Canada and the States Part 20

"If in addressing you, and expressing a sincere hope that you had a pleasant voyage to Liverpool per the steamer 'Scotia,' I seem to take too much liberty, I beg your pardon, as it is not my nature to be intrusive'.

"A friend, knowing that I am interested in the fur and skin trade, handed me, to-day, a copy of the (London) 'Economist' of 4th ulto., calling my attention to the article headed _'The Hudson's Bay Company.'_ As you are interested in the 'International Financial Society,' I thought it proper, even at this late date, to call your attention to the ignorance, if not malice, displayed by the editor.

"He says: '_Civilization destroys wild animals, we all know. An eager trade destroys them, too. The moment they become either valuable to man, or disagreeable to man, they cease to live.'_ This sounds very like Dr. Johnson, _without Dr. Johnson:_ for any farmer, trapper, or trader knows, that as the United States territory becomes settled, _furred_ animals increase, because the refuse of civilization--the hen-roosts, the corn-fields, &c.--feed, directly and indirectly, the smaller animals, such as musquash, minks, foxes, rac.o.o.ns, opossums, skunks, and others; but the larger animals, such as buffaloes, bears, wolves, deer, elk, and others, would suffer from civilization were it not that they retire to the deserts, of which there will be enough for hundreds of years. Germany (it is said) produces more red-foxes than all America; and wolves are plentiful in France. As to an '_eager trade_,' or excessive hunting, destroying wild animals, it is impossible. If the 'catch' is excessive this year, the supply will exceed the demand, and prices will fall; the hunt will be less _eager_ next year, and the animals will increase. In the March sales in London this year, there were only 3,094 skunks, and the demand was greater than the supply, so that the price was as high as _7s.

2d._, which stimulated the United States collectors so much that very likely C. M. Lampson & Co. will have about 100,000 in their September sale, and prices will very likely fall to _1s_., or lower. The result will be, that the skunks will live in peace, and increase and multiply for some years to come. The skunk is the most 'disagreeable' of animals to man; but it is not, therefore, destroyed.

I have a catalogue (Row, Row, Goad & Reece, brokers) of a fur sale (by the candle) at the London Commercial Sale Room, Mincing Lane, on the 21st and 22nd March, 1821, which I compare below with catalogues of fur sales in London on 27th and 28th January, and 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 11th March, 1863. I include January, because musquash and beaver are sold in that month. This statement does not embrace many other, but lesser, sales, which take place about the same time. _A vast quant.i.ty goes direct from here to Germany, which, in past years, went to London_.

1821 1863 ---- ----

300 Musquash 1,289,773 6,380 Bears 3,962 None Beaver 95,557 8,290 Otter 12,933 3,280 Fisher 5,485 108,850 Martens 66,827 10,340 Minks 25,989 8,190 Foxes 28,369 2,500 Wolves 3,322 370 Wolverines 918 57,100 Rac.o.o.ns 204,888 None Skunks 3,094 None Opossums 560 None Badgers 1,370 23,000 Rabbits 46,151 5,631 Lynx 4,276 2,285 Cats 100

"Do the above data of forty-two years prove his a.s.sertion, that '_the fur trade, by which old profits were made, is a peculiar trade, tending to disappear_' or do they prove the reverse? The value or price of furs has steadily advanced also.

"Again: '_The hunters in the Hudson's Bay Company are as perishable a race as the animals hunted.'_ Any trader knows this is false, except in the sense that we are all perishable. Applied to the United States Indians, it is true, from the cause a.s.signed--rum--and worse causes-- the vices of civilization. The cost of transportation to any portion of the Hudson's Bay territory heretofore has been so great that the rum used there must, _to be profitable,_ be the purest that can be found, as there is water enough in Prince Rupert's Land with which to dilute it: so that what the Indian gets will not hurt him. The rivers in the United States (the Mississippi, the Missouri, the Yellowstone, the Arkansas, the Platte, and others) easily and cheaply carry '_rot- gut_' and death to the United States Indian. It seems to be the aim, and will be the gain, of the United States to exterminate the Indian; it ought to be the aim, and would be the gain, of the 'International Financial Society' to preserve him.

