January 26, 1960


Marcel Boivin


Mr. Boivin:

Mr. Speaker, it seems that in the Conservative party there is a tendency to forget, and in order that he may not forget it, I should like to recall to the Minister of Transport what he said on April 20, 1955. This will serve as a comment both as regards the last budget and as regards the recent speech from the throne. As a matter of fact, as recorded on page 3007 of Hansard of April 20, 1955, the minister said:

Mr. Speaker, in examining the budget I think we must look first to see what is in it and, second, find out, if we can, why this particular budget was presented. First of all I am going to examine the budget and then a little later I shall describe why I think it was presented.

In examining the budget, may I say that I think it has failed in the main purpose of a budget brought down in a period like this, which should be to provide the stimulus necessary to restore the pace of industrial production, trade and employment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal

with another matter, that is taxation, as I suppose the budget of this session is about to be prepared. In that connection, I should like to recall to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) what he said at Brantford, on February 17, 1958, and which I find in the Daily Star of Toronto of the following day, February 18. I quote:


Prime Minister Diefenbaker last night dropped a clear hint that the taxes on cigarettes, cigars and tobacco soon may be cut. He told an audience of 1,400 that no industry in Canada suffers a greater degree of taxation than the tobacco industry.


I should like also to add that the Prime Minister had undoubtedly the support of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), and I am sure that the latter has not changed his mind since 1946. Let us see what the Minister of Finance was thinking at that time, as recorded on page 3413 of Hansard of July 12, 1946. I quote:

I am not a smoker: therefore I can make my next observation I trust, with complete dispassionate objectivity. Consider cigarette papers. 1 suppose they are used chiefly by people who cannot afford to buy packages of cigarettes. A man or a woman pays thirteen cents for a package of 100 cigarette papers of which eight cents represents tax, eight out of thirteen cents. Then there is a tax on cigarettes in packages. The tax is two cents on every five cigarettes, and that affects every smoker throughout the length and breadth of the land. I suggest that if the Minister of Finance is looking about for opportunities to grant some tax relief he had better think about the rank and file of people from coast to coast.

If the minister was sincere in 1946, I doubt very much that he has remained so since he has been sitting on the government side, because following the last budget, that is on April 9, 1959, he imposed a new tax of i cent on cigarettes.

Mr. Speaker, it must be admitted once again that within the Conservative party a change of place involves a change of face.


Mr. Graff ley:@

For the fourth time.


Marcel Boivin


Mr. Boivin:

The Conservative party seems to have high esteem for Mr. Harry R. Jackman of Toronto-I had the honour of meeting him-since he was appointed vice chairman of the Canadian Atlantic Committee; he was thus given the opportunity to take several trips. This goes to prove that his judgment is relied upon. I should like to recall that Mr. Jackman made some remarks on the speech from the throne in 1949 when he sat in the house as Conservative member. As a matter of fact, the member then said, as reported in Hansard of March 8, 1949, page 1251:

If some of our cabinet ministers would become better acquainted with the life of our people they would find what deprivations have to be made in

The Address-Mr. Boivin order that people may meet their bills and, at the same time pay their taxes.

I hope that the ministers will stop playing politics and will follow this wise advice.

It seems strange to me, Mr. Speaker-I come to another matter-that we still run across people who say there is no difference between political parties. Personally, I think there is a very great one. The Liberal party is the party of prosperity, of surpluses and of debt reductions, and therefore, the party of the reduction of the burden of the taxpayer, while the Conservative party is the party of deficits, of increased debt, of higher interest rates and, therefore, of heavier burden on the taxpayer. To be more explicit, may I quote the former minister of fisheries, (Mr. James Sinclair) who said: "Tory times are hard times".

