,/.•>,:* "'■ '•^,"*V.;-:V=jv'',', A LETTER To the House of Commons of Canada, Jm. fi? ON BCUALF OF ■■fc. ■r^\-Y" :-K,v^--/- i** THE com INTERESTS OF Wfi SCOTIA. '■^^^ /■ .■"■'■••^ / S^ i^'pi^^-*^^''^^ ' • .^-{Tt^ - '■■* y A LETTER TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA, ON BKHALF OF THE COAL INTERESTS OF NOVA SCOTIA. • . ' • — .J — ; •: ■ ; HALIFAX, N. S. PRINTED BY BLACKADAR BROS. 1877. {I ITr:i 1 / vni/^/o) "^^ :\y\i)\{ !M^' / fl W •'' / > ' ! < > '{y-Wlcn/.l' JfO ) :■!!!'! / 1 I 't > / / ' ' • • • • • • - . t I " ( • ,...» , . !,■ tl: I., "^ J I'li ■ • •■'*<•■ • •• •■ ,'.. To the Honorable The House of Comuions of Canada, ]. ■ .i- i ' '/ ," • ' III SiMt'oii tiSU'itiWi(f : /I „ . . ' I i The forco of circuinstancos compels an itnlividiial, ktiown jici'.soimlly or by report to vory few ofyt ti • Honorable House, to iiitnule upon you through A liKiTKK ox Bkhalf of thk Coal Inteiiksts of Nova Scotia, "which have been for Hevcril years past flepresscd and declining. Tlu; eir- cunistances referred to arc these : Asa Director of the Cilacc Bay Mining' Company I attended the meeting of coal owneifi in Halifax a few weeks ajjo, at Avhich it wis determined to petition your Houoniblo House to either impose a duty of fifty cents ])er ton on imported coal, or grant a bourtty on Dominion coal placed in the United States equal to the duty it there pars. A petition having l)eeu preparelain tliat many of those in Halifax who signed the petition knew little more of its ctmtents than that it asked for the duty or bounty to whicli I have referred. Fuftlier editorial objections to the asked for duty, on the ground, chiefly, that it could only be got in connection witli in- creased protection to other interests, fed me to re)>ly, and the rostdt was a number of newspaper articles jnv and con. Writing in defctico of the j>rayer of the petition naturally led me to acquaint myself with certain matters bearing on the question of protection to our coal inter- ests, and the result was a strong conviction that it only required that your Honorable House .should have the coal owners' ca.se put fairly before you to ensure the granting of their petition. The writer believe."* so good a ca^ie for them can be made out that the cjnscience of ouch Member of the House of Commons — no matter what his political or commercial creed — vill not, after hearin{j it, allow him to refuse justice to the Dominion coal interests, oppressed as they are by heavy and ex- ceptional duties, and hitherto unprotected — except in one year — by any duty on the imported article. " ' " . ' In proceeding to open up the dial owners* case, I beg to brielly sketch the circum.stances under which most of the collieries in Nova Scotia were opened. For thirty years prior to 1S;37 her coal fields had been closed against private enterprise owing to tliciv liaving, with two exceptions, been leased by King Georce the Fourth, in 182(), for sixty years to the Duke of York, and by him sub-leased to certain London jewellers who, under the name of tho General Mining A.ssociation, com- meoci^d to work on the Pictou coal area in 1827. Previous to this the Sydney a .d Pictou coal fields had been worked by other parties undes leases from the Crown, but to a very limited ext^int, as the total .saiwsi of coal in Nova Scotia from 1785 to 1827 wqro under 300,000 tu«W4 asj appears by the Report of the Department of Mines for 187'>.. The same Report gives the total sales for the ten years ending with 1840 as. 839,081 tons; for the next ten, 1,533,798 tons; and fox the ttcxt^, 58469 2,31)9,821) ton.s— an avcra^'c of about 240,000 U>m annually for the ten yeaiH eiulin;^ with i860. In the next ton years the sales were 4,927,- 331) tons, more than double those of the previous ten ; and the average of the following five years ending with 1875 was 743,872 tons, more than three times the average saies for the ten years ending with 1800, and nearly five times the average coal sales of the previous decade. What led to this marked development in the coal trade of Nova fc'cotia, more especially since 1800 ? First, the