A History of Canadian Wealth/Chapter XV

From Independence of Québec
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Chapter XV. Extension of Railway Possessions

Preface | Chapter I | Chapter II | Chapter III | Chapter IV | Chapter V | Chapter VI | Chapter VI | Chapter VII | Chapter IX | Chapter X | Chapter XI | Chapter XII | Chapter XIII | Chapter XIV | Chapter XV | Chapter XVI | Chapter XVII

Immense as was the ramification of the properties already controlled and largely owned by Donald A. Smith, George Stephen and the remainder of the Canadian Pacific Railway group, their possessions were hugely augmented by the acquisition, either by purchase or lease, of other railways chartered during this period and endowed with great land grants and extensive money subsidies.

A Donation of 1,399,000 Acres

The Manitoba South Western Colonization Railway was one of these. By an Order-in-Council, the Dominion Government, in 1880, made a gift to this railway of 1,328,000 acres of valuable land. Computing this land as then worth at least $10,000,000, Edward Blake, in the Dominion House of Commons prodded Premier Macdonald about the transaction and denounced it.1 The gift stood, and Manitoba added a loan of $900,000. The Manitoba South Western Colonization Railway ultimately received a total of 1,399,640 acres, and later passed under lease to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.

Large Land Grant to the North West Central

Another of the richly-subsidized railways subsequently passing into the control of the Canadian Pacific group was the Great North West Central Railway. This was a line chartered in 1982 as the Souris and Rocky Mountain Railway ; the Company made some appearance of constructing the road but evidently none to pay its workers ; various remonstrative petitions went in to Parliament from its laborers asserting that they had not been paid for a whole year’s labor. The principal promoter of the charter of this railway was a member of the House of Commons who, it was openly charged (as we shall see), had received a gratuity of $386,000 of Souris and Rocky Mountain Railway stock.

The successor of the Souris and Rocky Mountain Railway Company was the North West Central Railway Company empowered to take over the line and construct a railway of about 450 miles from Brandon to Battleford, in the Province of Saskatchewan. The Company had originally been allowed the privilege of purchasing land at the rate of $1.06 an acre to the extent of 6,400 acres for each mile of the railway. This was considered a rich enough gift. But the promoters did not see why they should pay anything when they could contrive to get the land as a gift.

They managed their plans with such success that, on July 29, 1885, an Order-in-Council was issued permitting them to take the land as a free grant, conditional upon the railway being built.

Still, the railway line remained on paper, which was as far as most of its construction went. An amendment to the original Act was now, in 1886, introduced by James Beaty, member for West Toronto, in Parliament sanctioning the giving of the land grant as a vested right to that company or any other company that might construct the road.

Charges of Corruption

Suddenly, certain interested members of the House of Commons were much perturbed over definite charges leaking into the newspapers that corruption had accompanied the gliding course of legislation dealing with the North West Central Railway Bill of 1884.

Members of Parliament were constrained to bestir themselves to attempt explanations. No languor marked this day’s proceedings.

D.B. Woodworth, a member from Nova Scotia, admitted that he had introduced and promoted the Bill of 1884. “ I was not aware, Sir,” he said with naive candor, “nor am I yet aware but that it was the general custom of members of Parliament to be interested in railway charters if they pleased, just as if they were not members of Parliament ; and believing that, I went into this matter the same as though I were not a member of Parliament.”2

Amplifying his statement, Woodworth averred that he had promoted the Bill at the instigation of Beaty. He wrote a letter to Beaty, he said, agreeing with Beaty “ that after $50,000 — if the road could be made to pay that — was divided among the directors, whatever franchises were left, we were mutually to be interested in.” Woodworth said that Beaty never replied to this letter. Later Beaty (so explained Woodworth), had a Bill drawn up, amending the original charter. “ I looked at the Bill,” Woodworth continued, “and found that all the guards, all the checks, ensuring payment to the workmen upon the road — the old Souris and Rocky Mountain Railway, of which this was a revival — had been left out.” In the Railway Committee Woodworth objected to the Bill — so he now stated — and the Committee struck out the objectionable clauses. He and Beaty then and there quarreled. Notwithstanding Beaty’s denial, Woodworth insisted that he and Beaty were jointly interested in the railway.3

A Demand for $675,000

The members of the House were still more keenly interested when Woodworth went on : “ I stated to the [Railway] Committee that I had a letter that the member for West Toronto [Beaty] had demanded as his share of the profit in building that road from a contractor whom he wished to undertake the work, the modest sum of $675,000. I read that letter. At a subsequent meeting I read a letter from another man, whose name I forget now, saying that he heard the member for West Toronto demand that as the modest sum for what he called `the boy.’

