A History of Canadian Wealth/Chapter XVI

From Independence of Québec
Jump to: navigation, search

Chapter XVI. Appropriation of Coal, Timber and Other Lands

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

That coal deposits lay in British Columbia had been long known, and near Nanaimo coal had been mined since 1852. But it was not until Professor Richardson of the Dominion Geological Survey reported on the enormous extent and value of the coal fields radiating about 200 square miles from Nanaimo, that a certain group of capitalists decided that the time was ripe to transfer the ownership of a considerable, if not all, of this area to themselves.

This group was composed of Robert Dunsmuir, his son, James Dunsmuir, of Vancouver, John Bryden and three members of the renowned “ Pacific Quartet,” to wit, Charles Crocker, Leland Stanford and Collis P. Huntington of California. Robert Dunsmuir was a British Columbia capitalist and politician, becoming a leading member of the Government of that Province. Crocker, Stanford and Huntington were the three chief promoters and beneficiaries of the Southern Pacific and other railway projects in the United States ; of the extensive bribery there that accompanied the passage of legislation consummated by them, we have already given some particulars.1

Such was the group that at once set about getting, and did get from the Dominion and the British Columbia governments laws granting a charter for the Esquimault and Nanaimo Railway together with subsidies of 1,900,000 acres of land, and $750,000 cash. These donations were authorized for a line of only 78 miles, running from Victoria to Wellington.

This happened in 1884. One member of the House of Commons, D.W. Gordon, of Vancouver, demanded of Premier Sir John A. Macdonald certain explanations. Had the Government published advertisements either in Canada or Great Britain inviting tenders for the construction of the Esquimault and Nanaimo Railway ? If so, had the attention of the capitalists been called to the area of land subsidy to be given, or to the reported value of the coal deposits extending from Nanaimo to Seymour’s Narrows ? And why had the system of alternative sections in aid of railways been departed from in the contract entered into by the Government with Messrs. Dunsmuir, Huntington and associates ?

Premier Macdonald Explains

Premier John A. Macdonald dismissed the questions with this brief reply which we give literally :

“ No advertisement has been published by the Government or any department thereof inviting tenders for construction of the Esquimault and Nanaima Railway. We are not aware whether any advertisements were published by the British Columbia Government, under the authority of the Legislature, or otherwise, for this purpose, nor whether they have called the attention of capitalists to the quantity of land to be given in aid of said railway.”2

It was asserted during this debate that so far as the coal lands that they were then mining were concerned, the Dunsmuir family had received Crown grants previous to the granting of the lands to the Esquimault and Nanaimo Railway.

Certain members of the House of Commons denounced the whole scheme as one giving to a small clique the monopoly of the coal deposits of Vancouver Island. But opposition was useless. The advocates of the promoters could plead long-established precedent, as for instance, the transfer by the Nova Scotia Government, in 1868, of one square mile calculated to contain 10,000,000 tons of coal, as a subsidy to the Glasgow and Cape Breton Coal and Railway Company. That subsidy, however, was not a gift in perpetuity, but was given in the form of a 78-year lease, the Company to pay the Government of Nova Scotia a royalty of eight cents per ton. The subsidy to the Esquimault and Nanaimo Railway Company was a gift without reservations.

The chief Government member vouching for the Esquimault and Nanaimo Railway Bill seems to have been Minister of Railways John Henry Pope who, as we have seen, had been a personal beneficiary of railway and other charters. He gave the most solemn assurances that the Bill was a good one. It was to Pope that Mr. Mitchell, a member of the House of Commons, referred a few years later “as the brains of the Administration. . . . No one has done more in directing the policy of the country — I will not even except the Premier — than the honorable Minister of Railways. There are few men who can sit here with a solid countenance, and answer to all attacks and questions that ‘ there ain’t nothing to it ’ better than my honorable friend.”3

Dunsmuir & Co., Are Successful

The Esquimault and Nanaimo Railway Bill was shoved through Parliament. Two years later — in April, 1886 — discussion over its great gratuities was renewed when a Bill was introduced in Parliament allowing a deviation of its line.

One member after another of the House of Commons poured forth vehement remarks.