We remember-how could we ever forget it

the disastrous government of that great capitalist, Lord Bennett. Before leaving Canada, he said: "I am now going home". We remember also that he had reduced the salaries of all civil servants and members of the armed forces. Today, this persecution of the civil servants continues. Not only are they denied any increase in salary-while salaries continue to rise in industry-but may I add that they want to continue the persecution by having an inquiry made about all those employees, as this was done quite uselessly under Sir Robert Borden, another Conservative prime minister.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, does the present Prime Minister believe, like his Conservative predecessors, that he can make up for his errors of judgment by imposing their burden, as well as the burden of the deficits, on the poor civil servants who already receive starvation wages? In earlier days, those wages seemed reasonable, but because of the present inflation and the increase of the cost of living, they should be increased by at least 10 per cent. May I add that we could thus keep our civil servants who, in many cases if there were jobs available elsewhere, would take them.

I have met with a group of civil servants, Mr. Speaker, and one of them had this to say: "This government has decided that the civil servants are to be made the goats."

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with a matter of no less importance, that of textiles.

The Prime Minister himself has referred to the matter and has realized the precarious situation in which this industry finds itself now. May I quote certain remarks made in

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie Guelph on May 13, 1957, as reported in the Hamilton Spectator of May 14. I quote:


He struck also at the dumping of foreign goods in Canada, indicating it was time to set up protection for the many manufacturing companies which were being forced to the wall.


Mr. Speaker, I already discussed that matter at length in this house. Unfortunately, Canada has always imported large quantities of textiles. Why? Because the countries that export those textiles pay their workers lower wages than are paid in Canada and are therefore in a position to sell their products at competitive prices with Canadian products. We must also consider that other countries benefit from particularly low duties on the products they export to Canada.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) has patronized that industry ever since he was elected to parliament. He even put on the order paper a resolution which does not stand a chance of coming before this house during this session and I feel that the government should assume their responsibilities and fulfil at least one of the many promises made by the Prime Minister, before the textile industry disappears altogether from this continent.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the end of the period allotted to me and I should like to draw the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that there is in this country another industry on the verge of closing down as a result of a competition similar to that in the textile industry, and I mean the rubber boot industry. I hope that the government will take steps to correct that situation. In conclusion, I should like to point out to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) that if he claims that agriculture is prosperous in Canada, he should come in the eastern provinces to meet our farmers. Most of them find themselves in a quite alarming situation for several reasons. When he realizes the situation, I am sure he will introduce measures to assist those who supply us with essentials, with our daily bread.

We from the east are for assisting farmers throughout the country. We gave proof of this only recently. To conclude, I must say that the only solution is that the Minister of Agriculture take action.



Heath Nelson Macquarrie

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):

Mr. Speaker, I regard as a privilege the opportunity to participate in this debate. The throne speech debate is often referred to by the press as a dull, drab affair. I find it quite the contrary; indeed, I think it very interesting and informative to hear members from all parts of the country presenting their views on a great range of subjects. I think

it underlines very well the representative aspect of our responsible, representative, democratic form of parliamentary government.

I find myself in a new location in this house. The hon. member who just concluded his remarks spoke about changing places and changing faces. It is quite a feat to move from one side of the house to the other, but I have accomplished a move from one end to the other. It is quite a drastic move, but I assure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) that I am under no illusion about this, for I do not intend to mistake movement for progress. I will, however, refuse to regard it as regression.

I should like to join my colleagues, sir in extending good wishes to you upon your election to your office. I should like to express my good wishes to your deputy the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Rea) for whom we entertain such a high regard.

I listened with great appreciation to the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) and the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) during their splendid contributions to the debate as they moved and seconded the address. I was impressed by the seconder's references to our historical development and by her interest in the centennial celebrations of 1967. We Canadians are not notably an historically minded people. Perhaps this is the reason that, at times, our nationalism seems to be somewhat sporadic and perhaps a bit tenuous. Although still a young country we have now had nearly a century of our confederation, and we have had a much longer record of political and social organization to our credit. I think it behooves us, as a people, to know and to honour our past. The great Joseph Howe said:

A wise nation preserve's its records, gathers up its monuments, decorates the tombs of its illustrious dead, repairs its great public structures, and fosters national pride and love of country by perpetual reference to the sacrifices and glories of the past.