“ There was not an honest attempt to build one foot of this road,” Woodworth continued. “ There was not an honest attempt to put a theodolite on the road, to take a measurement, to take a level ; to do anything, to go out there even, as I understand, to put a foot on the road, but merely to hawk [the charter of] the road. . . . I say this was a charter selling and nothing else.” Woodworth then submitted a copy of an agreement signed by James Beaty, as president of the North West Central Railway Company, to award a contract to build a part of the railway.4

Influences at Work in Parliament

Mr. Mitchell, a member of the House Railway Committee, then said that although the foregoing facts were brought out before the Committee “ there were some influences ” which prevented a forfeiture of the charter and which granted an extension of time to the railway’s promoters.5 Edward Blake arose and said that the North West Central Railway Company was “ converted largely into a directorate of politicians and members of Parliament.”6

Beaty now had his say. He denied any specific arrangement with Woodworth, and asserted that he had got in touch with American capitalists who wanted to build the road.

One Member Gets $386,000 in Stock

Severe denunciation of the whole scheme then came from John Charlton, another member of the House of Commons. He said that “ it was an astonishing fact that the Government of Canada, after all of the revelations that have been made in regard to the transaction now under the consideration of the House, should insist upon granting this charter. . . . We have in this case a member of this House in the possession of $386,000 worth of capital stock which he admits . . . has not cost him a cent. . . .

“ Now, we have a statute which imposes a fine of $2,000 on every member of the House for every day he sits in the House while he has a contract with the Government.” Charlton further declared that a “ system of contract brokerage was going on,” and said that the member who got the $386,000 of capital stock did it for the purpose of controlling the company, “ and putting into his pocket all of the bonuses granted and gain made out of it.”7

More caustic and specific was Hon. J.F. Lister’s denunciation. “ . . . We find,” he said, “ the honorable member for West Toronto and his friends on the directorate are not railway builders at all. Most of them, I believe, are lawyers practicing in the City of Toronto. They never did anything about railways. . . . It is a monstrous thing that members of Parliament, sitting here representing the people, are permitted to traffic in railway charters. It is a scandal, a burning disgrace.”

An Alleged $100,000 for a Minister

Lister then read affidavits made by D. McConachie of Hamilton, and E.A.C. Pew of Welland. McConachie deposed that in September, 1885, he saw Beaty for the purpose of negotiating for the contract to build the North West Central Railway, and proposed to deposit the sum of $125,000 in the Canadian Bank of Commerce. Beaty,— so McConachie attested,— repeated the expression, “ But you see there is nothing in it for the boy.” The affidavit stated further that Beaty said that Hon. Thomas White, Minister of the Interior, was his friend, “and that it would be desirable to give the Hon. Thomas White, the Minister of the Interior, the sum of $100,000. . . . And said James Beaty justified said payment to the honorable Minister of the Interior upon the grounds that said Minister had renewed the land grants in the matter voluntarily and without waiting for Parliament to meet.”

The affidavit further stated that Beaty additionally declared during this interview that after the payment of the $100,000 to White, and after other members of the House of Commons associated with Beaty were “shared with,” his (Beaty’s) portion of the $675,000 would be small, “ considering his personal time given and means spent in furthering the project.”8

Pew’s affidavit made similar statements, particularly as regarded Beaty’s declaration that it would be desirable to give $100,000 to Minister of the Interior White.9

A Day of Recrimination

Defending himself, White asserted that the character of the men making these affidavits was such that their statements were not to be taken seriously. White said that Pew was well known by his association with the Manitoba and South Western Railway and his conduct in connection with that project, revelations as to which had been made in the courts ; he was not a man, White alleged, whose statement could be depended upon.10

The debate at this point became exceedingly bitter, members of the House interjecting derogatory, sharp remarks, and some of them seeking to divert attention from the charges made against them by making charges against other members. “ I know,” said White, at one stage of the proceedings, “ that presidents of important railway corporations in England have announced the opinions they had from counsel in Canada, members of Parliament, and even declared the amount,— $2,000,— which they paid for the opinion.”11

The satirical Dr. George Landerkin, called “ the Wit of the House,” here projected himself into the acrimonious debate. He specified four members of the House of Commons who were associated with Beaty in railroad projects in Manitoba. “ Well,” he commented, “ it is a gratifying thing to the people of Manitoba to find that there are such benevolent members in this House who are prepared to sacrifice their comforts to construct railways for the people of Manitoba, and who receive 6,400 acres of land per mile, when the construction of it, perhaps, is not worth more than 640.”