E.C. Baker, member for Victoria, declared that the Dunsmuirs owned three-fifths, and the California stockholders two-fifths, of the Esquimault and Nanaimo Railway Company’s stock. “This,” he said with an air of authority, “ I know from Mr. Dunsmuir himself, so that the control of the company is in the hands of Messrs. Dunsmuir and Son entirely.” The purpose of this statement was to give assurance that Canadian capitalists controlled the project. Mr. Gordon, of Vancouver Island, said he opposed the original Bill because it gave an immense grant of coal lands on Vancouver Island to a monopoly. Sir Richard Cartwright expressed the same views.4

John Charlton charged that the Southern Pacific coterie had reached out its hands to plunder British Columbia ; “ they have secured a grant of $750,000 cash from the Dominion Government, and exceedingly valuable land grants from British Columbia, besides the control of almost the entire coal interest of Vancouver Island.”5

Get Lands Worth Hundreds of Millions

The matter of these great grants to the Dunsmuirs and associates rankled long in the minds of those opposing the subsidy. When, on May 9, 1890, a debate over the Souris coalfields was on in the House of Commons, Mr. Mitchell of New Brunswick and other members of Parliament recurred to the subject. Mitchell estimated that the territory given to the Dunsmuirs and partners was worth $100,000,000 or $200,000,000.

It was the only coal mine of any extent, John Charlton said, on the Pacific Coast of Canada. “ It is a disgrace,” he commented, “ that such a contract should have been trade. Every man regrets it today. That coal mine is alone worth hundreds of millions of dollars — its value no man can calculate ; and it is a disgrace that the Dunsmuir transaction was passed on just as little information as we are asked to pass these votes tonight.”6 On July 30, 1891, Charlton styled the grant as “ a huge job, a swindle on the people,” and asserted that Minister of Railways John Henry Pope had sponsored the original Bil1.7

Again, less than a year later, Charlton, in the House of Commons, made another caustic denunciation. The Government, he said, was engaged in the business of promoting private speculation. He intimated strongly that in the great majority of cases these charters and subsidies had been characterized by graft on the part of somebody or a collection of somebodys. Already, he went on, 42,000,000 acres of land in Canada had been granted. He denounced the giving of the coal lands on Vancouver Island as “ a bold swindle.”

“ There was,” he said, “ a little line of railway — I passed over it since — along the sea coast from Victoria to Nanaimo, a distance of 70 miles, the construction of which was scarcely necessary ; and to promote the construction of that railway nearly all of the coal lands of the Island of Vancouver were granted to a syndicate, the greater proportion of the capital being held in San Francisco by the Southern Pacific Railway magnates. I pointed out this fact at the time but the lobby influences here, the backing here, were too strong ; the grant was made, the coal lands have gone ; and the other day we were informed, in discussing the militia estimates, that the reason coal was so high when purchased in Vancouver Island, was that there was a monopoly, and we ourselves created that monopoly by the grant of the Nanaimo Railway Company.”8

Employ Chinese Coolie Labor

At the time that the Dunsmuirs obtained these land grants and money subsidies, one of the arguments used in favor of the grants was that the development of the mining and other resources would give employment to labor. Subsequently it turned out that the labor employed was largely Chinese coolie labor.

Robert Dunsmuir admitted, in 1885, that he employed from 700 to 800 whites and Chinese in his Wellington coal mines, and that the Chinese did the manual work.9

The Chinese laborers existed in conditions of squalor, and worked for half or nearly half the wages that the whites did. Samuel M. Robins, Superintendent of the Vancouver Coal Mining and Land Company, testified that during the strike of the white workers, “ we accepted the Chinese as a weapon to settle the strike.”10

In his testimony, David William Gordon, M.P. for Vancouver, described how the Chinese Companies had the coolies under their control by a system of semi-servitude.11 It was estimated that there were 18,000 Chinese laborers then in British Columbia.

