk the House of Commons. He then asked Railway, and consequently of those who that they should build the road, and was are backing them up. It was a compro-answered by Mr. Hickson, "We will build mise between Parliament and the Mon- the road, but the municipalities will pay treal and Champlain Railway Company, for it." That was the way in which the allowing the latter one year to show their promises made to Parliament in 1880 were sincerity, the Committee reporting that one kept. It shows how little the Grand year should be given to see how they Trunk cared about keeping faith with ..would fulfil their promises. I ask what has since happened? Another fallacious argument used by my hon. friend was, that twenty-two miles had been built, giving us to understand that those miles had been constructed in carrying out the promises made to that Committee; but I deny that entirely. This company which is now applying to Parliament did not come before us in 1881, as they had a right to do under the arrangement to which I referred, but they have waited two years to see if the Grand Trunk were going to stand by the promises they made in 1880 to Parliament. Twenty-four months have since passed away, and I assert that during that whole period, only about 81⁄2 miles have been built. And I would ask, how is that road built? I challenge those hon. gentlemen who know the road to say that it is built in the same serviceable way as other roads in this country. It is a bad road, and is laid

Parliament; and therefore, I think Parliament should rise in its might and say that no company shall treat it in such a manner and still be protected, at the expense of any other corporation. In 1880, Mr. Scriver, in referring to a letter which had been read to the Committee on Railways in the House of Commons, said that it was diplomatically written. That letter is from Mr. Hickson to Mr. Davidson, in which the former said, "The Montreal and Champlain Junction Railway had obtained the charter in good faith, and had secured a quantity of steel rails." Now, is that honest?

SEVERAL HON. GENTLEMEN-Hear, hear.

HON. MR. BELLEROSE-Hon. gentlemen say hear, hear, but how shall I designate a man who will call black what he knows is white? As I stated before, the rails on that road are old iron upon

which an express train could not be run; I do not say that a mixed train might not pass over it at a slow rate of speed; but the rails are too bad to allow of the passage of an express train. Yet the Grand Trunk promised that before twelve months from the time that committee met, the road would be built with good steel rails; and as I before stated, the real fact is that after twenty-four months, only eight and a half miles have been built, even that small portion being equipped with bad iron rails, which had been so much used that they were forced to take them off the Intercolonial. Is that keeping faith with Parliament ?

HON. MR. ALLAN-May I ask the hon. gentleman what he has quoted from ; has he got a copy of a letter from Mr. Hickson there, or how does he know what was in the letter?

HON. MR. BELLEROSE-It is an extract from the "Free Press a report of the debate at the time-March, 1880.

HON. MR. ALLAN-But not a copy of a letter. You professed to quote, or at least read an extract from, a letter which was written by Mr. Hickson,-I merely asked whether you had a copy of that letter, or upon what ground you spoke of what you have just read there, as being the contents of that letter.

to more than a pledge to proceed with a part of the road. It was to their interest to build this section. He believed that the line from St. Isidore to Dundee would never be built without municipal aid. The gentlemen who were here this morning were mainly from St. Remi and Laprairie, who had been led to believe that the portion of the road in which they were interested, viz: from St. Isidore to St. Lambert, was in danger. He felt, however, that after the declaration of the Miuister of Railways, it would be useless for him to press the bill this session, but he was glad that in taking this step it was with the assurance that if the Montreal and Champlain Railroad Company did not proceed with the road, a charter would be given to this new company. He ridiculed the objections made to the company, on the ground that Americans were interested in it, and thought it should be rather a matter for congratulation to have American capital brought in."

Now, if the Grand Trunk had been inspired by honesty of purpose, should they not-particularly after having seen Mr. Scriver's statement at that timehave carried out their promises? That certainly was their duty, but we have proof before us that they failed to discharge it. Now, I ask if this Parliament would be doing what is right by the public to grant a further delay of one or two years? Certainly not, and if the hon. gentlemen look at the petitions which have been laid before Parliament they will see that these people are complaining that after waiting for fifteen years they are still without a railway. The hon. gentleman has said that no notice had been given. If he refers to the journals he will see that on this point he has not been well informed, because, although the word "Dundee" is not mentioned, it is stated that the road is to be constructed to the boundary line by a certain route. Is not that sufficient notice? I say yes; it was so much so that Parliament in its wisdom did not think proper to refuse the Bill when it was reported from committee. "The chairman read a letter from Mr. The hon. gentleman says that they are Hickson to Mr. Davidson, in which the former ready to complete the road before said that the Montreal and Champlain the year 1884, which is the term Junction Railway had obtained the charter in specified in their charter; I fail to see in good faith, and had secured a quantity of steel rails, which would be laid down this the Bill before year. The work would be commenced this to prohibit them from doing so. year, and carried on to completion without any is only a prayer that this company be alunnecessary delay." lowed, since the Grand Trunk do not To that Mr. Scriver, who was a mem- seem anxious to do So, to give ber of the Committee, replies as follows: these two counties and the whole "Mr. Scriver considered that the letter was population of the southern part of diplomatically framed, and did not amount Lower Canada the advantage of a railway.