Long List of Parliamentary Railway Promoters

Citing from the Parliamentary Companion, Landerkin said that Mackenzie Bowell, member for North Hastings and Dominion Minister of Customs, was president of the North Hastings Railway which received a Dominion Government subsidy of $10,500. Mr. Bowell rose to explain, saying that he had been president of the Belleville and North Hastings Railway before it had passed into the hands of the Grand Trunk Railway. Bowel asserted that the Grand Trunk Railway Company did not accept the subsidy money.12

Reading further from the Parliamentary Companion, Landerkin said that Mr. Bryson, member of the House for Pontiac, was a director of the Pontiac and Pacific Junction Railway. Bryson later denied this, but Landerkin replied that he was quoting the Parliamentary Companion, which contained autobiographies presumably written by the members of the House themselves. But Bryson did not deny Mr. Lister’s statement subsequently that he (Bryson) was a stockholder in the Long Sault Railway, bonused to the extent of $25,600, nor did he deny that he was interested in the Gatineau Railway.13

Landerkin further declared that Mr. Wood, member of the House for Westmoreland, was president of the Caraquet Railway, which received a Government subsidy of $76,800 in a single year.14 Wood did not deny this statement. “ I see,” Landerkin dryly went on, “that the Secretary of State, the member for Terrebonne, is also director of a railway, and I presume that he will look after the interests of that railway.” “ He is getting a pretty good slice of it,” added Mr. Mitchell, another House member.15

As Landerkin went on to make statement after statement it became increasingly evident to the other House members that he had his facts well in hand.

The Roll Call Proceeds

Proceeding with his bill of particulars, Landerkin said that Mr. Colby, member of the House of Commons for Stanstead, was a director of the Massawippi Railway ; Colby did not deny the statement.16 Landerkin declared that R.N. Hall, member of the House for Sherbrooke, was president of the Massawippi Railway, and a director of the Quebec Central Railway which extracted $211,200 from Parliament in 1884 ; Hall made no denial.17 Of Mr. Hay, member of the House for Center Toronto, Landerkin said that he was a director of the Credit Valley Railway. “Ten years ago,” ejaculated Hay.18

Still reading from the Parliamentary Companion, Landerkin said that Mr. Ives, member of the House for Richmond and Wolfe, and son-in-law of John Henry Pope, Minister of Railways, was a director of the International Railway which in a single year had received $170,000 of Government subsidies. Ives admitted that he was a solicitor for that railway, but denied any further interest.19 Another member of the House, Landerkin stated, was a director of the Kingston and Pembroke Railway which received a Government subsidy of $48,000 ; this particular member of Parliament was the representative of Frontenac.20

Continuing, Landerkin said that Mr. Mackintosh, member of the House for Ottawa, was president of the Ottawa Colonization Company, and of the Gatineau Railway, which latter, Landerkin said, received $320,000 Government subsidy. Mackintosh denied that he had ever got a dollar. “ It may all be spent by this time,” retorted Landerkin breezily.21 Landerkin doubtless here referred to the Ottawa Valley and Gatineau Railway, which railway company received $319,982 Quebec Government subsidy.

The Minister of Railways, Too

“ I come now,” went on Landerkin, “ to the honorable member for Compton, the Minister of Railways [John Henry Pope]. He is president of the International Railway, which runs from Montreal through the State of Maine.” This railway company had received a total in 15 years of $2,250,000 in Government subsidies.22

Landerkin proceeded to state that Mr. Wallace, member for West York, was president of the York Farmers’ Colonization Company, and that Mr. White, member of the House for North Renfrew, was a director of the Pontiac and Pacific Junction Railway which, Landerkin said, secured $272,000 in Government subsidy. “ He is pretty solid,” commented Landerkin descriptively, “ and when the division bell rings he is on hand.”23

“An Empire Bartered Away”

Next day came more revelations of how members of Parliament and their associates obtained from the Government gifts of railway charters and subsidies, great pasture land leases at one cent an acre, valuable coal land leases, colonization grants of vast areas of public land at half price, and extensive timber limits.