The Knights of Labor, L.A. NO. 3017 of Nanaimo, handed in to the Royal Commission a memorial declaring that the Chinese laborer was without ties or family, and “ was able not only to live but to grow rich on wages far below the lowest minimum on which we can possibly exist. They are thus fitted to become all too dangerous competitors in the labor market, while their docile servility, the natural outcome of centuries of grinding poverty and humble submission to a most oppressive system of government, renders them doubly dangerous as the willing tools whereby grasping and tyrannical employers grind down all labor to the lowest living point. ... The Chinese live, generally, in wretched hovels, dark, ill-ventilated, filthy and unwholesome, and crowded together in such numbers as must utterly preclude all ideas of comfort, morality or even decency. . . .”

“A Princely Fortune Accumulated”

The memorial proceeded : “ All of the immensely valuable coal mines contained within the vast railway reserve have been handed over to one company, the principal shareholder in which commenced but a few years ago without a dollar. ... So large have been the profits, that he has accumulated a princely fortune, and has become all powerful in the Province, his influence pervading every part of our Provincial Government, overshadowing our Provincial legislature, and threatening its very existence.”12

This referred to Robert Dunsmuir. The memorial estimated that at Dunsmuir’s Wellington Colleries there were about 450 Chinese to 300 or 350 whites. “ Of the former quite a number are still employed digging coal in spite of Mr. Dunsmuir’s assurance that they would not be so employed. In the other colleries only one-fourth the total number employed are Chinese.”13

Appalling tragedies frequently happened in the mines, causing great loss of life. A Labor Meeting, held at Harmony Hall, Victoria, B.C., February 15, 1888, called upon the Government to make enquiries “to prevent, if possible, terrible coal mining accidents, two of which during the past year have startled and horrified the Province.”14

It was also resolved, as the opinion of this meeting, that not another acre of public land should henceforth be deeded to railways or for any other purpose except on the basis of 160 acres to each actual settler, which land, however, should not be alienated forever from public ownership. Also the national ownership of railways, telegraphs, etc., was demanded, and legislation was called for dealing with the Chinese evil. Manhood suffrage was demanded as “ the true basis of liberty,” and a demand made that the profits derived from machinery should be participated in by employes ; “ the capital utilized in manufactories should never receive more than legal interest.”15

Multimillionaires and Political Rulers

Rapidly the Dunsmuirs bloomed into multimillionaires.

James Dunsmuir succeeded his father as president and chief stockholder of the Union and the Wellington colliery companies and of the Esquimault and Nanaimo Railway Company. In 1900, he became Premier of British Columbia, and in 1906-1909, Lieutenant-Governor of that Province. In 1908 he was elected a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. He personally owned, it was then reckoned, 40,000 acres of the most valuable land ; the wealth of the Dunsmuir family, has been placed at from $30,000,000 to $40,000,000. In 1910-1911 the mines operated by the Wellington Colliery Company were taken over by a new combination, the Canadian Collieries (Dunsmuir), Limited, headed by Sir William Mackenzie as president, and with a capital of $15,000,000. These mines now produce nearly 800,000 tons of coal a year.

During the same period in which the Nanaimo coal deposits were given away, a vast aggregation of other resources were presented by the Dominion Government to various individuals, many of whom were members of Parliament. In 1882 and 1886 resolutions condemning these practices were offered in the Dominion House of Commons. These resolutions were defeated. Although it was well known in the financial and political world that many members of Parliament were promoters of various coal, land-colonization and timber land companies, it was not until 1890 and 1891 that many of the facts were brought out formally in Parliament.

Rykert’s Land Transaction

In 1890 the Toronto Globe exposed the land activities of John C. Rykert, an influential member of the Dominion House of Commons.

According to the published correspondence, Rykert had used his “extraordinary influence” with the Department of the Interior to get for John C. Adams the Cypress Hills timber limit in the North West Territories, Adams paying the Government $500 in full for the grant. The grant was made to Adams by an Order-in-Council on April 17, 1882. At about the same time, Adams signed an agreement in which document Adams, without the slightest circumlocution, stated that inasmuch as Rykert had secured the timber grant for him, he (Adams) contracted to give Rykert’s wife, Nannie Marie Rykert, one-half of the proceeds of the grant.

Later, Adams sold the timber limit to Louis Sands of Michigan for $200,000 ; and, on January 16, 1883, Rykert received $74,200 — $35,000 in cash and $39,200 in notes — as his share of the purchase money.

