aT

LE IE EAE. EEE EY I

ADP yey

whe o*

-

= se: mC ROR Ne cmt em

bey

qe KR,

“file! 3ai4is) . = ny r vy Orege) |

pe coe +f 3 2122/23 24 25.26

é / Ca bend in 65S

ee — Med Taal yaks ve Hee feist

728.2930 31 |

‘le Dy Examiner

DM ArAnn s

: Troy. AG? 40D BtiX AE A

asee Ws

FROM THE OFFIC® oF

The Examiner Publishing Company

RATES OF SUBSCRIPTION

{IN ADVANCE)

i @ne Year .. 84.00 Ec ekedavaamades e¢ecevetedhans 2.00 WMrece MemtMs .... cccccccccerseces (tc. ee Pe BI 6 ckcadese oe eres oe

Sert post paid to any part of Canada or the C nited States

THE WEEKLY EXAMINER

ssued every I’riday morning. It is madeu of matter which has the Daily and is a firs’ classs newspaper containing all the latest news, Subscription $1.00 a year,

appeared in

— ee

= 2 O8 34609463 82068 0008

* It's Cedar Posts

: And Laths

€ we wish to draw your at-

. tention to just new. They are good stoek and we have plenty.

+ 3.000 Posts ¢ and 500 M Laths

is about the quantity. It you reyuire any, come and see us

Tevwenons 1581

JANES BARRETT

Connolly’s Wharf.

na n]one ese en ee et ese et OO

| | :

WARE - HOUSES PEAKE’ WHARF (TO 1)

Wharfage storage and yard- age, at reasonable rates.

Arthur @, Peake.

' ; i

Nov. 4

For Sale.

The subscriber offers for sale ‘he fol- lowing properties, formerly owned by the Jate Richard Pillman, at French River, New London,

1. Afarin containing 25 acres, all cleaved and in a good state of cultivation, loping to the south.

2. A plot containing 2 acres, with good dwelling house covtaining 11 rooms wod a new barn and wagon shed, thereon.

There is also ther2on a store, eomplete with shelving, etc., and a granary.

3. One acre of land, across ibe road, opposite the store, ani building lot at the cro«s roads, near the store.

These properties are well situated in one of the finest Jocalities in Prince Ed- ward Island for business or farming

purposes.

The subscriber also offers for sale a Gwelliag house and let at Kensington The house contains 1] reoms, and is ip geod repair

For further particalars apply to Messrs. ®.cLeod, Morson & MetQuarrie, Solicitors, € harlottetewn, o¢ to the owner,

LAVINIA J. PILLMAN. 20 s. j.3mo Ayer, Mare

Valuable Brick Ppoperty.

eee

RUSSEL HOUSE

BY AUCTION Wednesday, April 20th.inst

At 12 O’clook

aie

Tam inetructed by Joseph Wise, Esq., M.L.A., to sell by auction, on the above date, the Brick Hote! Property on Sydney St., known as the *Rusee! House,” and now occupied by Mre. John Neh innon.

Thies hote! i+ built of solid erick, and heated by hot water. and titted by electrie lighte, all in good repair. Together with yard and stabies inthe rear,

The property has never been idle, and is one of the best hotela and business stands in the city—with arpiendid cellar and large outside hatches.

A portion of the purchate money may Temain, secured on the prenices.

Terms at sale.

E. H. NORTON, Austioneer. — 55—

THE DAILY EXAMINER, CHAROTTETOWN MARCH 14, 1898

THE SITUATION, -

ABLY REVIEWED BY SENATOR FERGU- SON.

Overwhelming Arraigment of the Govern-

ment,

(Continued from Hansard.)

Hon. Mr. Ferguson—I have just mentioned the answer | received from my hon. friend the Secretary of State and the reply that he gave and the statements that are telegraphed from Washington, which we have in the newspapers, that permission has beem refused to the Americans to

' build a railway into our territory, and con

sequently it isall the more likely that our goveroment would; not apply after having given such a refusal. For my own part] admit there are difficulties in this coast strip.

Hon. Mr. Mills—Does the hon. gentle- man think that we ought to be content with a road from the head of Lynn Cana! fnto our own territory?

