Sir F. Rogers
I should say that this Colony was drifting into financial troubles
which the Governor has no power whatever of averting.
The "ways and means" provided by the Assembly for the expenditure of
1865 fell short by a sum of upwards of 70,000 dollars.
Fortunately the Governor will keep the Crown Revenue of /65 distinct
from General Revenue.
The Assembly repudiates the repayment to the English Board of Trade a
moiety of the sum of £6246.19.10 which was advanced for the building
of 2 Light Houses on condition of repayment. (
B.C. was liable for a
similar moiety & G. Britain has
given £6246.19.10 to the service.) I observe that
Dr Helmcken
(Speaker of the Ass
y—& Son in Law to
Sir James Douglas)
wd ride
off from the bargain by saying that when the matter was under
discussion in the House it was decided that this debt
shd be
liquidated out of the Crown Land Fund. But this excuse can hardly be
admitted. The proposal was never submitted to the S. State, and
could not have been agreed to. In the mean while what are we to say
to the B
d of Trade, whom we are bound to see repaid their advance?
It is impossible to charge the debt to the Crown Revenue & never was
so intended. It seems to me a case of repudiation on the part of the
Colony & must make us cautious in future. It
shd be observed that
B. Columbia has not yet paid her share. But she has not appealed
against the claim. Again last year the Colony being in great
straits, & no money in the Colonial Treasury the Governor consented,
on an indemnity being given him (see 8114) to pay certain public
Officers their Salaries out of Crown Revenue.
Mr Cardwell, under
the pressing circs of the case, as represented to him, sanctioned
this step (see desp.
16th S/64).
The Assembly decline repayment. Second instance of repudiation.
Further they refuse to grant a Salary to the Surveyor General, & give
a "temporary & provisional" salary of £300 a year to the Office of
Attorney General. It is impossible to make appointments of good men
from home to these Offices on such terms.
All this is a matter for serious consideration but as the Governor
says in the last par: of his despatch that he will resume the subject
on some early occasion I imagine that his further report must be
waited for.
In
Jany/59 Governor Douglas called the attention of the S. State to
the urgent necessity for the early erection of Light Houses upon some
of the Approaches to the Harbours & Anchorages of
V.C. Isl. and
B.
Columbia. He mentioned that the
Govt of the U. States had already
established Lights in certain other places convenient for our trade
as well as theirs.
Govr Douglas added
I am not aware of any funds that may be appropriated for these
objects, nor do I know to what
Dt of
Govt I
shd properly apply
for assistance. The infant state of the 2 Colonies precludes the
possibility of their being able to help themselves, & the matter
being one wh. it is manifest must materially affect their future
development I trust you will pardon me in bringing it before you &tc &.
To Bd Trade 31 March 59
The S. of State, considering that we ought surely to follow the
example of the U. States, & knowing that the want of Lights had been
complained of by the Adm
y endeavoured to persuade the B
d of Trade
to include the expense of the required Light houses within the class
of "Imperial Lights" in their application to Parl
t.
T-y Lr 4 May/59
The Treasury declined putting the charge on the General (Parl
y)
Estimate for Lighthouses abroad: but they agreed to charge the
B.
Columbia Estimate (we had none for
V.C. Island) with the sum of
£7000-the amount at that time supposed to be the cost of the
work—"with the understanding that one half of that sum would be
hereafter repaid from Colonial funds."
(I see the T-y subsequently changed their minds & did put this item
on the "Lighthouses abroad" Estimate. 4 Aug/59.) The cost ultimately
reached £12493.19.9 (B Trade 24 Dec/63).
S. State to Govr 11 May/59
The
Govr was apprized on the
11 May that the
Govt would send out
all that was requisite for setting up the Light Houses (saving of
course materials on the spot) that the Treasury had "consented to
advance the £7000 on condition that one moiety of it
shd be repaid
by the Colonies of
V.C.I. &
B.C. jointly." It was also added
With regard to the repayment by
B.C. &
V.C.I. to the Imp. T-y of the
moiety of the advance of £7000 I must leave it to you to decide the
proportion of that sum wh
h it
wd be equitable that each Colony
shd contribute, but I must instruct you that this debt
shd be
repaid within the earliest practicable period.
1
23 July Govr D.
On the
23 July/59 the
Govr ack
d the S.S.
desph of the
11 May
preceeding & said
I feel highly gratified by the intelligence conveyed in y
r desph of
the intention of H.M.G. to advance the sum of £7000 for the
construction of these important works, on the condition that one
moiety of it shall be repaid by the Colonies of
V.C.I. and
B.C.
jointly, & measures will be taken accordingly for that purpose.
1
24 Decr. 63 B. Trade
S.S. to Govr 2 Jany/64
As soon as we were informed by the B
d of Trade that the total cost
of the Houses was upwards of £12000 the S. State informed the
Govr
of the fact, &, adverting to the conditions on which the Imp
l Govt
consented to advance money for the work, requested the Governor to
cause the sum of £6246.19.10 to be repaid in the proper proportions
by the two Colonies.
1
S.S. 66.
15 Aug 61
In ans
r to a
desph from this Office saying that the Treasury
wd
pay a bill drawn by the Governor on acc
t of the Lighthouses he wrote
thus:
I feel very grateful to H.M.G for the essential aid afforded by the
advance of the funds required for the erection of these L. Houses;
for otherwise the work c
d not have been undertaken & successfully
carried through. I will take the earliest fitting opp
y of bringing
to the notice of the Legislature the necessity of providing for the
repayment of the proportion of the advance due from the Colony, but
y
r G. is aware our revenue is very scanty, & our wants numerous &
urgent, & I doubt not H.M.G. will afford a reasonable [time] to meet
our obligations.