But the Canadian Pacific Railway Company altered its claims of survey, and claimed the Cypress Hills timber limit as lying within one of the sections of its land grant. A hot contest then set in at Ottawa ; and according to the published letters written by Adams and Rykert, Hugh J. Macdonald, son of Premier Sir John A. Macdonald, and J. Stewart Tupper, son of Sir Charles Tupper (Dominion Minister of Railways and Canals in 1879-1885), represented Adams in a legal capacity. Subsequently the Canadian Pacific Railway sold its claim to Sands at $2.25 an acre.

These charges came before the House of Commons, particularly as there were passages in Rykert’s letters to Adams calling for explanation from some of the members. One of these private letters read : “ I find difficulties surrounding us in every way in reference to the limit, and I find that the Canadian Pacific Railway have certain [Cabinet] Ministers working for them. I am afraid it will cost us each six or seven thousand dollars to get this matter made right. I have five or six at work for me, and have agreed to pay them well if they succeed. . . .”16 One of the names mentioned in these letters was that of Mackenzie Bowell, then Dominion Minister of Customs. Bowell denied that he had in any way been concerned. D. McCarthy, another House member whose name was mentioned in the correspondence, denied that he had any interest, directly or indirectly. Sir John A. Macdonald admitted that his son and Sir Charles Tupper’s son were the solicitors employed by Adams, but said that he believed that his son was acting honestly.17

On March 10, 1890, a letter from Stewart J. Tupper was read in the House of Commons making a denial of the statement that he ever acted for Rykert, Adams or Sands in Ottawa. Hugh J. Macdonald also denied that he had ever received a dollar from Rykert, Adams, Sands or anyone else excepting his share of the legal fee of $100 which his firm received. When these denials were made, Rykert produced a letter, dated February 21, 1890, from his partner, J.H. Ingersoll, who went to Minneapolis to there interview J.B. McArthur, a lawyer whose firm represented Sands. This letter read in part : “... He [McArthur] thinks that Mr. Stewart Tupper was in Ottawa at the time, but remembers quite well that Mr. H.J. Macdonald was about to start for Ottawa in reference to a Bill then before the House regarding the Manitoba and North Western Railway Company. ...” Rykert insisted that he was correct in saying that young Macdonald and Tupper went to Ottawa.

“A Mountain Range of Well-Developed Rascality”

In introducing a motion that Rykert’s conduct was “ discreditable, corrupt and scandalous ” Sir Richard Cartwright, in the debate the next day, said that he was not disposed to regard Rykert as the only sinner. “ Every practical man knows perfectly well,” Cartwright went on, “ that in most cases of the kind which are coming before us, the facts are apt, as a rule, to be exceedingly well covered. It is probable that in not one case in ten, or one case in fifty, can we obtain full and complete evidence detailed, as it is here, of all of the ways and modes by which members of Parliament can exercise their influence for their own personal gain. ... In fact, Mr. Speaker, unless the thieves fall out, unless there is a quarrel over the division of the plunder, unless these things come before a court of law and are subjected to the ruthless crossexamination of counsel of both sides, it is the rarest thing in the world to obtain absolute and complete proof such as we have now recorded in our Votes and Proceedings. Here such an accident has occurred. Here there was a quarrel over the division of the spoils.” Cartwright concluded by saying that Rykert was only a peak but there was “ a mountain range of undiscovered, but well-developed rascality.”18

Rykert got up and made sneering references to Cartwright’s remarks, saying that it was Cartwright who had charged the Minister of Public Works with having received presents from contractors, and that he had charged John Henry Pope, formerly Minister of Railways, with having put in his pocket $166,000.19

Industrious Members of Parliament

Denouncing the consecutive giving away of timber limits, John Charlton added to the debate. He said that 25,300 square miles covering 16,192,000 acres in the North West, had been granted to a horde of about 550 camp followers, not one or 20 of whom were lumbermen at all. “ I found [in 1886] on examining the records of the Department of the Interior, that there had been 850 square miles of timber lands granted, upon the personal application of members of this House and the Senate, to 17 different members of those bodies.” Here Charlton gave the list of names of these members, and also a list of members that had secured timber limits for their relatives or friends. Tisdale, a House member, arose and accused Charlton of himself profiting to the extent of $100,000 from a timber limit. Charlton replied that he had bought the limit at a private sale from a man who had bought it at public auction.20