Hon. Mr. Ferguson—I shall come to that very soon.

Hon. Mr. Milla—I thought my hon friend had come to it and was passing it.

Hon. Mr. Ferguson—I admit there are difficulties in connection with this coast strip, but I take this ground ;: I can see no to the

|reason for refnsipg permission people of the Unit d States to build a railway into our country, if we get a

| reciprocal advantage of locating a railway | over tnat coast strip,

unless a provision is contained in the contract which is not yet init that McKenzie & Mann will be precluded forever from passing their charter over to foreigners. What ‘s tie use of refusing permission to Americans to build a road over our territory if you leave the gate open to them to acquire or buy arnilway for which we are giving @ donain? Icannet see it. think itiaa mostextraordidary thing that that con- tract should come down to us without a provision forbidding these contractors from sssigving that property wo United States com panies,

Hon. Mr. Scott—No; they will not have the opportunity of doing it.

Hon. Mr. Fergueon—If the bon. gen- tlemas leaves the door open to them, they will have an opportunity if they want it,

Hon. Mr. Scott—Thev will not have the door left open; you need not be afraid.

Hon. Mr. Ferguson—I have not such unbounded confidence in the hon. gentle~ man snd his contractors that Iwoald leave them the power to do what they choose. This is a dangerous thing, andl em not going to take the ground that we should not reserve to Canadians the trade of that coustry, by securing an all-Cenadian route into it. ~Lam inclined to believe that is what we ought todo, even though it shoud cost us a good deal, but I say it is extreme ly inconsistent for gentlemen of this government to say that they weuld sot ask the Americans for permission tu locate a railway On their territory, and refuse them to penetrate our country with rail roads, while they leave this contract with- out @ provision for preventing the passing over of this railroad, that is going to cost us 20 much, into the bands of United State s capitalists. The bonding system bas also been discussed, and it appears

! that difficulties are met with in respect of

these privileges, and perhaps.some of the

whispered arguments may refer to d‘flicul- ties over the bonding system. There is

alco another diflienity with regard to tran - shipment, that difficulty will be met with,

I think, more pointed'y at the mouth of the Stickine riverthan perhaps at any

other place, because it is a question of navigation which we would not meet at

the head of Lyun Canal. Ido not know

whether we can get over the bonding eys- tem by the Stickine river route. It is certain we will meet this difficulty at the other point at the head of Lynn Canal, and I think it is likely we shall meet it at the Stickine as well. That brings me tothe eutjest which wasreferred to by three hen, gentlemen who have spoken on the other side of the House, The Secretary of State geve aun explanation to the House, and gave us some Very interest'ng information with regard to the difficulties about this boundary. I followed him with close at- tention, and was pleased with the informa- tion which the hoa. gentlemen gave ua with regard to the line of demarcation between the United States possessions and those of Great Britain on that coast; but be made this statement; that the Ruesians were simply allowed to use that cost on s ffereance for the curing of their fish.

Hon. Mr. Scott—I am sure I did not uee the word sufferance.

Hon. Mr. Ferguson~—I may be wrong in using the word sufferanes, but the hon. gentieman eaid it was for the purpose cf curing their'fish. As I understand the history of it, the Russians held that coast by right of diecovery. There was no ques.. tion about the right of Russia to that eoast and their claim went even further south than the end of Prince of Wales Ieland, but while it was settled thatshould be the southern limit of their possessions on that coast, the British held the interior of the country through the Hudson Bay Com- pany and other British subjects pressing very near to the coast, and that accounts for the strip that wae settled by the treaty of St. Petersburgh of 1825, There was another point referred to very lightly by my hon, friend the leaderof the House and followed up by the Secretary of State and then dealt with very strongly and very fully yesterday by thefuon. gentiemas from Halifax. The ground taken was thie, that we lost at the time the treaty of Wa-h isbton wasagreed to very imporiant rights which we had there, as my bon, friend from Halifax put it, through the want of information on the part ofthe gentlemen who represented Canada at Washington in 1871. My hon. friend trom Halitax read a

provision from the treaty of St. Peteree burgh, the one negotiated in 1825, in which

very wide privileges were given to British suljects and whieh were uot reciprocal. Whether going fromthe interior to the coast or from tue ocean to the British sub. jects who bad the free use ofall the rivers tlowing through that strip of couatry for all purpose-.