HON. MR. BELLEROSE-This is my position; the Committee having had a public discussion, that discussion was reported by the public journals. No one has ever denied these statements, the report has never been challenged, and so may be accepted as correct, I extracted what I have just read from it. As to the letter it is not in the paper, but the report reads in this way :

this Senate anything

It

|

If the Grand Trunk Railway Company it does not run a mile that way; they want to build the road they may do so, certainly start from the same place and and if the other company build their run most of the way together. The hon. line then the people will have two roads gentleman said that we are always ready eight or nine miles apart. The hon. gentleman says that the effect of granting a second charter may be to prevent either road from being built. He must know, however, that the same company who are now seeking an Act of incorporation have already begun the road without a charter; he must know very well that the road from Montreal to Sorel, that was built last winter has to be continued to Quebec, and that that road will never pay except it has connections west and south. I leave these arguments to the good sense of the House and I am sure hon. gentlemen will come to the conclusion after hearing the facts that these are good reasons why this charter should be granted.

to assist the Grand Trunk, or something to that effect. For my part, I am not more ready to help the Grand Trunk than I am to help any other road. I would like to assist the Great Eastern, but we have got to treat the Grand Trunk people fairly, and if they have carried out their agreement to the letter I do not see how any of us can vote against them-at least I certainly cannot. I do not consider that the Grand Trunk should be treated differently from any other company; and if they were private individuals who got the charter they should not be treated any way differently from the Grand Trunk. But they are not the Grand Trunk Railway, they are the Champlain Railway, and I know that they had to go and raise money to build the road, and they intend to build it before the expiration of their charter. If the Parliament of Canada gave them too long a charter it is their fault and not the fault of the Champlain Junction Railway Company.

HON. MR. FERRIER-As Chairman of the Champlain Junction Railway I wish to state the facts of this case to the House. When the conversation about the fact alluded to took place before the Committee of the other House, and when Sir Chas. Tupper gave the decision he did in reference to it, the Grand Trunk had had their charter for one year during which they had surveyed the line nearly to Dundee. The Grand Trunk having done so, or rather the Champlain Junction Company, for I am chairman of the Champlain road—

HON. MR. OGILVIE-If the hon. gentleman from Oshawa has made mistakes, I certainly think the hon. gentleman from DeLanaudière has made mistakes also of quite as grave a character. In the first place he says there have been only eight miles of that road built; I say that every mile of that road has been built that was promised up to this time. Now, instead of the great bugbear, the Grand Trunk, being brought before us, it is the Champlain Junction Railway. I should like to know if any half dozen of us had got a charter to build in good faith a road out some forty miles, and a few years after Parliament should give a charter to somebody else to build another road over the same line, would we not feel as if we had been robbed of our money ? That may be considered hard language, but it is the truth. Have the Grand Trunk Railway Company been such enemies to the country and opposers of our people that we should be called upon to treat them harshly? We know that several miles of HON. MR. FERRIER-Can a man road have already been built, and I not be chairman of two roads? The facts thoroughly believe that before the six- are these: the Champlain Junction Comteenth of April, 1884, the line will have pany commenced construction immedibeen completed. If that is the case, I ask ately after that decision in reference to in all justice, have we a right to grant a the charter being withdrawn. They charter to another road that will run went on from the end of the bridge over almost parallel to it within a few miles- the line surveyed to St. Martine in only eight and a-half miles from it in one that year (1880). They laid it, according place according to the hon. gentleman to what was promised, with iron rails to from DeLanaudière. I guarantee that St. Isidore. They continued the con

HON. MR. SCOTT-You are also chairman of the other road?