On May 2, 1890, Rykert resigned from Parliament.21

In 1891 another resolution condemning the practice of the Government in making these grants was introduced. Speaking at length on it, Charlton said that for 13 years the administration of the Dominion Government “ had been characterized by favoritism, nepotism, jobbery, waste of public resources, corrupt practices, and by practices calculated to debase and debauch Parliament and to lower the moral tone of the community.” His arraignment was a partisan one, but so far as the facts he gave were concerned, they contained the truth.

Predatory Schemes Described

First, Charlton said, there was the colonization scheme by which favored applicants received from the Government grants of land in blocks of townships at one-half the price at which those lands were sold to settlers. “ These grants were made upon easy terms of payment, holding out to the speculator embarking in the scheme the prospect of great wealth in the securing of these grants under the colonization plan at a nominal price of $1 an acre.”

There was another scheme, Charlton related, “ by which speculators were enabled to secure mineral and coal land leases at a mere nominal price by private application.”

Also there was the pasture land abuse. The only restriction in this case was that each pasture land grant should not exceed 50,000 acres. The Government granted leases of millions of acres, at one cent an acre, to speculators, “ far in advance of the wants of settlers.”

Still further, Charlton went on, there were the grants of timber lands ; he told how a tract of nearly 100,000 square miles, north and northwest of Lake Superior, was in dispute between the Government of Ontario and the Dominion of Canada ; and how the Dominion Government proceeded to parcel a very large portion of that disputed territory, to which it had no title, among political favorites. “ We now know of other influences,” Sir, that were at work besides these, and we can understand how strong was the position in which the Government intrenched itself through contract brokerage, through pasture land leases, through coal land leases, and through all these plans adopted by an unscrupulous Government to strengthen itself and to secure an additional support from the class who could wield an influence in the country.23

How the Coal Lands Went

“ Let us,” Charlton specified, “ first take up the subject of coal leases. Up to February, 1883, four hundred and forty-nine applications had been received for coal leases ; and I shall give a list of the members of this House who made private applications for coal leases which were placed in the hands of the Minister of the Interior and acted upon by him without competition being invited. These leases, when granted, were granted to those parties as favors ; they were corrupt influences which gave the parties an unjust advantage over the public at large.” Charlton then enumerated the names of benefiting members of Parliament, and continued :

“ Thirteen applications by men who were, or have since become members of this House. There were also two applications by Sir A.T. Galt who is reaping a fortune today from the coal leases granted to him 24 and two by Hon. John Norquay [sometime Premier of Manitoba]. Here were 13 members of Parliament placed in a position, through favors granted to them by the Government, to seriously interfere with the independent exercise of their functions as members of this House.”25

Land Jobbing Operations

Charlton then dealt with the colonization grants made on easy terms of payment at $1 an acre, and gave the names of 23 members of Parliament who thus benefited. Among them were Robert Hay, M.H. Gault, James Beaty, George Guillet and others more or less well known. “ A total,” Charlton summarized, “ of 132 townships applied for by 23 members of Parliament ; and of these applications at least 20 were speculative, made not with the intention of settling the land, but as a matter of speculation with the view of selling the grant to second parties.26

“ Then,” Charlton went on, “ we come to the pasture leases under which, I think, over 2,000,000 acres of land were granted privately and without competition at one cent an acre rental per annum, and with no restriction except that the good boy who stood in with the Government should be limited to 50,000 acres. . . . Not in one-seventh of these cases was any stock placed on the ranches.27

“ Then we come to the most important feature of these abuses, that is, the granting of timber limits. Up to February, 1885—returns have not been brought down to a later period—over 550 Orders-in-Council had been granted for timber limits of 50 square miles each, covering an area of over 23,000 square miles of timber territory ; and the bonuses received [by the Government] for them were practically nil.”28

Charlton proceeded to give a long list of names of members of Parliament applying for and receiving timber limits of 50 square miles each in 1884-1885. Senator A.W. Ogilvie was one of these members.29 “ Now,” Charlton enumerated, “here are 23 members of Parliament — either then or now members of the House — besides three ex-members, William Elliott, Oscar Fulton and David Blain — 26 members of Parliament in all who have received timber limits from this Government on private applications, without being required to compete with others, and paying therefor the nominal rental of $5 per square mile.” The Government, Charlton urged, should have advertised those timber lands, and sold them at auction to the highest bidder, “ but, in place of this, these limits were placed in the hands of these members of Parliament, not one of whom intended to develop them, but only to hold them for speculation, and to sell them afterwards for large bonuses to persons who wished to buy them.”