Hon. Mr. Scott—As freely as the Russians had. Hon. Mr. Ferguson—They had the

right to use them freely. When my bon. friend read that treaty he appeared to bave forgotten that a very serious war broke out between Great Britain aod Kussia in the fifties, the Crimean war, aud surely hon. gentlemen know that whenever a siate of war @xiste beiween two countries all exiats ing treaties are abrogated.

Hou, Mr. Mills—No.

Hon. M. Fergason—My hon. friend the leader of the House svakes hie head, If my hou, friend will take the trouble of looking at the treaty of 1859 be will find that that position is acknowledged from the fact that the provision in the treaty of 1825 is revived and [think the diplomats who negotiated the treaty of 1859 tor Great Britain and Russia wouid not have gone to the trouble of renewing it as they did in order to get back inthe old position as far as it was possible, if these treaties had not been abrugoted by the war.

Hon. Mr. Milis— My hon. friend, if he will allow me, will find this to bethe case, that while treaties are abrogated by war, treat‘es settliag international righte,treatie of boundaries, treaties of cession of terri- tory, treaties giving absolute right of pavigation—the rights to defined are not affecied by war, are not so even affected by the abrogation of the treaty. :

Hon. Mr. Ferguson—That is my hon. friend’s view.

Hoo. Mr. Mille—That law.

Hon. Mr. Ferguson—I am not a lawyer, but lawyers themselves will have to settle such questions as this by reference to pre- cedent. Itis pot a matteroflaw merely itis a matier of precedent and constitu - tional Jaw ; and before | leave the question I will eay thatiny hon. friend may read a little more upon this question, and he may perbups be satisfied before he has done with it that the rule of law is not at all so firm as he puts it beforethis House. I know my hon. friend is an authority on these questions, but we know that the best ot dociors will err,and patients will die; aed this is a subject upou which my hon. friend may, before he is through, fod that he is not altogether on so solid ground as be thinks he is, In 1859 it would seem to be settled, at all evenis by the diplomats who represented Great Britain and Rassia, that the treaty of 1825 did cease with a siate of war, tor if not, what was the me- cessity of their getting together and so~ lemaly re-enacting this provision st that tine ?

Hon Mr. Milis—It is not.

Hon. Mr. Ferguson—My hon. friend says it is net; and his opiuion is entitled to more weight than mine, but I will undertake to say tliat his opinion .# not of greater weight than that of the diplomats who settled this matier in 1859, and the fact that they found it necessary to revive the provision of that old treaty by solemn treaty again at St. Petersburg, shows tbat they heiu to my Contention, that the state of war between twe couatries did abrogate that treaty. Now, Ihave theclause in the treaty of Washington here, and my hon. fii-nd from Halifax said that Sir Jotn Macdouald, we British commissioner, did not know of the existence of these pro- visions in the two treaties of St. Peters- burg in 1825 and 1859. Sf they will turn to protocol 26 of the negotiations whic took place im 1871 they will fiad these words :

The British commissioners replied— (that ie when the demand was put up for the navigation of the St. Lawrence)—thec they would not admit the claims of American citizens 9 pavigace the River St. Lawrenec as of right, but that the British Government hed 0 desire to exclude them from it. They however, pointed out that there were certain rivers ruonivg through Alaska which should on like grounds bedeclared free and open to British subjects, in case the River St. Lawrence snould be dec ared free.”