arrangement effected by the Government of Nova Scotia in 1857 with the Crown and the General Mining Association, whereby the Province obtained the right to all her mines and minerals, excepting the coal in four tracts of thirty square miles in Cane Breton and Nova Scotia proper, retained by the Association. Fortnwith private individuals obtained from the Govern- ment licenses to search, and leases of various coal areas in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia, agreeing to pay to the Province a royalty of ten cents per ton on all round coal sold, except to colliery employes. Secondly : what also and chiefly led to the opening of our newer collieries was the great free market oiiened-for our coal in the United States through the Reciprocity Treaty of 1856. I cannot say what our coal exports to the United States were during the ten years that grand Treaty (for Nova Scotia) lasted, but see from our Government Report they were in 180.5, 405,194 tons. That year and the previous one, I know, were splendid years for the Coal Mining Comimny with which I was then and ar.i still connected : from the business of 1806 — a shipment of some 84,000 tons— a dividend of $75,000 was paid. In the following year the Reciprocity Treaty terminated ; a duty of $1.25 gold per ton was imposed on foreign coal ; and from the business of 1806, instead of $75,000, the stockholders of the Glaco Bay Mining Company received not a cent ! Nor have they in several years since, and their nine feet seam of coal — one of the best gas coals in Capo Breton, which in 1865 yielded that handsome dividend — was aljandoned two or three years ago as uni)rofitablo to work, and the mine is now full of water. And in like manner lie many costly coal mines ; and little wonder, seeing the great market on which they depended has remained since 1805 virtually closed against us, as witnessed by our shipments to the United States having fallen off from 405,194 tons in. 1865 to 71,634 tons in 1870 I And not only that, but the price we got for what was placed there in 1876 was about a dollar per ton leas thaa in 1865. Your Honorable House will thus see what gave such an impetus to our coal trade some twenty years ago, and also, in part, what has led to its decline, — for that it is declining is shown not only by the de- crease in our shipments to the United States, but by the great falling oli" in our total sales for the last four yeai-s, which, as stated in the Gov- ernment Inspector's Report for 1876, were as follows : Sales of Nova Scotia coal in 1873 .881,106 tons. 1874 749,120 " " « ,, ,.1875 706,795 " " . , ? ., , 1876 634,207 " Showing a decrease in our coal sales in four years of 246,899 tons, i^ot only so, but the price has also since 1873 been greatly reduced, say fully fifty cents per ton. , o;upr Having .statoulation of aliout eighteen thousand has settled in and a)>out the various mining localities. The aggregate average amount of wages, paid monthly, in 1873 was »! 20,000. ' t li. These figures, which I have no reason to think ara not approximately correct, show that by the " coal interests " i« not to be understood the interests of a few people who have invested money in coal mines, but the interests also of four thousand employes, and of about eightepn thousand ]>ooplc scttletl in the mining districts, more or less dependent for their living on the business done at the mines. The coal interests also include the interests of our ship-owners and sailors, so far as the shipment of more or less coal gives them more or less employment. It» not, then, an indiistry in whicn some twelve millions of dollars have been invested, and on whose continuance the living of so many thous- ands depend, entitled to as much protection under the Dominion tariff as other Dominion interests and industries receive ? If " yes, certainly," (and no one whom I addi-ess can conscientiously say " no,") let us see how the Dominion tariff cares for various other Dominion interests. 