In addition to these members of Parliament, Charlton said that there were others who applied unsuccessfully for limits which, it turned out, had already been given away. Still other members secured timber grants for their relatives or friends.

Fifty-Seven Busy Legislators

“ We have in these applications made by members of this House on behalf of their friends,” Charlton continued with vexatious mathematical precision, “ a total of 79 applications presented by 34 members of Parliament, and covering 3,900 square miles, besides a total of 1,150 miles granted to members for themselves, making a grand total of 5,050 square miles of timber limits granted to members of Parliament on their applications, and we have 57 members applying either for themselves or friends.”

Most of these grants, Charlton said, had been hawked about for sale just as railway charters had been. Among the list of the “ deserving” who secured timber grants, Charlton specified, were Sir A.T. Galt, J.H. Beaty of Toronto, A.F. Drummond of Montreal, O.W. Bailey, son-in-law of the late Minister of Railways and Canals, and scores of others.30

A virulent debate now set in.

In the debate the fact was brought out that Honore Robillard, member of the House of Commons for Ottawa, owned a one-half interest in a 79-mile timber limit license which he had been instrumental in getting. This timber grant was on the Indian Reserve ; the Dominion Government had sold it to Robillard for $316. Of this sum the 100 Indians received 31 cents each ! Subsequently the firm of Francis Brothers, to whom Robillard sold the timber grant, gathered in $55,000 cash, and that silent acquisitive member pocketed $15,000 as his share. In a single year the firm of Francis Brothers cut $8,250 of timber, and after two years of lumbering its valuable timber, the timber limit was considered of such value that $60,000 was paid by another firm for what remained of it.31

Another member of the House, N.C. Wallace, mentioned as interested in land companies, dryly retorted, by way of defense, that “ when I first went into the colonization business I had for my guide the honorable member for East York [former Premier Mackenzie], who was among the first to incorporate a company for colonization purposes in the North West, of which he was a member and president. The application was made on the 10th of January, 1882. Alexander Mackenzie was the president, and one of the five promoters. Robert Jaffray, the president of the Globe Company, was one of the other promoters, and the Company was called the British Canadian Colonization Company, Limited. . . . Our charter, that of the York Farmer’s Colonization Company, was copied exactly from the charter of the Company incorporated by the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, the present member for East York and the late leader of the Liberal party and then a member of the House of Commons. . . .”32

Still another member, Watson, asserted that 100 colonization companies had monopolized large tracts of land in Manitoba and the North West for a number of years.33

Thus the debate, full of acerbity, went on amid charges and counter charges. Finally, Charlton’s motion to condemn the practices in question was defeated by a vote of 100 to 81.34


1. And many more examples are specifically related in Vol. III, of the History of the Great American Fortunes.

2. Debates, House of Commons, 1884 Vol. I, p. 85. It may be said here, as illustrating Premier Macdonald’s associations, that he became president of the Manufacturers’ Life Assurance Company, a fact which, on March 12, 1889, led Lister to say in the House of Commons that “ it was a dangerous precedent that the First Minister of the Government should allow his name to be used by any commercial corporation.” Macdonald replied that the board of directors of that Company “ for wealth, respectability and standing were not second to those of any Company in Canada ; and in saying this I do not include myself. My standing is political, not financial.”—Debates, House of Commons, etc., Session 1889, Vol. I, p. 592.