“ Members of Parliament,” said Charlton, “ brothers of members of Parliament, nephews of members of Parliament — the faithful and deserving of every kind, every station and every degree, have been the recipients of these favors at the hands of Government ; and hundreds, I had almost said thousands of limits, have been granted to the faithful without competition. In secret an empire has been bartered away.” Charlton described these elements as “plunderers gathered to the prey.”24

More Hon. Members Placed

Aggressively J.F. Lister arose with his bill of particulars. He said that Dalton McCarthy, member for North Simcoe, was one of the incorporators of the Northern and Pacific Junction Railway Company ; that with McCarthy were associated Senator Frank Smith and Senator James Turner upon the list of shareholders of that Company. “ They appear to hold 1,820 out of 2,000 shares. It is reported that they will make at least $500,000 out of a railway which is heavily subsidized by the Government.”25 These facts were not denied by any of those named.

“ I find,” Lister went on, “ that the International Railway Company has upon its stock list the Hon. E.T. Brooks, the Hon. John Henry Pope, Minister of Railways, the Hon. M.H. Cochrane, and my honorable friend Mr. Ives. These gentlemen are the stockholders of this road. I find that another road, bonused to a very considerable extent, and in which Mr. Pope is interested, received at one time $175,000 of the people’s money. . . . I find that the road [railway] has been further bonused to the extent of $2,550,000 for the construction of a road from Montreal to the road in which Mr. Pope is interested, and will form a link of the new road. I say it is a disgrace to the country that a Minister of Railways, owning the International Road, which he had owned for nine or ten years, which this country owed nothing to, should come to this House and ask this Parliament to give him the enormous sum of $146,000 for placing iron upon the road owned by him and built years before, and which there was no reason in the wide world for assisting by bonus or anything else. . . .”26

“ I go further,” said Lister, “and I find that the Pontiac and Pacific Junction Railway from Aylmer to Pembroke was bonused to the extent of $270,000. This road is owned by the Secretary of State. He is a stockholder and the real owner of the road, and it is owned by Senator Ogilvie and the honorable member for North Renfrew (Mr. White). These are the stockholders in the road. Does anyone tell me that, under these circumstances, it is a small thing for three honorable members of this House, one of them a Minister of the Crown, to come to Parliament and ask this Parliament to give them $270,000 ? It is a monstrous and disgraceful thing that any member of Parliament should be a corporator in a railway seeking aid from this Government. . . .”27

These were exceedingly strong and specific statements to make with such positiveness but they were allowed to pass unchallenged, no one venturing to question any part of them or to dispute the accuracy of the whole.

Further List of Parliamentary Stockholders

In monotonous succession, Lister proceeded to detail the connection of various other members of Parliament with railway projects and lines.

Mr. Mackintosh, Mr. Bryson and Mr. Alonzo Wright were the stockholders of the Gatineau Railway which had received a Government bonus of $160,000.

The Hon. J.A. Chapleau (Dominion Secretary of State), J.J.C. Abbott, and Joseph Tasse, member for Ottawa, were the incorporators of the Montreal and Western Railway which had secured a Government bonus of $160,000. This railway was an 88-mile affair and was later bought by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.

Lister went on to point out that Mr. Temple, member for York was “ deeply interested ” in the Miramachi Railway to which was voted a Government bonus of $128,000 ; Temple denied this, but Lister said he had such facts as satisfied him.

Mr. Landry, member for Kent, was, Lister stated, a stockholder in the St. Louis and Richibucto Railway, which fact Landry did not deny.

Mr. Burns, member for Gloucester, was deep in the Caraquet Railway, a charge that could not be denied ; we shall later describe the scandal developing from the operations of this particular railway’s projectors.

Mr. Bergin, member for Cornwall, and Mr. White, member for Renfrew, were stockholders in the Ontario and Pacific Railway which, Lister said, had obtained a Government bonus of $262,400. Not denied.

White, Tasse, and Mackintosh were stockholders in the Ottawa, Waddington and Northern Transportation Company which received a Government bonus of $166,000 voted by Parliament in 1885. Not denied.

Mr. Wood, member for Westmoreland, represented the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Railway, the recipient of a Government bonus of $113,400, which connection was not denied. This railway also received $99,708.90 from the New Brunswick Government.

Mr. Montplaisir, member for Champlain, did not deny the charge that he was a stockholder in the Montreal and Champlain Railway, which, Lister said, had obtained a Government bonus of $300,000.