1. Our agricultural interests are protected by 1 cent per lb. on im- ported beef, pork, lard and tallow, the duties collected from which for the year ending June, 1876, amounted to $221,038. On imported but- ter 4 cents jwr lb. duty is levied ; on chee.se, 3 cents per lb. ; on green fruits, vegetables, hay, straw, hor.so«, cattle, swine, sheep, etc., the duty is 10 jier cent ad val., and on these articles the duties collected for the year aforesaid amounted to $129,880. Again, cattle imported for im- proving stock are admitted free, as are also agricultural implements imported by agricultural societies. Thus our tariff protect^ our Farms, our Dairies, Orchards, and agricultural interests generally. 2. Our Manufacturers are protected by our present tariff. Iron for castings is admitted free ; castings pay 17 A per cent. Hides are free ; leather pays 17i per cent. Broom com is free; corn brooms pay 17i per cent. Iron for nails ])ays .*> per cent. ; iron nails pay 17i per cent. Various sorts of woods not grown in the. Dominion come in frc, .such as mahogany, rosewood, walnut, pitch pine, etc. ; the furniture, piano cases, etc., into which these woods are manufactured are })rotected by 17i per cent. In this way our foundries, tanneries, broom, nail, furni- ture and piano factories ai-e protected ; and in like manner many other trades which import free whtti they do not manufacture, and are pro- tected by 17^ per cent, on the articles tliey make up. So our distil- ,1 I I ' ,i|<7 . . . iri' . I. .1.1 III •• ,.1 • ' ' ' Icrios are carnJ for under our tariff; they pay an oxcIhc duty of 7^ cents |)t!r gallon un the whifiky and Hpirith thoy manufacture, hut tho imported article pays 91 \ter gallon, — a protection of 25 cents iter gallon, hcsidcH n\ per cent, ad v*U. on tho imckagc. Our tol»acconi8tH get tlittir leaf fruo, and are protected by 5 ccntn per lb. and 12^ per cent ad vaL, tliu ditfurenco iKitwcen tho uxciuo duty thoy pay and the cuh- touiH duty on the iniitortcd article. Our browiUH* interests arc in like uiannitr regarded, im{K>rted ale, {Kirter and b(!er pnying 5 and 7 cents l)er gallon, besides diit}' on package, whether cask or l»ottlc; while tho duty paid by the homo proauced article iii only 3| cents i>er gallon, — a protection of 2 to I cents nor gallon. AI>ove all, tho intoreHts of the Ontario oil wells (in inarketl contra-st to the interests of Nova Hootia coal mines) have been most paternally watched over and provided for by your Honorable llousg. ,. Outario coal oil pays 5 cents per gallon ; American kerosene pays )5 cents, and 17^ |N>r rent o« tho cask. I W(jul(l have little to sav againitt this giving to Ontario oil well owners a monopoly of the home market, if only a moiety of tho satno )iateiual protection wei*o extendeathize if American coid oil, like American coal, were admitted free of duty. 3. Our Dominion fishermen are protected and cared for. Formerly their fishing grounds were guarded by Dominion cutters and steamers ; now, in lieu of that, a great free market has been opened for them in the United States. Had the same market been free for our coal, as it .should have been, I would not have had occasion to plead for an equi- valent. Not only have the fishermen of Canada, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick an»l Nova Scotia the privilege of the United States market, and the i ight to fish in the rivei-s, creeks and bays of the Do- minion, without payment of license or royalty, but everything they use in the jnosecution of their calling is admitted under our consiM in 1H73, not a coal Juine in Nova Scotia has luadc sutheient to l»ay said royalty and six per cent, interest on the capital invested. Nut only so, but collieries that have shipped Inuulretls of thousands of tons Imve never mven their owners a cent even of Intercast, their whole earn- ings being absorbed in expenses and royalty. Ten cents ]»cr ton being the price payable to the rrovinco of Nova Scotia for the raw material, as it should be regarded in the seam, perhai)s hundreds of feet below the surface of the earth, what articles are »ised in the process of con- verting it into a marketable commodity, mined, hoisted and screened, ready for use :• Shafts have to l)c