3. Debates, House of Commons, etc., Session 1888, Vol. II, p. 1689.

4. Debates, House of Commons ; etc., 1886, Vol. I, p. 517.

5. Ibid.

6. Debates, House of Commons, etc., Session 1890, Vol. II, pp. 4691-4692.

7. Ibid., Session, 1891, Vol. II, p. 3150. When the original Esquimault and Nanaimo Railway Bill was introduced, Charlton stated, Pope said it was “ all right,” and it was rushed through. We have already given Pope’s record as a railway promoter.

8. Ibid., Session 1892, Vol. I, pp. 2271-2272.

9. Report of the Royal Commission on Chinese Immigration, 1885, Dom. Sessional Papers, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 1885, Sess. Paper No. 54 A, p. 127.

10. Ibid., p. 118. White laborers received about $2 a day wages, and Chinese $1 to $1.25 a day.

11. Ibid., p. 135.

12. Ibid., p. 157.

13. Ibid., p. 158. A part of the Knights of Labor memorial was a section reading, they “ should have had the chance at least of becoming employers of labor,” etc., etc.

14. Report of the Royal Commission on the Relations of Capital and Labor, 1889, p. 131.

15. Ibid. Other parts of these resolutions are of singular interest. Labor organizations were declared to be the direct and necessary result of bad land laws and the enormous power of capital uncontrolled by the Government ; arbitration was held to be “the only reasonable mode of obtaining justice” in strikes which “were injurious” ; that if capital, so called, was driven from the country by hostile legislation, it “ was only an imaginary loss, as it is a mere medium of exchange, and can easily be created by legislation.”

16. Debates, House of Commons, etc., Session 1890, Vol. I, p. 571.

17. Ibid., p. 576.

18. Debates, House of Commons, etc., Session 1890, Vol. 1, p. 1718.

19. Ibid., p. 1738.

20. Ibid., p. 1769.

21. Ibid., p. 4355.

22. This reference was doubtless to the Rykert scandal.

23. Debates, House of Commons, etc., Session, 1891, Vol. II, p. 3430.

24. The Galt mines were at Lethbridge, Alberta. Sir A.T. Galt’s son, E.T. Galt, first was manager, in 1881-1890, of the North West Coal and Navigation Company, and in 1890 became managing director of the Alberta Railway and Coal Company.

25. Debates, House of Commons, etc., 1891, Vol. II, p. 3431

26. Ibid., p. 3431.

27. Ibid., pp. 3431-3432.

28. Debates, House of Commons, etc., Session 1891, Vol. II, p. 3432.

29. Ogilvie lived in Montreal and was the head of grain and flour mills. He was a director or trustee of a number of private corporations, and president of the Western Loan and Trust Company.

30. Debates, House of Commons, etc., Session 1891, Vol. II, p. 3434.

31. Ibid., pp. 3469 and 3478.

32. Debates, House of Commons, etc., 1891, Vol. II, p. 3481.

33. Ibid., p. 3506. In his Reminiscences Sir Richard Cartwright narrates an instance showing how members of both political parties were deep in land colonization schemes. After the general election of 1882, when Sir John Macdonald carried the constituency of Lennox, Cartwright purposed a contest, the expenses to be guaranteed by Allison the defeated candidate, and by himself. “To our no small surprise, while they all admitted that the corruption had been most gross, we found that there was a great reluctance to take any action. After the meeting adjourned, we sent for a very shrewd friend of ours who knew the parties, and asked what it all meant. ‘Oh,’ he said, `that is very easily explained. Almost every one of these people is interested in one colonization company or another, and Sir John’s friends have been pointing out to them that it was to their interest, now that he is the Minister of the Interior, to put him under an obligation to them and have him as Member for Lennox ! We prosecuted Sir John forthwith without any further reference to the committee and brought out such a scandalous state of things that his counsel, the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy, was only too glad to confess judgment and to vacate the seat if the personal charges involving disqualification were withdrawn. But my point is this : Here in one small constituency were over twenty of the leading Reformers interested in these land schemes and more or less dependent, or so they thought, on the good-will of the Minister of the Interior. Doubtless as many of Sir John’s supporters were in the same situation. There were a large number of these companies floated, most of them with a large number of subscribers.”—Reminiscences, pp. 242-243.

34. Debates, House of Commons, etc., Session, 1891, Vol. II, p. 3507.

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.