And we find that @ provision was placed in the treaty ef Washivgtou whicn the Americans insisted shouid be reciprocal, giving them rights to use these rivers when they prneirated British territory in return for (be rights we got when the rivers penetrated the territory of the United States. But there is another ground. Hon. gentlemen contend that we have lost the free use of these rivers. Hon, gentie- men say; having this right restored by the treaty af 1859, how was it then that we did hot have it continued? Why was it receded from ? The answer ia that the ees- sion of this country to the United Stetes terminajed these treaties. With regard to that I know my hon. friend will not agree with me ; he will tell tell me what the rule of law is. I will tell him what precedent ie, and I will tell him what occurred in Other circumstances like these. I will point ontto him what occurred in the cace of the Island of Madagascar; Lord Salisbury made atspeech only a few days ago in which he admitted that Frauce bad got the better of Great Britain as regards Madagascar. He said : ™

“The French armies had invaded the island with the avowed intention of maine taining the protectorave. If they bad adhered to their intention the Britis trea- ties with the Queen of Madagascar would have been safe, but when the French were masters Of the situation ther suidenly changed the protectarte to annexation, and with the laiter the British treaties fel].”

Here was Lord Salisbury’s opinion; I &m not going to setup my own opinion against my hon, friend the leader of the house, but I will, with all confidence, set up Lord Salisbury’s jadgment against his as an Opinion at least equally worthy of weight. Then in the treaty of 1763 of England with France and Spain, England bad the right of navigation of the Mississ- ippi River, when the territory passed to

ia the rule ef

the United States, England lost that right

and that right has never been claimed since’ Why did England lose it? If it was a __ territories! right, England would have demarded it; but with the cession of Louisava the British rights of navigation of the Miee- issippi River passed away. In 1863 the Jonian Islends were annexed (to Greece. England had treaties with these islands for the freedom of ports of commerce, and after the ces-ion it became necessary to make new treaties with Greece for the contirustion of these free porta. Here we have illustrations and I think I have some in my notes that would equally prove the view that I take. If, however, the contention of the leeder of the House is correct, the treaty of Washington could not abrogate or cur- tail our rights under the treaty of St. Pet~ ersburg, and we have atill the free use of the Stikine river forall purposes. Ths is important, and more particularly since the hon. member from Halifax thought it necessary to dwell oa it at considerable length, and went so far asto say that tie distinguished geutleman who negotiated on the part of Canada the treaty of Washington had displayed ignorance However hon. gentlemen way have differ- ed from him during his life, on political questions, I fel] assured there is nota gontieman in this House or the country or aoywhere else, who will doubt the great ability and the great information possessed by Sir John Macdonvald—and when I heard my hon. friend from Haiifax impute ignorance to Sir John Macdonald, I really would bave given my hon. friend credit for a great deal ketter judpement. However, I am giad I have these factsin my hands, which I think are sufficient to show that Sir Johw Macdonald made no mietake whatever in 1871. I will now refer to the difficulties of navigation of the Stickine River and the bonding difficulty, and the difficulty about the location of the railroads. I wi ] take this position, that { think this House and probably the country would risk a good deal and would be willing to expend a good deal of money to give a good all. Canadian routeto thateountry. I am afraid that this contract and this plan that we have before the House is not going to eftect that ebject; it cannot effect inasmuch as unless there isa provision that ths road caunot be assignad or conveyed to foreigner®, we are not assured that it will be a really all-Canadian route. But even with that there are difficulties in the way of navigation of this Stikine Kiver, there sere difficulties about transhipment, there are difficulties that have been alluded to with regard tothe bonding privileges, there are difficulties even in the summer time and still greater in the winter which will render it difficult to use that river; owing to the rapidity of the current and ice would be suffisiently strong in some parts for winter travelling, probably it may, but there are doubts on that score about the Little Canon and other parts of the river, and then I think we would bave to use American territory in getting up in the winter season, There are all these difficulties in the way, difficulties international and physical, in connection with the Stickine rcout-. But I am williag to admit this that the railway itis proposed to buld from Telegraph Creek to the head of Tes lin Lake is apparently in line with what would form «# good trunk line, would form a erection of a good trunk railway from the navigable waters of Britieh Columbia to Daweon, eay from Portland Canal, and on that account I have some feeling for a railway between those two points. But I say the eontract we have before us with regard to this line, provides that this shal] oniy be atramway, a three feetjor three feet six gauge— we do not know which it

is to be~and it cannot properly furnish even a link in a trunk railway leading from Portland

Canal or Port Simp-on, or whatever point

may be selected in Canadian territory, right up to the Yukon country. Then, egain, the

eaormous consideration we are giving for bailding the link—not a link, because it

will pot be of such a chacacter as to form

part of atrunk line—that the consideration

we are asked to give away is so great that

it would toa great extent, tie our hands in

the future with regard to obtaining a through line all the way and

paying for it. Now,I bave a statement here of the cCmparative distar ces.