With that thought in mind I should like to congratulate the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker). I think the decision made to name the new building for the fisheries and public work departments after Sir Charles Tupper is a most happy one. That great father of confederation should certainly be remembered. With the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) I am happy that the Prime Minister is one of those deeply interested in the history of our land and its institution. I think we can be assured that he and his government will plan imaginatively for the centennial celebration. I am particularly deeply concerned about

this matter, Mr. Speaker, because I have the honour to represent that constituency where confederation began.

In Prince Edward Island, in the capital city of Charlottetown in 1864, a group of colonial delegates held the first meeting in that series which culminated in the agreement upon the Quebec resolutions upon which our federal structure has subsequently been based. Just as the 1864 meeting was a preview and a forerunner of Canadian confederation, so I think will the 1964 celebration of that event be a forerunner and a most valuable prelude and preview to the larger and greater celebration which will take place in 1967 all across the land. I very much hope that the dominion government and the members of the House of Commons will interest themselves in the plans which are afoot already for the Charlottetown celebration. Perhaps some tangible evidence of the dominion government's interest in this matter might well be forthcoming. I would not think of filling out the details, but such a thing as a museum of eastern colonial history or a cultural centre or something equally significant might mark in a very special way this important event in our national story.

On this subject I should like to applaud the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) because his department has recognized the old site of Fort Amherst in the harbour of Charlottetown and the old French settlement of Fort La Joie. We now have there a national historic park. The people of my province are deeply appreciative of that park. We have quite a background of French occupation in the province of Prince Edward Island. We look upon Jacques Cartier as our first tourist. He came here in 1534 and he liked it very well. For a moment I thought I might hazard rendering in French the remarks he wrote in his logbook, but since I am not very proficient in contemporary French and am far worse in archaic French, I will translate roughly and say that he found it altogether beautiful and about as pleasant a place as it would be possible to see. We like that impression that he had and we think it is a sound one.

It is interesting-and I assure hon. members that I am not forgetting that I am not in a university classroom embarking upon a historical lecture-that quite often the main strands of political issues and economic arguments can be traced back to certain basic historical facts. When the province of Prince Edward Island in 1873, after some years of delay and after some overtures, shall we say, from Canada decided to enter confederation the representatives of that colony, the present province, had one very

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie urgent question which they put to the forefront of the agenda. Recognizing the importance of communications they insisted that the matter be looked after and that a definite promise be made by the dominion authorities. Although the province at the time was suffering from fairly serious economic disabilities and from the results of unfortunate political decisions the islanders continued to urge that the communications aspect be considered and be kept in the foreground.

They asked for and they obtained the recognition that the dominion was responsible for providing efficient and continuous communication for the province of Prince Edward Island with the mainland of Canada. Down through the years since 1873, regardless of the political complexion of the government either in the province or in the dominion, this has been the bedrock, one of the great essentials of dominion-provincial relations as far as the province of Prince Edward Island is concerned. I cannot but think how wise were the earlier political leaders in stressing this particular matter and in making it a binding term of confederation for this acute problem of communication has recurred and many times since.

It is a fascinating story, the story of communication across the strait of Northumberland. The early means was by iceboats. There were two types of passengers, namely first-class passengers and second-class passengers. The second-class passenger paid a certain amount but he was required to pull. The first-class passenger paid a good deal more to travel, not in comfort, certainly because it was anything but comfortable to cross the strait, but he was not obliged to get out to provide the motive power. Then there were the early steamboats with great uncertainty as to schedule. About 50 years ago the members of the parliament and senators from Prince Edward Island were very late in getting to Ottawa because the boats were not making their trips. When they arrived here one of them proposed the adjournment of the debate to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, and that matter was one which concerned them so greatly and bothered them so much in a personal way.

In 1911 Sir Robert Borden in his campaign came to the city of Charlottetown and he said, "If you will elect me as Prime Minister of Canada you will get a car ferry". They did and he did and the car ferry was put there. May I say that the fine old car ferry built for less than $1 million is still in operation and is still making its trips across the strait. It is a wonderful ship. Over the years there

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie have been other boats which were far more expensive. If one is interested in the value of a dollar-and we have been discussing that matter here-the present newest boat, the Abegweit, cost about $7 million. The one which was put in service in 1916 cost less than $900,000.

