_Intended Route for a Pacific Railway in 1863_.
The result of mature consideration, reasoning carefully upon all the
facts I had collected, was, that, at that time, 1863, the best route
for a Railway to the Pacific was, to commence at Halifax, to strike
across to the Grand Trunk Railway at Riviere du Loup, 106 miles east of
Quebec, then to follow the Grand Trunk system to Sarnia; to extend that
system to Chicago; to use, under a treaty of neutralization, the United
States lines from Chicago to St. Paul; to build a line from St. Paul to
Fort Garry (Winnipeg) by English and American capital, and then to
extend the line to the Tete Jaune Pass, there to meet a Railway through
British Columbia starting from the Pacific. A large part of this route
has been completed. For instance, an "Intercolonial" Railway--
constructed so as to serve many local, but no grand through, purposes;
constructed to satisfy local interests, or, probably, local political
needs--has been built. The Grand Trunk extension from Detroit to
Chicago, an excellent Railway, has been completed, thanks to the
indomitable efforts of Mr. Hickson, the Managing Director of the Grand
Trunk. A line from St. Paul to Winnipeg has also been opened; but the
route of the line from Winnipeg to the Pacific has been deviated from,
and, to save distance, the Kicking Horse and Beaver River Passes have
been chosen. I think needless cost has been incurred, and that future
maintenance will be greater than it need have been.
The British Columbian Railway has been constructed from Fort Moody to
Kamloops, and is now part of the Canadian Pacific.
It seemed to me, at that time, that the route of the Ottawa Valley,
Lake Nipissing, and round by the head of Lake Superior, was a great
project of the future; and that to accomplish so great a work, in such
a country, the policy was to utilize existing outlays of capital,
filling in vacant spaces rather than duplicating what we had got.
It seemed to me, also, that the use of existing railways in the United
States was not only economical, but politic: and I knew that, at that
time, the Government of the North would have made every reasonable
advance to meet England in affairs of mutual interest. There was every
desire, at that juncture, to work cordially with our Queen and her
people. For example, the passing of the Slave Trade Bill, modelled on
English legislation, in, I think, 1863, through both Houses of Congress
at Washington, with hardly a hostile expression. _Apropos_ of this
Bill, Mr. Charles Sumner told me, in 1865, at his house at Boston, the
following story. "The Bill for putting down the slave trade in
association with England and the other anti-slave trade countries
passed so quickly as to astonish its friends. Charles Sumner, on the
final question being put, 'that the Bill do pass'--as we should put it
at home--immediately ran across to Mr. Seward, opened the door of Mr.
Seward's private office, without knocking, and found Mr. Seward asleep.
He awoke him by calling out, 'Seward, Seward, the Bill is passed: the
Bill is passed.' Seward gradually opened his eyes, stared under his
bushy eyebrows, and said, 'Then what in ---- has become of the "great
democratic party?"'"
Again, it was the fault of our own Government at home that the
Reciprocity Treaty, nearly expiring, was not renewed. Our Government
did nothing. It was the "masterly inactivity" of Lord Granville, and
other Whigs, which has done so much harm to the prestige and power of
our Empire. Opportunities are everything--they are the statesman's
chances. In this case the chance was lost. However, I had every reason
to believe that Mr. Seward would have been willing to agree to the use
of United States lines up to St. Paul (which he once predicted would
become the centre, or "hub," of the United States) and through
Minnesota to the boundary of the Hudson's Bay territory,--under a
treaty of international neutralization. There were, it is true,
difficulties at home. The authorities, at home, did not know what was
to be the end of the Civil War. They did not know the country to be
passed through. They doubted if there was any precedent. I quoted the
treaty, of years before, between England, the United States, and other
countries, for the neutralization of a railway, if made, across
Honduras, and other analogous cases. But I failed to bring about any
official action at that time. I think, in looking back for twenty-three
years, I have nothing to modify as respects this. Had my proposals been
carried out millions sterling would have been saved; throughout railway
communication to the Pacific might have been secured fifteen years
sooner; and a friendly agreement with the United States for a great
common object would, no doubt, have led to many more equally friendly
agreements.
As respects neutralization, I, unconsciously, put a spoke into my own
wheel, and I was not aware of it until I had a conversation with Mr.
Bright a good while afterwards. Had I known of the grievance at the
time I would have gone right off to Washington and explained all about
it. The facts were these:--
I was at Quebec in July, 1863. At that time, and previously, and after,
there was a tall, long-legged, short-bodied, sallow-faced, sunken-eyed
man, whose name, if he had reported it correctly, was Ogden. He was
called "consul" for the United States at Quebec. He reported, I was
told, direct to Mr. Seward at Washington. He was, in fact, the sort of
diplomatist whose duties, as he apprehended them, were those of a spy.
He was a person disagreeable to look at, as in his odd-coloured
trousers, short waistcoat, and dark green dress-coat, with brass
buttons, he went elbowing about amongst the ladies and gentlemen
promenading the public walk, which commands so beautiful a view over
the St. Lawrence, called the "Platform." Phrenology would have
condemned him. Phrenology and Physiognomy combined, would have hung
him, on the certain verdict of any intelligent jury.
One day, as I was preparing to go West, a deputation from the
"Stadacona" Club of Quebec, of which I was a member, asked me to take
the chair at a private dinner proposed to be given at the club to Mr.
Vallandigham, the democratic leader of Ohio, who had come across
country from Halifax, on his way homeward--through, free, Canada--after
his seizure in bed, in Ohio, and deportation across the Northern
frontier into the land of secession. It appeared that Mr. Vallandigham,
not being a secessionist, merely desiring an honourable peace between
North and South, which he had ably advocated, had gone on to Nassau,
thence to Halifax, thence to Quebec: where he was.
I at first declined the honour. But I was much pressed. I was told that
leading citizens of Quebec and members of the late Canadian Government
would attend. That the dinner was merely hospitality to a refugee
landed upon our shores in distress; and that my presidency would take
away any suspicion that there was the slightest _arriere-pensee_
in the matter. I concurred. The dinner took place. Not a word was said
of the great pending contest, unless some words of Mr. Vallandigham,
apologizing for the poverty of his dress, might be so construed. He
said: "Mr. Chairman, I must apologize for my costume. I can only
explain that I am standing in the clothes I was allowed to put on,
after being taken out of my own bed, in my own house, without warning
and without warrant, and I have not had the means to re-clothe myself."
The dinner was certainly about as non-political and as innocent as any
such assembly could be. Mr. Vallandigham left for Niagara the same
night. I saw him into the train. He declined a friendly loan; but he
accepted a free passage to Niagara, where, later on, I spent two or
three pleasant and interesting days in his society; our little party
being Governor Dallas, of the Hudson's Bay Company, D'Arcy McGee, Dr.
Mackay, who had acted as correspondent of the "Times," Professor Hind,
my son, Mr. Watkin, and myself. The "consul" had, no doubt,
misrepresented our proceedings.
Now this is the whole story. I never after this got any answers to
letters to Mr. Seward; and, as stated above, I never knew of the
grievance till spoken to by Mr. Bright, who had received a letter of
complaint of me from somebody at Washington.