1
9074/
65
The result is declared in the despatch before you.
Refusal to reimburse the Crown Revenue the sum of 34,066
dollars advanced to the public service.
——————————
You are disposed to doubt whether the claim wh. the Govr has
advanced to be reimbursed 34,066 dollars has any thing to do with the
pledge of the Assembly of 2 July/64.
I have nothing to produce in explanation of this point besides the
Governors own Letter to the Assembly of the 30 March last (in 9074)
in which he speaks of that sum as the Estimated balance of Crown
Revenue wh. ought to have been in the hands of the Treasurer on the
31 Decr/64 & wh: has been disbursed, in the absence of other
funds, for local purposes, including all Salaries paid for 1864. He
goes on to speak of this sum as being that wh. the Assembly had
undertaken to replace out of ordinary revenue by their resolution of
2 July 1864.
The inference I draw is that the resolution of 2 July promises to
repay the 34,066 dollars. But I may be mistaken.
Previous papers referred to in desp.
There seem to be three questions. 1. Reduction or refusal of
Salaries
wh the Leg
e wish to throw on the Crown Rev
e.
2. Refusal
to pay share of expenses of Lighthouse. 3. Refusal
to indemnify the
Govr for paying certain salaries out of Crown Rev
e he not being
auth
d to do so by the
Secy of State.
1. On the first point I imagine that in the present state of affairs
the Crown Revenue is simply unequal to bear the proposed burdens.
But I think that part of the Surveyor Generals Salary is a fair
charge on Land Revenue.
As
to the second and third points, vide
Mr Blackwood's separate
minute, the completeness of
wh I take for granted.
2. Lighthouses.
It
wd seem that this department promised the Treas
y that half the
expense of the Lighthouse
shd be born by
B.C. &
V.C.I. The dep
t
was competent to pledge the
B.C. Revenue and the Crown Revenue of
V.C.I. But it was not competent to pledge the
General Revenue of
V.C.I. and the Leg
re of
V.C.I. may, as far
as I see, in strict right, refuse to be bound by the implied pledge
of
Govr Douglas (in the desp of
wh copy is annexed).
If we cannot, now or at some future period, pay it out of the Crown
Rev
e, I do not see how we can enforce our claim ag
st an unwilling
Leg
e either in fact or in argument.
3. On the
2nd of July 1864 (Res: 2) the Assembly pledged itself "to
indemnify H.E. the
Govr in case he shall take the responsibility of
paying the s[ai]d
salaries" (1/2 years salaries to C. Justice
Atty Genl Col Treas
Surveyor General) "out of the Crown Revenues while awaiting further
instructions from HMs
Govt." It is not clear that he has received
any instructions.
[but qu?] No 30 of 16 Sept 1862.
Those instructions
shd now I suppose be given & in that case the
Ass
ly will stand pledged to pay the salaries of the above officers
for the
half year endg July 1864 if not also for the
1/2 year
endg January 1865.
But I can not see that the Assly has any where pledged itself to the
whole outlay from Crown Funds for General purposes—stated at $34,066.
It may be right that they shd pay it but I see no evidence that they
have
acknd that right.
The ultimate point to be aimed at is I suppose the transfer of all
V.C.I. matters to the
V.C.I. Govt & Legislature—the Legislature
obtaining control over the Crown Fund and satisfying all the demands
of the Imp
l Govt.
This we can only accomplish by making the Crown Fund available to
relieve our own difficulties & so managing it as to shew that it is
worth while for the Colony to take it on our terms.
The expenditure to which it
shd be in this view exclusively
devoted,
seem to me as follows:
1. Colonial Payments to
wh the faith of the Home
Govt is
pledged—viz—as I understand the salaries of the
Govr & Col.
Secretary.
2. Its own maintenance & increase—in which will be included
the salaries of the Surveyor Gen. & his staff so far as his duties
have this object. If he receives no payment from the
Genl Rev
e,
it
wd be competent to him to refuse to lay out roads &c (except for
the purpose of increasing the C
n Rev
e) or plan further building.
Under this head
wd also be included (if necessary) explorations.
3. Discharge of liabilities to the Home
Govt—such as the
light house debt.
4. Conduct & conclusion of matters
wh the Home
Govt has
practically treated—such as the negotiations
with the H.B.C.—e.g. I
wd not object to pay Lowenberg for his Lot Z out of Crown Funds
if they sufficed for
the purpose.
On the whole therefore I
shd be inclined to say to the
Govr that
you regretted the refusal of the Assembly to pay for the Lighthouses
and to replace the expenditures from the Crown Fund of $34,066
(giving reasons)—that
Govr Kennedy wd of course under these
cir
s not be at liberty to make further advances for Crown Funds
except for purposes
specially sanct
d by you—that he
wd continue to pay the
Salaries of the
Govr & Secretary—that he
wd also be at liberty to
pay part of the Surveyor Gen
l's Salary—viz—so much
as was a
fitting remuneration for Services rendered to the Crown Revenue—that
the officer c
d under these circumstances not be under an obligation
to perform that part of his duties
wh are properly paid for from the
Genl Revenue.
That you do not doubt that the Lege will repay those advances on
acct of salaries wh it pledged itself to repay by the Resolution of
2 July 1864 if required by the Home Govt.
That the Crown Revenue subject to the above payments & to such others
as may be necessary for its own administration maintenance &
increase, need be carefully husbanded to meet liabilities like that
respect
g Lighthouses in
wh the interest or Credit of
the Crown is concerned & which the Legislature refuse to adopt.
I minute this with a little hesitation however from want of
familiarity with the correspondence on these matters.