New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-07-09
4 KNIGHTS DEFENSE.
no worse.

II is only fair that the explanation of Sir
Hugh Allan's Canadian Railway transactions
should be given by the same journals that
have published the other side of the story.
In The Gazette, Ministerial organ published
in Montreal, appears statement prefaced as
follows: 81, Sir Hugh Allan, of Ravenscraig,
in the Province of Quebec, Knight, being
"duly sworn, depose and say" What Sir
Hugh proceeds to say is chiefly addressed to
a defense of his conduct in procuring the
contract for building the Canadian Pacific
Railway. He introduces the subject by de-
clarng that he learned that certain American
capitalists had proposed to the Government
to construct tho road; that he thought it
unlikely that Canadian capitalists could be
induced to subscribe literally to the stock;
that he procured from Sir Francis Hincks,
Minister of Finance, the names of the persons
who had been in communication with the
Government on the subject, and that he then
opened correspondence with them to ascertain
their intentions. All through the affidavit of
Sir Hugh there is constant reiteration of the
fact that public opinion in Canada was de-
cidedly against the interference of Americans
in any Canadian railway schemes. American
influence, in fact, seems to have been the
horrid specter which continually disturbed the
minds of certain Canadian officials. Sir Hugh
again and again returns to the subject, as
though this were the only matter under de-
bate. He insists that the bill incorpOrat-
ing the Canadian Pacific Railway Company
was so framed as to exclude foreigners from
the corporation; yet, he did not think the
Government would be tenacious upon that
point. His repeated assertion that he was
acting entirely in harmony with the spirit and
purpose of Canadian legislation upon this
branch of the subject seems designed to befog
the whole issue. We must make some allow
ance of course, TO the local prejudices which
appear 10 exist concerning American railroad
operators in Canada; but it is difficult to see
why this part of the business is made so con-
spicuous figure 10 Sir Hugh Adams defense.
Even this, however, does not avail much, as
he swears thus:
THAT, accordingly. after n certain amount Of negota
ton entered into agreement with Mr. Smith OF
Chicago, and Mc. McMullen. who understood 10
represent certain number OF American capitalists In
which reserved for Canadians much stock rs
Thoughts could procure to be subscribed in Canada the
remainder to be taken up by the Americans interested
and their friends"
After all his protestations, then, Sir Hugh
Allan was negotiating with American capital
lists to take part in the enterprise. This may
not, to us, seem much of an offense; but it
does 10 the Canadians, who charged it upon
the Ministry. The double dealing used by
Allan in the affair is shown in his caution to
his American associates. He said to them
"The shares taken by you and our Other
American friends will have to stand in my
name for some time"
But people will naturally ask what reply
Sir Hugh has to make to the black evidence
of his own correspondence Here it is:
desire 20 state with regard TO these letters that
they were written In the confidence OF private inter
course, in the midst OF many matters engrossnE nv
attention, and probably with less and circumspec
tion than might have been bestowed upon them had
they been intended for publication. At the same time.
while In respects those letters not strictly
accurate, conceive that the circumstances 10 great
extent justified or excused the language used themD
This is delicious and il is actually all the ex-
PLANTATION of the damaging letters in which the
knight recounts his exploits in influencing the
elections, buying his way to the contract, and
gaming tho favorable consideration of high
oliceIs Of the Goyernueut, Ths Ministerial |