One after another Lister continued to detail the railway connections and interests of still other members of Parliament.28

The Bill Goes Through

All of these exposures, however, were futile. Parliament made the land grant to the North West Central Railway Company. Three years later, its successor, the Great North West Central Railway Company was incorporated by an Order-in-Council, and on the same day — July 22, 1889 — another Order-in-Council gave the land grant of 320,000 acres to this company. The condition was that the entire line was to be built by 1892, but further Orders-in-Council, in 1889 and 1891, extended the time. Not until December, 1891, were the first 50 miles of the railway completed.29 The total mileage by 1911 was only 112 miles.

The ownership of the stock of the Great North West Central Railway was acquired by the Canadian Pacific group in 1898, and is now a part, by perpetual lease, of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Great North West Central land grant has been of great value ; of the original grant of 320,000 acres, about 220,000 acres were sold by 1911, and the remaining 100,000 acres were held at the average price of $18.73 an acre — a total price for the 100,000 acres of nearly $1,900,000. The Great North West Central Railway, with its extensive land grant, was indeed a fine prize.

Manitoba and North Western Railway Gets 1,501,376 Acres

At about the same period that the North West Central Railway was chartered, endowed and subsidized, another railway — the Manitoba and North Western — was chartered with a gift of a land grant of 1,501,376 acres. This line was run from Portage-la-Prarie to Lanigan.

A financial arrangement was then devised to get the cash to construct the road. The promoters prevailed upon the Manitoba Government to advance them large loans of funds upon the security of the very lands that had been granted by the Dominion Government !

By an agreement of November 15, 1885, the Manitoba and North Western Railway Company bound itself to pay 10 cents an acre survey fees on the lands to be turned over to the Manitoba Government as security for the issues of railroad-aid Provincial bonds. Twelve years later the Manitoba officials, we find, reported that up to that date the railway Company had paid nothing under this agreement.30 In 1899, many serious scandals developed as to the management of Manitoba’s provincial finances, especially in regard to the ways in which railway companies obtained public funds.

The Procuring of Public Funds

A Royal Commission was appointed to do some investigating.

This Commission reported that frequently “ railway debentures for large amounts were guaranteed and handed over to agents of the contractors without the authority of an Orderin-Council.”

It appeared from the report of this Commission that the Government of the Province of Manitoba had loaned Provincial bonds to the value of $787,426.67 to the Manitoba and North Western Railway Company, the Province taking as security one acre of the Company’s land grant for each dollar advanced, the Company agreeing to pay five per cent. interest a year. From year to year the company defaulted in the payment of interest until the accumulated arrears amounted to $366,439.07, not counting the compounding of interest. The Manitoba and North Western Railway Company now owed $1,158,784.34 to the Province, for which debt Manitoba held as security 702,560 acres of the land grant.

Publicly Paid for but Privately Owned

These, however, were not the only funds that the Manitoba and North Western Railway Company obtained. From municipalities it received a donation of $215,600.

In public funds it had therefore obtained $1,374,384.34. The promoters owned the railway, but the money invested was public money. By laws passed in 1900, the Province of Manitoba relinquished all claims upon 160,000 acres of the 702,560 acres of the Company’s land grant which it held as security, and in lieu of all its claims for principal and interest, the Province agreed to keep 542,560 acres in fee simple. This arrangement left the Province of Manitoba responsible for the payment of about $39,500 interest a year for ten years, and the principal of $787,426.07 due in 1910.31 The case now stood thus :

The Dominion Government had presented the Manitoba and North Western Railway Company with 1,501,376 acres of land.

The Company had then obtained $787,426.67 in funds from bonds issued by the Government of Manitoba, the Province taking 702,560 acres of the land grant as security.

By 1900 the Company owed the Province $1,158,784.34 and was confronted with a total of about $395,000 interest up to 1910 when the bonds matured — a full total of more than $1,553,784-34.

Meantime the Company also received a clear gift from municipalities in subsidies of $215,600.

The Government of the Province of Manitoba returned 160,000 acres of land to the Company, and in exchange for 542,560 acres assumed the full debt, principal and interest.

The Company, therefore, had received — all points considered — a total of more than $2,000,000 in public funds to build a prairie railroad of 379 miles, and the Company was still absolute owner of 958,816 acres of its authorized land grant. Public funds built the railway, and legislative authority presented it to a clique of promoters, who now owned not only the railway but a vast area of valuable land besides. The capitalization of the road was gradually run up to $12,361,967.

The lease of the Manitoba and North Western Railway was acquired by the Canadian Pacific Railway.