"Again: '_The climate forbids effectual fertility, and the distance from more habitable regions forbids effectual transit. The regions to be colonized are mostly very cold and very barren_.' If such is the case, of what value, applied to the new Company, are his a.s.sertions: 'Civilization destroys wild animals,' &c., and 'The hunters are as perishable,' &c.? The shareholders of the International Financial Society need have no fears of a failure of the fur trade, whatever may become of the 'sale of lands to new settlements, and the communication with British Columbia.'

"Again: '_In fact, the whole of the Red River region, such as it is, is best accessible from the United States, and, in case of war, would be exposed to an inroad from Minnesota, which adjoins it, without the possibility of aid from England_.' If the editor would undertake to travel from St. Paul to Pembina (about 600 miles), and also read the accounts of expeditions in pursuit of hostile Indians in Minnesota, he would quickly get rid of his fear of the Americans ever invading the British North Western Territory. One of my correspondents, an old Indian trader, writes me on the 30th ult. that he had just reached Pembina, after a 'dirty and disagreeable trip' of 25 days from St.

Paul. So long as the British Indians are treated as they have been, they could, and they would, sweep Minnesota clean of any army, even although as invincible as the 'army of the Potomac.' Even if the redskins did not want help, the United States Indians would unite with the British Indians, in order to be revenged on the pale faces.

"To my mind, the worst feature in the new Company is that of allowing a foreigner (American) to hold office. He owes allegiance to the United States, _and his position gives him, knowledge which no American should possess_. 'Blood is thicker than water,' says the proverb.

Besides, he has his own fur trade to attend to, and it is as true now, as it was in old times, that 'no man can serve two masters.' Although he should withdraw from his own firm, still 'blood is thicker than water.' As to the idea that, being in the fur trade, his experience and influence will benefit the new Company, will any furrier believe that?

If the new Company will sell _all the furs they may have in their warehouse at the time of their regular sales_, HOLDING BACK NONE TO RAISE PRICES, they will always have the confidence of the buyers, always get full value, and never require the influence or experience of any man. I am, unfortunately for myself, not a shareholder in either the old or the new Company, but if I were, I would never rest satisfied while an American was in the management.

"Should you ever visit this city, I will feel honoured if you call on me, and be glad to hear from you, or be of service to you, at any time.

"With great respect, yours truly, "WM. MACNAUGHTAN.

"E. W. Watkin, Esquire, "Care Hon. Hudson's Bay Co., London."

"Dunean, Inverness, "_29th October, 1872. Midnight._

"My dear Sir Edward,

"Your letter reached me to-night, just in the nick of tune, and I enclose a letter which I was just about to send to the Editor of the London 'Standard.' Please send it to that or any other paper you like, barring the 'Times,' 'Sat.u.r.day Review,' or 'Pall Mall Gazette.' I wrote another letter to the 'Times,' by which they corrected the discrepancy between their statement of the 18th Oct. and that of the 26th, that the Emperor had three channels to consider, but they never published or acknowledged my letter. I suppose because it exposed their blunder, and attacked the Government. I had written both to the 'Pall Mall' and 'Sat.u.r.day Review' in summer, pointing out that we had virtually surrendered our position by departing from the words of the Treaty of 1846, on the American demand; but for certain reasons they would not publish the letter, and you will observe that they now refrain from laying the blame on our Government. You must read carefully the articles in the 'Times' of 18, 25 and 26 October, and in the 'Standard'

of Sat.u.r.day last. The 'Standard' attacks our Government fairly and ably. You may give my name as the writer of the enclosed letter, but not for publication, as I do not wish to make an enemy of the 'Times.'

Send me a copy of the paper in which it may appear, or make any use you may like of it.

"I send you Tuckerman's Report. It is very satisfactory and re- a.s.suring.

"I and some others here were much pleased at your expose of Fowler. He tried to set up here as the c.o.c.k of all our railways, but he got the worst of it, and now he has got his quietus (that is, if you intend to let him rest), and has lost what he was very ambitious of, viz., high social position in the North. The Duke of Sutherland and others with whom he had gained a footing, have given him the cold shoulder, and I hope you will, by some means or other, enlighten his friends at the Egyptian Emba.s.sy. I may write a few lines to you tomorrow--being now in great haste,

"Yours truly, "A. G. DALLAS.