They are approximate—I sub-

yo-e as nearly correct as we can get—and

the eatimate is that from Victoria to Daw~ son by the Stickine River route is 1,638 miles. Of that 750 miles will be ecean, 178 miles rail; the contract provides for 150, but, I think, it is pretty clear from Mr. Jenning’s report that the railway will b2 at least 178 miles long—and inland navagation on the Sticking River and over Teraln Lake, and the other rivers ad streams that coonect between Teslin Lake and Dawson, about 710 miles; and the estimate is for an electric railway —I do not know whether it is the intention of the Government to build an electric railway, but that is the only information we have of anything of an official charac. ter—the estimate is $2,850,000. Wehave also figures that we gather from Mr. Ogil- vie’s report that via the Lynn Canal and the Ghilcat Pass the distance ia 1,585 miles from Victoria to Dawson; 1,060 miles of that would be ocean (250 miles more ocean thaa viathe Stickine), by rail it would be 245 miles by Mr. Jennings’ report from the bead of Lynn Canal to Fort Sel. kirk, and the inland navigation 340 miles, and tse cost, according to Mr. Jen- nings’s estimate of, the railway portion, weuld he $5,636,800. There is stil] another route, via the White Pass, for which there i a charter as far as this parliament of Canada, ia able to give it, to the British Yukon Canadian Company, and for that route the distance would be 1,000 miles by ocean, and 123 miles by rail, ard by inland navagation about 606 miles; altogether 1,723 miles, and at a cost for the railway according to Mr. Jenning’s report, of $3,- 235,000. These are the three propositions that seemed to stand out boldest for reach~ ing the Klondike.

(To be Continued.)

me Mm om

A special type of “ Fit-Reform” suit, cut loose and straight, with skil- fully moulded collar, which rolls high in front, but low and full, with ample cloth at back, giving more erect appearance, and greater prominence of chest.

Best business suit, for such a form is a three button Sack like this—for dress, Tuxedo.

Close fitting body coats as ‘Morning’, ‘Shooting’ or ‘Prince Alberts’ accent the rounded curve of back.

A man may know just how his suit will look on him before he buys, if he selects the right shape of ready-to- wear “Fit-Reform” garments. 2

Makers’ brand and limited , A)\VRe® price in left breast pocket. ARE wg oo Fit ‘ SAS SS

se Ss he c me $10, $12, $15, $18 So REFORM , , , , Pe a5 $20 per Suit. it LOTHIN G 4 e xe S 4 Catalogue from Fit-Reform Clothing Co.y Montreal.

reas SOLE LOCAL AGENCY PRO

1” . 5 °F

a

US TN 1s

BABRAISE FIG Laie

&: Ss

Corsets

eT. J. HARRIS

SLE PEALE PEGE PPLWS FEBS

|

WSE BROTHERS. LESLIE GOFGGEOGERGS FRIAG

Opening o-Day

A good range of prices and qualities.

ee em mr

ELK OL LAC LAL ESI EEK LE eres

i

terms.

NOTES

from any of our Rianos. refines the children, it draws friends togethe: for wutual enjoyment. In fast—What is home without a Heintzman Piano?

nd have you thought that you might just as well have the advantaze ® wearing the best quality for the least money!

: . ‘ . . : "7 a liues we're clearing out at reduced priv es, to make room for spring g00cs.

~-

F ADM

Notes that are admired oy all Musicial Critics ore eaisty produced Musicis a nagnet in the home. It edueates, and

Can't Afford it? Nonsense ?

- + You can have the very best Piano in America, on the easiest possible Cali and see us about it. We are in

The Connolly Building, Queen Street

b R OS.,

Music Howse.

Se oe

Tut Prince Epwarp ISLAND

Weed Shoes?

If so have a look over th®

W. H. Stewart & 60