sunk, costing frecpiently very large sums of money owing to their great depth and the innuense quantities of water they nmke. As an illustrati(m I may mention that a pump- ing and a hoisting shaft only 240 feet deep, at Little Ulacc Kay Mines, has cost over {?4(),0()0, and it is not yet completed. Then a railroad has to Ih) built to some c»mvenicnt shipping place, usually a most costly atiair, wLen- piers, tum-tables, shutcs, etc., have to be built. At the mines a considerable tract of land has to be purchased on whieh to erect engine and miners' houses and other buildings, and to obtain space for banking coal. Pumping and hoisting engines, loconioti\es, coal wagons, etc., have to l>e provided. Quantities of powder, dyn- amite, fu.se.s, shovels, picks, rope, olive and other machine oils, aio re(juired, all of which pay 17i per cent. duty. (Yes, even the wiru hoisting rojjes we use pay 171 per cent, while for ships' use that aiti- cle is free). Let any one ac(iuaintcd with the details oi a colliery Knjk over the taiiff, and he will soon see how heavy, and even exceptional, are tho duties on every article used in converting the raw maU-nal into the merchantable coal tliat brightens and warms, and that cheaply, the hearths and homes of Nova Scotia ;— would I could .say, of the Do- minion ! And what proUx'tion docs the coal owner rec«uve ? NoXK WHATKVKR. He iMiyx 10 cents per toh on his coal, and 17J lier cent, on nearly everything he uses, and has l»een always, except in one mem- orable year, (1870,) compelled to compete with the foreiini artiele ad- mitted into the Dominion free of duty. Is this/a/r.'' Is it rca-sun- able f Is it in a eordance with the sense ofjuMlce whieh evt ry man whom I addi-ess has and i(?els ? Shall such an unrighteous .state of things continue another year ? Is there even a free-trader among you who will say that it ought to continue ?— that as far as he is con- cerned, the coal mines of Nova Scotia .shall have no such favor or pro- tection as is afforded to oil wells, farmers, fisherintn, factories, etc. ? I feel sure the interests for whieh I have the honor of pleading must pnlist your sympathies and those of the people of Ontario, when you • M and they understand liow the coal owners have been and are treated under the Dominion tariff, and the neceHflity that exists for a just SHca- wire of protection. ,, ,,, . . „, , .; .( A ton of coal raised in Nova Scotia implies not only 10 cents to that Province, and 17 J per cent, on the various articles used in manufac- turing it, — it implies, also, honest employment ; the expenditui'e of about a dollar to the miner, laborer, driver, engineer, and others era- ployed in connection with the colliery ; and that implies the consump- tion by them of a certain amount of dutiable goods. A ton of coal shipped from a Nova Scotia colliery implies also a freight to our ves- sels of one, two, or four dollars, according to the port of discharge. A prosperous or increasing coal trade, in short, means not only employ- ment to thou.sands of persons directly engaged in it, but business gen- erally throughou' the Dominion helped and increased. It means especially a large and expanding market for Ontario exports. While our exports to the United States were in 1876 about 400,000 tons le.s3 than in 1865, and our whole sales in 1 870 nearly 250,000 tons less than in 1873, the imports of American coal into the Dominion have, on the other hand, been steadily increasing ; and United States coals from collieries cheaply worked, having no deep shafts or pumping connected with them, and the output of which is immense, aie, under our unjustly free tariff, fast monopolising the markets of this Domin- ion. A colliery, I may remark, whose output is 100,000 tons annually has an immense advantage over collieries whose output is only a half or a quarter of that. A Nova Scotia colliery whose capacity is 100,000 tons annually might make money at $1.50 per ton, working at its full capacity, while it scarcely holds its own at $2 per ton working only half time. The output from our collieries is manifestly becoming