"P.S.--I have not kept a copy of my San Juan letter, which I have only just hurriedly written."

"Dunean, Inverness, N.B.

"_30 October, 1872._

"My dear Sir Edward,

"I wrote you a few hurried lines last night, with an enclosure, for publication, on the subject of the San Juan Arbitration.

"In the 'Times' of yesterday there is a letter signed 'The Ghost,'

which, like all that the 'Times' permits to appear in its columns, is intended to throw dust in the eyes of the public, and direct attention from the real authors of the calamity, viz., the present Government, to that of Lord Aberdeen, or the German Emperor. The letter says, 'It is difficult to understand how an arbitrator could have accepted the task imposed upon him,' &c., alluding to his being debarred from deciding on the middle channel. An arbitrator will, of course, decide upon any conditions laid down; but is it not much more difficult to understand _why_ we should have imposed such conditions on the arbitrator, on the demand of America, when we had the simple words of the Treaty to go by?

"The same letter, in alluding to Harney's invasion, says, 'It is pleasant to remember how promptly the American Government disavowed the act of their officer.' They never did so practically. They never withdrew the offensive troops, and forced us to maintain an equal number of men there since that date, at who can tell what cost to this country, and for what good end?

"In considering the main question, I all along held that we erred in claiming the Rosario Channel; for the reason that although I have no doubt whatever it was the channel intended in the Treaty (as against the Haro Channel, and excluding consideration of the middle channel), we cannot prove to demonstration that it was so. In getting up a grievance it is now doubly dangerous to claim it, as we know that, comparing it with the Haro Channel, it is decided against us, on what we must suppose to be good reasons. On the above contention, too, we absolve our Government of their blunder, and make a scape-goat of the Emperor of Germany. The words of the Treaty define the boundary to be a line drawn southerly through the centre of the channel from the centre of the channel separating Vancouver's Island from the mainland. Had the existence of three channels been then known, one of them--the one meant--would certainly have been named. Only one channel, Rosario, was known at the time, and the presumption is that it was meant. Making too sure of this we claimed it. It is, however, clear to my mind that the whole s.p.a.ce between the Continent and Vancouver Island was treated as one channel. The Douglas, or middle channel, would then fulfil to the letter the words of the Treaty, and give us all we wanted, and still leave a channel free to the Americans. It was, I contend, a fatal error to abandon this position. Having done so and departed from the words of the Treaty, it was really a toss up which of the two other channels was selected by the umpire. Though we argued that Rosario was the only channel known at the time of the Treaty, the Americans argue (as you know how) that it was not so, and moreover that there was no intention to give us more than Vancouver Island. Why such a red herring as this was allowed to decoy us from the straight path of the words of the Treaty is what, in the words of Dundreary, 'No fellah can understand.'

"I hope I have made myself clear to you, and that you will ventilate the subject in Canada (through the press), where and in British Columbia there must be a deep feeling of disappointment and disgust, without a just appreciation of how we came to be so befooled.

"Don't forget to send me any paper that may be published on the subject through you. I feel as if I had been personally swindled and insulted, and have lost all confidence in our present ministry. I am writing this again at midnight, having been from home all day.

"Yours truly, "A. G. DALLAS.

"P.S.--Laing pa.s.sed through Inverness to-day, on his way to canva.s.s the Orkneys."

At Victoria, Vancouver's Island, in a fine position fronting the sea, there is a granite pedestal to record the services of Sir James Douglas, K.C.B., the father-in-law of Governor Dallas. The services of Sir James, were rendered to the great benefit, not only of the island, but of British Columbia generally. The colonist roads along the great mountain sides, across rivers, and, through the forests, are of his doing, with the practical co-operation of ex-Governor Trutch, a very able engineer; and to Douglas, Trutch, Sir Mathew Begbie, Mr. Dunsmuir, and a few others, the order, obedience to the law, and progress of the country must be mainly attributed. But no stone marks the services of Governor Dallas; no honour was offered him by our Government at home; and he received scant reward from the Governor and Committee of the Hudson's Bay Company sitting in London. Surely those who have profited by his self-denying labours might consider whether his great services should be allowed to fall into oblivion for want of some adequate monument to his memory.

