THE BRITISH-COLUMBIA GRIEVANCE. [TO THE Emma OF THE "SPECTATOR. "]
Sta,—In the issue of the Spectator just to hand (March 18) I find an article entitled "The Grievance of British Columbia." The whole article is based on an error, for which not you, but the British Columbia Government, in the document to which you refer, is responsible. You say, " The Bill for the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway was rejected by the Senate at Ottawa, and Mr. Mackenzie took advantage of this circumstance to repudiate the contract altogether." This is not so. The railway in question, which would have been a line some 37 miles in length, on the island of Vancouver, is one which, under the " Carnarvon com- promise," the Dominion Government undertook to build, in addition to the Canada Pacific Railway proper. As that com- promise was subject to the ratification of the Dominion Parlia- ment, when the Senate refused to sanction the construction of the subsidiary line in question, the Dominion Government pro- posed to give a monetary compensation of $750,000 instead. In all other respects, the Carnarvon agreement holds good.
You say further, "The contention of the Canadian Government is, that the Dominion is really too poor at present to undertake so magnificent a work as that of establishing railway communica- tion between Lake Superior and the Pacific." Many in Canada do so contend, but not the Government. The latter are not only pledged to carry out that work, but are doing their utmost in order to carry it out, and from Parliamentary returns it appears that it is only engineering difficulties which hinder its fulfilment to the letter. Were this not so, there would be justification for your accusation of a " departure from public faith on the part of the Ottawa Administration."—I am, Sir, &c.,
National Club, Toronto, March 31. WILLIAM BOYD.
Previous page