less year after year ; some of them have closed up, and present a sad and desolate ap])earance. Is it considered by your Honorable House tlesirable that all our other collieries should follow in their steps, and that finally the trade should become extinct ? If the Dominion of Canada had no coal areas, would it not be considered a very great want — an insurmountable obstacle in the way of her ever becoming great and independent ? " Had we only some of our neighbors' coal fields," would be our vain lament. If we were entirely dependent on imported coal for our supply, could we expect to continue independent of the United States, who could any day bring us to our knees by means of their coal fields, either by increasing greatly the price of their coal, or laying an embargo upon its exportation into Canada ? In the event of a sudden rupture with the United States, what would Ontario do for want of American coal ? Arrangements for her supply from Nova Scotia could not be made in a day or a month, and could not be made at all if the mines bad nearly all shut down and the miners left the country. Is it a wise policy for even Ontario to maintain, to be and continue to be dependent on a foreign rival for coal, an article as essential to her as her flour is to Nova Scotia ? May she not some day, if she continue to ignore the existence of Nova Scotia's coal mines, rue her short-sightedness, and prepare when too late to get a scanty supply over the Intercolonial ? She sends Nova Scotia liberal suj^plies of her productions, — why not endeavor to anangc for an equally liberal supply in return of Nova Scotia's black diamonds, which Ontario may yet esteem above silver or gold ? At any rate, let . i not your Honorable House refusfe Justice to the coal interests of Nova Scotia by doclinijii» to impose a duty of fifty cents per ton, or 17\ per cent, on imported coal and coke ( The coa,l owners of the Dominion are en- ; titled, in the name of all that is fair and honest, to either a duty, or a bounty on coal placed in the United States equal to the duty it there pays. A duty of 50 cents per ton would add considembly to the Do- minion revenue, and greatly assist to exclude the imported article ; the bounty would, by enabling us to gain an extended market in the United States, give an impetus to the coal trade and to coal freights.. and so also help the general revenue. But, irrespective of what the results or benefits of the asked for duty (or bounty, if your Honorable House prefer it,) may be, I claim that either is only what the coal owners are entitled to, and should have had years ago. There should have been all along a duty on importetl coal, for precisely the same reason and on the same princi[)le that there has been all along a duty on imported beef, butter, casting.'*, leather, brooms, furniture, locomotives, etc., and on imported coal oil far in ex- cess of what the homo produced article pays. It is said, if a duty be placed on coal, manulacturers will demand more protection than 17i per cent. It does not follow that they should get it. An extra 50 cents per ton on their coal could not add much per cent to the cost of their manufactured articles. Coal owners have never had any protec- tion, except in one year ; let manufacturers be content for a while with 17i ])er cent,, unless our country's expenditure requires a higher tariff. Again, it is .said a duty on coal must be accompanied by a duty on ilour. Perhaps so, althouyh as I have e.hown, a cent jicr lb. on beef, pork, lard and tallow, four cents per lb. on butter, three cents per lb. on cheese, ten })er cent, on cattle, etc., etc., have all along fairly pro- tected our farming and agricultural interests ; yet if a small duty on flour wust accompany a duty on coal, put it on — it will not add much per barrel to the price of Canada Hour. As an exporter of wheat and flour Ontario's prices mu.st, duty or no duty, be governed by the Euro- pean markets, and cannot well be higher than her neighbors'. And if flour can be purchased in Canada as low as in the United States, as it ought to, one would suppose, while