CHAPTER XVI.

The Honorable Thomas d'Arcy McGee.

Amongst the men, able and earnest, who carried the union of the British, separated, Provinces, and made the "Dominion," no man gave more soul and substance to the cause, by his eloquence, than Mr. d'Arcy McGee. His had been a chequered career. Beginning, like Sir George Etienne Cartier, in revolt against what he believed to be British tyranny, he ended his life, one of the most loyal, as he was one of the most eloquent, of Her Majesty's subjects. In 1848 he was one of the "Young Ireland" party, and became an exile from his country; and, at length, a denizen of the United States. From thence he came to Canada.

In Canada he found all the liberty, without very much of the license, of politicians in the United States. In Canada he could think for himself; in the United States he must think the thoughts of some secret organization--or perish. In Canada he was welcomed, and soon made a position. I first met him, in a casual way, in Ireland, in the time of O'Connell, I think in 1844; and in 1861 I made his acquaintance, and I knew him well until his untimely death, by Fenian a.s.sa.s.sination, at Ottawa. He had faults--what politician has not? But he was honorable and kindly; no man's enemy, unless it were his own. He was remarkable in appearance; of middle height, very dark complexion, and with hair so curious and curly that he always joked about his popularity with the negroes of Canada. He told a story of a meeting in Montreal at a little public-house called "Uncle Tom's Cabin." Here he was addressing an audience containing a considerable number of dark men. Mr. Holton, his colleague, had orated about differential duties, very dry and Yankee- like, as usual. McGee followed in one of his arousing speeches. When he sat down, the respected negro landlord of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" got up to move a vote of confidence. And, according to McGee's story, said: "Bredren, we all on us heah came to dis land on a venter. Mr. McGee he came heah on a venter. Dis child know nothing bout dem disgreable duties. All we wants, bredren, is to pick out de best man. How is we to do dat? Bredren, best way is to follow de hair. Mr. McGee has hair like good n.i.g.g.e.r. Bredren, let us follow our hair." The result was McGee was adopted unanimously.

In 1865 a volume of Mr. McGee's speeches was published by Chapman & Hall. He did me the favour to dedicate the book to me in these, too complimentary, terms: "To E. W. Watkin, Esq., M.P. for Stockport, whose intimate connection with many great enterprises in which the material future of British America is interwoven, and, still more, whose high- spirited advocacy of a sound Colonial policy, both in and out of Parliament, has conferred lasting obligations, upon these Provinces, this volume is very sincerely and cordially dedicated."

The last speech in this volume was delivered in the Legislative a.s.sembly of Canada, at Quebec, on the 9th February, 1865. I venture to record some portion of it in this book:--

"With your approbation, Sir, and the forbearance of the House, I will endeavour to treat this subject in this way:--First, to give some slight sketch of the history of the question; then to examine the existing motives which ought to prompt us to secure a speedy union of these Provinces; then to speak of the difficulties which this question has encountered before reaching its present fortunate stage; then to say something of the mutual advantages, in a social rather than political point of view, which these Provinces will have in their union; and, lastly, to add a few words on the Federal principle in general: when I shall have done. In other words, I propose to consider the question of Union mainly from within, and, as far as possible, to avoid going over the ground already so fully and so much better occupied by hon. friends who have already spoken upon the subject.