The latest chapter, Mr. Speaker, shall I say, on the boat situation is that a contract has been let for yet another ferry. We greatly appreciate the attitude of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) who recognized our need for a new ferry and who moved quickly in that direction. The people in our province look forward to this boat, when it comes into operation in 1961.

But is all this enough? The demands for service have been increasing tremendously. At no time would I think of burdening you, Mr. Speaker, or my colleagues with a mass of statistics and certainly not at this late hour of our sitting. But one aspect of this matter might be illustrative of the magnitude of the problem which faces us. In 1933, 262,000 tons of freight were carried across this strait. In 1958 that figure had risen to 766,000 tons. In 1943-and that is as far back as I can get separate figures for automobiles-9,500 passenger automobiles were carried over and in 1958 the figure had risen to over 120,000. In 1959 we believe there has been a 10 per cent increase over the 1958 figures. It is therefore a problem to meet this growing demand, and it will grow. That is the present problem in Prince Edward Island.

We have perhaps one industry which is expandable and which is expanding, namely tourism. Our new provincial government is planning a vigorous move in this direction and we applaud them for that planning. For although our province is very small there are areas yet untouched and undeveloped. Of course the whole province is unspoiled.

We can project a vast increase, and therefore it is essential that this be provided. The communication link is a dominion responsibility clearly and solely. We are happy with the decision to build a new boat, and we know it will be very busy when it starts operating. But we must urge in the interests of the province, as well as broader interests, that still further steps be taken to meet this confederation commitment. All of the island's members of parliament have urged the building of a causeway, and we appreciate very much the support which has been given to us in this chamber.

I was much pleased at the reference of my colleague from Westmorland (Mr. Creaghan), my neighbour across the strait, when he gave support to the causeway project and even did me the honour of flattering me by quoting

me in this regard. That has not happened since the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chev-rier) did me a similar honour in the twenty-third parliament. I urge upon the government the construction of this final stage in the long story of island-mainland communications. I urge it because it will give us that promised efficient and continuous communication which modern conditions require. I urge it too because it is soundly economical.

I will again demur from producing statistics, but the present service is an expensive one. It is recognized that the dominion government has put forward great expenditures over the years in order to maintain this service. The capital equipment at the present time totals something like $22 million, representing the cost of boats and docks alone.

What about the operating costs? In 1958 there was a deficit of nearly $2 million, and therefore I repeat that economically the move toward building a causeway is a good and sound one. Since 1933 there has been a net loss of $25 million on this operation. I know the difficulties. I know they are tremendous, and I know that this engineering project is one of the greatest in the history of technology and engineering. We want the survey done ' thoroughly; we do not want anything which is ill-conceived or hasty, and we are happy that the minister has undertaken to make a thorough and comprehensive survey. We are pleased that the department has brought in the best experts, not only from within this country but from other countries, thoroughly competent to study every aspect of this important project.

At the same time I must point out that there is an element of urgency. Because of increasing demand the present facilities are becoming more and more inadequate. So something must be done, and I would urge that the causeway survey be pushed to its conclusion, and if it should be proven not feasible-and we hope this will not be the case-then immediate steps will have to be taken to augment and improve the existing ferry service.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am not appealing here for any provincial or regional consideration, although I would have a right to do so. I look at this as another part of a program of national development. This is something far bigger than a local enterprise. One of the things which has made me most happy in my support of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Die-fenbaker) and his government is that they have given us in the Atlantic provinces new ground for hope and new reasons for tackling our own problems with greater vigour. We

all recall the quick action which was taken with the Atlantic provinces adjustment grant and many other instances.

The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) spoke the other day about the disappointment felt in his province some ten years after confederation. I might say that his province was not the only province in which there were feelings of disappointment from time to time. We have been disappointed quite a few times. We have seen in the development of Canada the economic fulcrum being moved further away from us, where it all began. "Westward the course of Empire ever stayed" is the old expression, and a fine one but, it sometimes does not go quite so well with some of us in the east.