she has a sur|)lus to export to Europe, why should we not confine our consumption to the home manu- factured article :' Lastly, it may be urged, rawinaterU'la^ should come in free. But marketable coal, as I have shown, is not the raw mate- rial — it is not in its natural state. It is a manufactured article, ready for use — manufactured by means of powder, picks, shovels, screens, and raiood and shipped by means of ropes, engines, locomotives,, olive oil, rubber, packing, etc., all of which pay 17A per cent. duty. It is a far more expensively manufactured article than lum- ber, castings, brooms, buckets, leather, or many other things the manufacturers of which have a protection of 17^, and in some cases a far higher per cent. The same remarks apply to coke; it is also a manufactured article, and should pay 17^ per cent. In conclusion, I would most respectfully request you individ- ually to ask yourselves : " Is there any good and sufficient reason for our refusing to impose a duty of 50 cents per ton, or 17 A per cent, ad valorem, on imported coal and coke, and thus aflbrd to the Dominion coal interests a measure of the same just and rea- sonable protection as has been afforded to other Dominion in- dustries " ? 2 10 f. ■ i:l!j.' '' Apologizing for thus presuming to address your Honorable House, , , , and hoping you will regard the matter rather than the manner of my ,, letter, ■ -^ ■•, •;'■•/,• ^' I have the honor to be, ' \ , ,, ,, ,i J . > .. .J. .-(t^ t-.'r [ >iin l'- '.'i Will . , '; With all due respect, ! . Your most obedient servant, ,. .i; ,, , . JR. LITHGOW, Direclbr Glace Bay Mining Company, Halifax, 20th February, 1877. / . . P. S. — (FehriMty iJlst.) — From the telegraphic report of ihe Hon. Mr. Cartwright's budget speech, I see he said with reference to the coal oil industry and the duties on the home produced and the foreign article: "The Government had carefully considered the whole question, with a desire to lighten the burden of the people, and, at the same time, not throw out of existence this industry. The Government had '' decided to remove the excise duty altogether and reduce the importation duty from 15 to G cents." On this I would most respectfully remark, if the Government will now consider the whole question of the coal in- W. H. Creighton, J. Northup & Sons, ■Jaines Fortune, Tucker & Co., Ji. Yeomans, Lewis Anderson, Joseph Carman, F. (.;. Stevens, Benj. A. Smith, James Gossip, It. B. Mackintosh, West & Borden, Wm. Robertson, Pfirker & Grant, Itco. a. Kent & Co., P. Lynch, J. Butler & Co., P. Walsh, Geo. P. Black, A. Keith k Son, B. O'Neil k Co., W. B. Reynolds* Co., •T. R. Jennett & Co., Will. Roche, Jr., I'. & J. O'MuUin, .Fohn Hogan & Son, Payzant & King, Chipman Bros., L. Hart, C. J. Wylde, Forsyth & Co., W. J. Coleman, W. A. Hendry, P. P. Archibald, Thomas Cahalaiie, (leorge Thompson, G. W. Dakin, Charles Graham & Co., .Fairus" Hart, George Henderson, .Tohu Allan, W. C. Silver, for imposing duty, not for bounty, R. S. Fitch & Co., George M. ^ ITiompson & Co., Wallace k Balcom John Baldwin & Co., Ed. Smith, Jas. Scott . R.P. Blisa,. : ; A. & W.i;^ckinl»y, . Charles Robson & Co., : C.,R. ThDjnBon,. •- ^ • • .John.?«lwr&CW.,«: • • DaVifls'sn Bro?. • *• ■ • G. A. S . Crichton, N. H. Meagher, Fariiuhar, Forrest k C*. W. Kandick, Benjamin Godkin Averi', Brown k Co., \ • A 12 T.4 K. Kenny, W- M. HarrinKton, yfm. H. Hart, J. Campbell, (;. & VV. Anderson, Ji)hn Q. Halliburton, Baiild & Reynolds, G. P. Mitchell & Sons, F. D. Corbett & Co., A. K. Salter, A. H. C'niwe, Bond & Co., Joseph S. Belcher, Edward Albro ft. Co., T. F. l[amilton& Co., J. J, Scriven & Son, Thomsu) Bayne, Chas. E. West, John M. DeWolf John Taylor & Co. , D. H. Pitts, ». A. White & C«., Reilly * Davidson, Robt. Taylor, F. W. Fishwiok, John PattorsiDo, Wm. Ackhurst, S. S. B Smith, John Whitman, It. Murray & (\i., Gordon tt Keith, W. H. Keatina, T. J. Wallace, M. P. Black, Tho8. A. Ritchio, Brown Bros. & Co., J. E. Wilson, W. 11. TuUy, P. Doyle, John Bayne, W. H. VVii,well, Geor;^e Ejihod, W. J. Era.ser, Rumsey, Johnson & Co., • • • t • ' J • • • • • t •