Protesting against the granting of huge railway subsidies, A.H. Gillmor said in the Dominion House of Commons, on April 30, 1889, that “ it has come to be the case now that no man can speak of economy or make reference to the taxpayers of this Dominion without being considered childish or imbecile to give a thought to the men who are toiling with all these burdens on their backs.”32

G.E. Casey, another member of the House of Commons, summarized the situation in this language : “. . . My honorable friends who have wasted a good deal of time arguing this question, seem to forget that the gentlemen who sit opposite are merely the political department of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is really the Canadian Pacific Railway which governs. This is a conclusive proof that these honorable gentlemen are mere trustees for that railway of the political power of the country, as other gentlemen may be trustees for their bonds or land grant. It is a waste of time to argue with them as to whether they should obey the orders of their masters or not. They must carry out the behests of the Company.”{{Ref2l|c15n33|33}


1. Debates, House of Commons, Dom. Parl., Session 1880-1881, Vol. I, pp. 112-113.

2. Debates, House of Commons, etc., Session, 1886, Vol. II, p. 974.

3. Ibid., p. 975.

4. Ibid., p. 976.

5. Ibid., p. 979.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid., p. 982.

8. Debates, House of Commons, Dom. Parl., Session 1886, Vol. II, pp. 995 and 1709.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid., p. 995.

11. Ibid., p. 997.

12. Debates, House of Commons, etc., Session 1886, Vol. II, pp. 999-l000. Both Landerkin and Bowell later became associated with capitalist enterprises ; Landerkin as president of the Canada Mutual Mining and Developing Company, and Bowell as president of the Hasting Loan and Investment Company.

13. Ibid., p. 1061.

14. Ibid., p. 999. For further details as to the scandals relating to this project see later in this work.

15. Ibid., p. 999.

16. Ibid., p. 1000. This railway ran from Magog to Coaticook ; the Government of Quebec contributed a subsidy of $80,000.

17. Ibid. The Quebec Central Railway received in bonuses a total of $533,301.30 from the Dominion Government, $1,076,123.14 from the Quebec Government, and $103,000 from municipalities. Part of it was originally chartered as the Levis and Kennebec Railway.

18. Ibid. The Credit Valley Railway received a bonus of $531,000 from the Government of Ontario, and $1,085,000 bonuses from municipalities.

19. Debates, House of Commons, etc., Session 1886, Vol. II, p. 1077.

20. Ibid., p. 1000. But the $48,000 subsidy from the Dominion Government was only a part of the total received by the Kingston and Pembroke Railway ; the Province of Ontario gave it a bonus of $456,493, and municipalities gave it the sum of $509,320. This railway, 104 miles long, affiliated for some time with the Canadian Pacific Railway, is now leased and operated by the Canadian Pacific.

21. Debates, House of Commons, Session, 1886, Vol. II, p. 1000.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid.

24. Debates, House of Commons, etc., 1886, Vol. II, p. 1032.

25. Ibid., p. 1060.

26. Ibid., p. 1060. We have previously noted that John Henry Pope was one of the original promoters of the Eastern Townships Bank, chartered in 1853, the St. Francis Valley and Kennebec Railway chartered in 1869, and of the Waterloo and Magog Railway which last named line was sold to the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1886. See further particulars as to Pope in the next chapter.

27. Debates, House of Commons, etc., 1886, p. 1060. The Government of the Province of Quebec voted the Pontiac and Pacific Junction Railway Company $600,000 in subsidies, of which $426,000 had been paid by 1911 on the construction of 71 of the projected 95 miles.

28. Lister’s full remarks on the subject appear in Debates, House of Commons, etc., 1886, Vol. II, pp. 1060-1077.

29. Sessional Paper No. 9, 1892, pp. lxiv and lxv, Sessional Papers, Dom. Parl., Vol. XXV, 1892.

30. Journals, Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, 1897, Vol. XXXIX, Sessional Paper No. 10, p. 35.

31. Report of Royal Commission, Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, 1900, Vol. XXXII, Sess. Paper No. 21, pp. 393-448.

32. Debates, House of Commons, etc., 1889, Vol. II, pp. 1677-1678.

33. Ibid., p. 1683.

Preface | Chapter I | Chapter II | Chapter III | Chapter IV | Chapter V | Chapter VI | Chapter VI | Chapter VII | Chapter IX | Chapter X | Chapter XI | Chapter XII | Chapter XIII | Chapter XIV | Chapter XV | Chapter XVI | Chapter XVII

PD-icon.png This text is in the public domain in countries where the copyright term is the author's life plus 60 years (or less). Translations published later may still be copyrighted.