"So far back as the year 1800, the Hon. Mr. Uniacke, a leading politician in Nova Scotia at that date, submitted a scheme of Colonial Union to the Imperial authorities. In 1815, Chief Justice Sewell, whose name will be well remembered as a leading lawyer of this city, and a far-sighted politician, submitted a similar scheme. In 1822, Sir John Beverley Robinson, at the request of the Colonial Office, submitted a project of the same kind; and I need not refer to the report of Lord Durham, on Colonial Union, in 1839. These are all memorable, and some of them are great, names. If we have dreamed a dream of Union (as some of you gentlemen say), it is at least worth while remarking that a dream which has been dreamed by such wise and good men, may, for aught we know, or you know, have been a sort of vision--a vision foreshadowing forthcoming natural events in a clear intelligence: a vision--I say it without irreverence, for the event concerns the lives of millions living, and yet to come--resembling those seen by the Daniels and Josephs of old, foreshadowing the trials of the future, the fate of tribes and peoples, the rise and fall of dynasties. But the immediate history of the measure is sufficiently wonderful, without dwelling on the remoter predictions of so many wise men. Whoever, in 1862, or even in 1863, would have told us that we should see even what we see in these seats by which I stand--such a representation of interests acting together, would be accounted, as our Scotch friends say, 'half daft'; and whoever, in the Lower Provinces, about the same time, would have ventured to foretell the composition of their delegations which sat with us under this roof last October, would probably have been considered equally demented. But the thing came about; and if those gentlemen who have had no immediate hand in bringing it about, and, therefore, naturally feel less interest in the project than we who had, will only give us the benefit of the doubt-- will only a.s.sume that we are not all altogether wrong-headed--we hope to show them still farther, though we think we have already shown them satisfactorily, that we are by no means without reason in entering on this enterprise. I submit, however, we may very well dismiss the antecedent history of the question for the present: it grew from an unnoticed feeble plant, to be a stately and flourishing tree; and, for my part, any one that pleases may say he made the tree grow, if I can only have hereafter my fair share of the shelter and the shade. But in the present stage of the question, the first real stage of its success --the thing that gave importance to theory in men's minds, was the now celebrated despatch, signed by two members of this Government and an honourable gentleman formerly their colleague (Hon. Mr. Ross), a member of the other House. I refer to the despatch of 1858. The recommendations in that despatch lay dormant until revived by the Const.i.tutional Committee of last Session, which led to the Coalition, which led to the Quebec Conference, which led to the draft of the Const.i.tution now on our table, which will lead, I am fain to believe, to the union of all these Provinces. At the same time that we mention these distinguished politicians, I think we ought not to forget those zealous and laborious contributors to the public press, who, although not a.s.sociated with governments, and not themselves at the time in politics, yet greatly contributed to give life and interest to this question, and, indirectly, to bring it to the happy position in which it now stands. Of those gentlemen I will mention two. I do not know whether honorable gentlemen of this House have seen some letters on Colonial Union, written in 1855--the last addressed to the late Duke of Newcastle--by Mr. P. S. Hamilton, an able public writer of Nova Scotia, and the present Gold Commissioner of that province; but I take this opportunity of bearing my testimony to his well-balanced judgment, political sagacity, and the skilful handling the subject received from him at a very early period. There is another little book, written in English, six or seven years ago, to which I must refer. It is a pamphlet, which met with an extraordinary degree of success, ent.i.tled Nova Britannia, by my honorable friend, the member for South Lanark (Mr. Morris); and as he has been one of the princ.i.p.al agents in bringing into existence the present Government, which is now carrying out the idea embodied in his book, I trust he will forgive me if I take the opportunity, although he is present, of reading a single sentence, to show how far he was in advance, and how true he was to the coming event which we are now considering. At page 57 of his pamphlet--which I hope will be reprinted among the political miscellanies of the Provinces when we are one country and one people--I find this paragraph:--

"'The dealing with the destinies of a future Britannic empire, the shaping its course, the laying its foundations broad and deep, and the erecting thereon a n.o.ble and enduring superstructure, are indeed duties that may well evoke the energies of our people, and nerve the arms and give power and enthusiasm to the aspirations of all true patriots. The very magnitude of the interests involved, will, I doubt not, elevate many amongst us above the demands of mere sectionalism, and enable them to evince sufficient comprehensiveness of mind to deal in the spirit of real statesmen with issues so momentous, and to originate and develop a national line of commercial and general policy, such as will prove adapted to the wants and exigencies of our position.'

"We, on this side, Mr. Speaker, propose for that better future our plan of Union; and, if you will allow me, I shall go over what appear to me the princ.i.p.al motives which exist at present for that Union. My hon.