It should be in the interests of national development, and it seems to me it is the duty of the national government to take the steps which are necessary to redress regional inequality and to move in the direction of establishing a greater over-all level of economic prosperity. This direction is being given by the government which I have the honour to support and which has cheered us so greatly in the Atlantic provinces. It has inspired us with confidence that, in this matter of tremendous importance to my province and others, we will have that same attitude, that same revelation of a truly national vision which will recognize the over-all importance of this development. This is not a matter upon which one seeks to make political capital.

Far be it for me to make comments about the provincial election in Prince Edward Island, but much of what took place did reflect a certain appreciation of this government's policy with respect to the Atlantic provinces. I can ask no more than the continuation of this same valued attitude, this same vigorous action and this same understanding and appreciation of our needs, our aspirations and our difficulties.

Mr. Speaker, much more might be said, but I have often shown publicly a certain fidelity to brevity and I will not depart from my adherence to it at this time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Triniiy):

Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset join with those who have paid their congratulations to the mover and seconder to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They spoke with clarity and they spoke well, and it is a pleasure to join in the compliments which have been paid to them. May I also associate myself with those kind remarks of congratulation which have been offered to you, sir, and to other hon. members of this house who have been paid special honour since we last met.

The Address-Mr. Hellyer

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say how sorry I am to hear that General Charles Foulkes is retiring as chairman of the chiefs of staff. He is an officer of outstanding record, and his counsel and guidance have assisted and been invaluable to several ministers of national defence throughout these many years. The loss will be felt at national defence headquarters, and I wish to take this opportunity to express to him the gratitude of the Canadian people for his faithful, devoted and loyal service.

Of the time he allotted to the subject of defence, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) spent the greater part reading newspaper clippings of statements made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). It was very disappointing performance, and it did no credit either to his position or to the seriousness of the subject. He did spend some minutes dealing briefly with a few of the decisions taken by the government and I should like to take this opportunity to comment on those and other related matters.

The Prime Minister quoted Mr. Khrushchev's recent speech to the effect that the U.S.S.R. had a bountiful supply of rockets and missiles and that it is abandoning the manned bomber. He said this pronouncement by Mr. Khrushchev vindicated the position taken by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) in cancelling the F-105 Avro Arrow. The position of the Minister of Defence with regard to the subject has been neither clear nor consistent, and if hon. members will consult the record, both in Hansard and as it appears in newspaper clippings of speeches which the minister has made on the subject from coast to coast, they will find he said regularly that manned bombers continue to be the main threat against Canada and that it would continue to be so for some years to come.

The Prime Minister said the decision taken a year ago to cancel the Avro Arrow had been based on the best military advice available. Not more than two or three weeks ago, the secretary of defence of the United States, Mr. Gates, told the House of Representatives appropriation subcommittee on defence that a mix of weapons was still required. He said, furthermore, that whereas the United States is to proceed with United States Bomarc B anti-aircraft missile, it may be necessary to reappraise the situation, and that reappraisal might show the necessity of continuing to use manned interceptors in quantity because of their greater flexibility. The Minister of National Defence must set some store by what Mr. Gates said because he quoted his testimony at page 132 of

The Address-Mr. Hellyer Hansard in support of the government's decision to continue with the installation of the Bomarc B.

Another expert witness who differs from the Prime Minister is General Kuter, who is commander in chief of the North American air defence command. General Kuter, when asked about Canadian air defence squadrons, told newspapermen in Ottawa last November that he hoped the Canadian government would soon re-equip the squadrons presently using the obsolescent CF-100. He gave the same opinion in Washington the following day. It is obvious that the United States has always wanted, and counted on, Canada to replace the CF-100 with supersonic manned interceptors. As far as can be determined there never was any United States suggestion to the contrary. General Kuter's statement of last November merely brought the matter again to the urgent attention of the government and the Canadian people.

Is the advice the Prime Minister referred to better than the advice of Secretary Gates and General Kuter? If so, it is only fair that the Prime Minister should tell us the source to assist us in reaching our own conclusions.


An hon. Member:

You know better than that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer


Mr. Hellyer:

It is not necessarily true that United States military advisers are better than ours, even though we rely on them heavily for military intelligence reports. If there is a difference of opinion, however, it is worth while to compare both opinions carefully in order to make sure that so far as possible the one chosen is the best.

The government may have come to the conclusion that it is futile to arm against the manned bomber. If it has reached that decision, we should be told. If it has reached that decision, it should never have decided to go ahead with the Bomarc installations in the first place or, at least, it should cancel the plan forthwith.

The Bomarc is a weapon designed to be used against the manned bomber. It has no function against ballistic missiles. Its role, though not identical with that of the interceptor has the same functions as the manned interceptor against the possibility of attack by manned bombers. If, however, the government has not reached that decision but still holds the view that it is necessary to maintain a defence against the manned bomber until the Russian inventory is depleted, then it should long ago have made a concrete plan to re-equip the air defence squadrons with new supersonic interceptors. The government cannot have it both ways. The Bomarc, by itself, is useless; it is only one of a family of weapons. It only makes sense as a second line to the manned interceptor.

I tried to make this point during the estimates last summer but it is difficult to make much impression on this government. The Minister of National Defence said he subscribed to the theory of defence in depth, but he does not back this belief by action. He should tell us now whether the government still subscribes to the theory of defence in depth with respect to the North American continent or whether it does not.

May I call it ten o'clock?


At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order. Questions ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS EGG PRODUCER STATISTICS The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:



Mr. Martin (Essex East)


1. Was any loss sustained by the government from the sale of 10,000,000 pounds of butter for export to Britain in October, 1959? If so, in what amount?

2. What was the basis of arriving at the price of 56 cents per pound for the sale of this butter?

3. What are the names of the Canadian exporters to whom the government sold this butter?

Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of


1. Yes. Butter sold for export was acquired by the stabilization board at a cost based on 64 cents delivered Montreal. Butter acquired by the board is resold in the domestic market at the purchase price, i.e., 64 cents basis Montreal, with the board absorbing carrying charges. The difference between the resale value in the domestic market and the export price was approximately 8 cents a pound.

2. Butter was sold by tender.

3. Black Diamond Cheese Ltd., Canada Packers Limited., George Hodge & Son., Lovell & Christmas.




Mr. Boulanger


1. How many hog-breeders are there in Canada?

2. How many hog-breeders are registered at the establishments inspected and approved by the federal government and where classification is carried out for the purpose of qualification for deficiency payments?

Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of


1. The 1956 census gives a total of 287,357 farms on which hogs were being raised.

2. 138,717 hog producers were registered at January 15, 1960.

Question No. 42-Mr. Boulanger:

1. How many producers of eggs are there in Canada?

2. How many producers of eggs have registered at the grading establishments in Canada?

Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):

1. The 1956 census gives a total of 347,553 farms with laying hens.

2. 78,296 egg producers were registered at January 15, 1960.




Mr. Pickersgill


1. What was the total cost of the community stage and wharf built at Summerville, Newfoundland in 1959?

2. Was the wharf built by contract?

3. If so, who was the contractor and what was the amount of the contract?

4. Have tenders been called for the equipment to supply water to the stage?

5. If so, has a contract been let and at what price?

Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):

1. Total cost from January, 1959 to December 31, 1959, has been $35,898.40.

2. The wharf was built by day labour.

3. Answered by No. 2.

4. Yes.

5. Contract not yet awarded.





Mr. Benidickson

Liberal Labour

1. Has the Minister of Finance lent any money to the Farm Credit Corporation?

2. If so, when, how much, and on what terms?

Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming

(Minister of Finance):

1. Yes.

2. For the period October 13, 1959 to January 20, 1960, inclusive, $8,500,000.00, at 5f per cent.

Wednesday, January 27, 1960


January 26, 1960