CIHM Microfiche Series (Monograplis) ICIVIH Collection de microfiches (monographies) Canadian I istituta for Historical Mlcroraproductiona / Institut Canadian de microreproduction* hi.toriqua. ©1996 Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes technique et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual nnethod of filming are checked below. r^t Coloured covers / ^^^ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged / ' — ' Couverture endommagee I I Covers restored and/or laminated / Couverture restauree et/ou pelllculee I I Cover title missing / Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps / Cartes geographlques en couleur I I Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black) / Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations / — Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur I I Bound with other material / Relie avec d'autres documents I I Only edition available / ' — ' Seule edition disponible I I Tight binding may cause shadows cr distortion along interior margin / La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge interieure. I [ Blank leaves added during restorations may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming / II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutees lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela etait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6te fllmees. L'lnstitut a microfilm^ le meilleur examplaire qu'il lui a ete possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exem- plaire qui sont peut-*tre uniques du point de vue bibli- ographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modifications dans la meth- ode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages / Pages de couleur I I Pages damaged / Pages endommagees I I Pages restored and/or laminated / Pages restaurees et/ou pellicul^es 0- Pages discoloured, stained or (oxed / Pages decolorfes, tachetees ou piquees I I Pages detached/ Pages detach^es r^ Showthrough / Transparence I I Quality of print varies / ' — ' Qualite inegale de I'impression I I Includes supplementaiy material / Comprend du materiel supplementaire I I Paget wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image / Les pages totalement ou paniellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont ete filmees a nouveau de la^on a obtenir la meilleure image possible. I I Opposing pages with varying colouration or discolourations are filmed twice to ensure the best possible image / Les pages s'opposant ayant des colorations variatjies ou des decol- orations sont filmees deux fois afin d'obtenir la meilleur image possible. D Additional comments / Commentaires suppiementaires: This item is f ilmad at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est f ilme au tau> de riduction mdique ci-dessous. 10X lax 18X n: 20X MX Th* copy filnttd hara hai bMn raproductd thanks to tha flanaroaity of: National Library of Canada L'axamplairs film* fut raproduit grlca i la atnttottxt da: BIbllotMqua natlonala du Canada Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara the beat quality poaaibia considering tha condition and Isgibility of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract spacificationa. Original copies in printed peper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first psge with a printed or illustrated Impres- sion, and ending on the lest page with e printed or illustreted impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shell contain the symbol —^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"!, or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever appliea. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right end top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diegrams illustrate tha method: Les images sulvantes ont M raproduitas avec le plua grand soln, eompte tenu de la condition at da la nattet* de Texempleire film*, et en conformit* avac lea eondlllona du contrat da filmaga. Les exemplalres origlnaux dont la couverture en papier eat Imprimia sont fllmta an commancant par le premier plat at en terminant soit par la darnitra page qui eomporta una amprainta d'Impreaalon ou d'llluauatlon, soit par le second plat, salon la cas. Tous lee eutrea exempleires origlnaux sont fllmts an comman9ant par la premltre pege qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'lllustrallon at an terminant par la dernMre page qui eomporta une Mile empralnta. Un das aymbolaa aulvanta apparaltra sur la darnMre image da cheque microfiche, selon le caa: le aymbola -^ signlfle "A SUIVRE", le symbola ▼ aignlfia "FIN". Les cartaa, planchaa, tableaux, etc., pauvent itre filmto i dea uux de reduction diffirenu. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour ttre reprodult en un seul clichi, II est film* i partir de I'angia auptrieur gaucha, de gauche i droite. at da haut an bas, an pranant la nombra d'Imagea nicessalre. Lea diagremmee aulvanu llluatrant la mMhoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 MICtOCOfY HSOlUriON TBT CH«n (ANSI amj ISO TEST CHART No 2) A APPLIED iivMGE Inc -/. a SPEECHES DELIVERED II Y Hon, G. W. Ross Legislative Assembly of Ontario Liquor Act of 1902 SPBBCH DBLIVeRED BY HON. Q. W. R0S5 On the Introduction of the Bill respecing the Sale of Intozlcatlng Liquors, 12th February, 1902 Immeiliately upon the opening of the Legisliiture VVedneH- (lay Premier Ro.ss introduced his l)ill respectiuj; the nule of intoxicating liquors, the effect of which is to brinj; into forci! the Manitoba Liquor Act upon its being Bpproveon the illicit Mile nf intoxicat- ing; ]i'|iior.4, have been "f ^reat u the narrowest |iossible limits within which the license laws couhi be effectually enforced. I if it is reasonable to infer that by reducing the number of li. ,nseH we are restraining the evils of intemperance, then we have here evidence, so far as statistics will prove anything, that there must have been a very material improvement in the habits of the people in the last twenty-five years. As an instanct, in 1875 one license was issued to each 278 persons. Last year one license was issued on an average to 700 persons. The reduction there is most marked. As compared with some States of the Union, our standing in this respect is very satisfactory. I would only mention a State or two — take for example the State of Michigan just across the border, in which there is one license for each 239 persons, against 700 persons in Ontario. In New York they have one license for each 134 persons. Another evi- dence of the progress of temperance sentiment is seen in the entire ab'>lition of licenses in many municipalities. We have in Ontario 756 organized municipalities. In 141 of these nc tavern license" are issued ; tha', is, in 20 per cent of the munici- palities there are no tavern licenses. In 435 municipalities one and not more than two tavern licenses arc issued. In 625 municipalities there is not a single shop license. If we compare 9 ^.ibu'j ourwlves will, our sistor Pii.viiici>« th.' lenult in enimlly -.iitm- fttctory, I will not )fo intn tlir no for each 341; in tliu Terrltori.H. onu for oiicli 1«0; for' (ho whole Dominion, one for each 310, ami for Ontario one for -aoh N^N. 't appea's from these statisticn, anj I ilo not know iCyoii can rel:- on them aUolutelj, but they have Iwen cnrpfiilly pre- paroil.ttnil r think may he truHteil to moan a (jooW ileal, that Ontario la the most temperate I'rovinco in the Domin'on ai.il that the result of our liceiiMe lijfislatloii hax lieen «ratilylni{ in the extreme. I will not wait to go over the leKlslalion of the yanouH years, but will just mention one or two L'reat sttiM in advance which have been taken in the last faw years I refer particularly to the License Act of 18!)7, whereby the unit of population to each hotel was raised, resulting in the closing of about 120 hotels. We also limited the hours lor sale in towns from Cam. to 10 p.m., and in cities from 6a.m. to 11 p.m. ijreviouH to this act in many cities and iuspectoral divisions there was no limitation at all on the sa.. of liquors either duving the day or during the night. Another amendment to the act prohibited the sale of li(|uors to minors. The efTect of th.it m a word IS simply that one-half or nearly o'-e-half of the whole population ot the Province was placed under prohibitory re-iila tions. Other minor provisions neeil not be mentioned. Now. the high-water mark of our license 'a\t was reached in 1807. Legislation wat Pontpontd. It was thought that a year ago this act could be still further improved, and the Government had carefully prepared a bdl for ' lat purpose. While that bill was under consideration we were met by the action of the Manitoba Legislature adopting P o- vincial prohibition. We were met, too, by strong deiiiands from a very influential part ot our population for similar pro- hibition m Ontario, and we thought that jntil thi,s question ot partial prohibition was disposed of we would allow the license law to stand. The larger would, of course, include the le.>..ser in the estimation of the promoters of this latter movement. We therefore had no license legislation since 1897, although ,ve were of the opinion, an.l p«rh>pe that opinion will be ihared by hon. gentlemen opponite, that our liceniw law could Iw utill further improved. Now, I mention thia to .how the proKre.* wi) have mali,.r imrtv ineuiir... I.',... lectio,, w^ ,.,H,ie ,. p„ , ,.ie,.i,:".ri"r«„h™:i '..mC c m a certo n ,eri,He i„..,1b « p«rty „a.»«„re i„ thi» counts' ml co„f„. ..na.on w«, ,„«.|e h ,„.,.>• ,„.,„„r.., a..,l ve Tr\hir v ^(U a Party (Jueatiun. .otheTIo\z'«o?:t:rtV:,"r''r^"•'"""''"«''""'^^ the clectorH to vote „. r ;i * P''"^ ■""""'r« • W" «ro nol axkiiur afliliBtions, we would have a better »n,l „, , ■ P"''*^ perhap^^a „o.e.ioaicia, decilt't'hlV:^ e^M .Ttl"-!-; L'S /< /< Conatitutional ! The arst question with which I am met then in this ■ I, ft,. f^u^e^^rnorirrhT" "'X""^ * --'it»t^"n.l mot fi sibilities. It is said to be un-British, a departure from British usages. Tlie fact that we are introducing the measure in this form adds to the responsibilities which I now feel in the dis- cussion on which I have entered. I am not merely introducing a bill for prohibition, but a bill which may be quoted as a pre- cedent for many years to come as to the proper procedure in other matters. I am aware what a great divergence it may mean from the practice of this Legislature since constitutional government was established here. Having some misgivings in the matter, I put myself in communication with Sir John Bourinot, who is admittedly a high authority on constitutional matters. I wrote him as long ago as Dec. last, asking him to express his opinion on two points. Opinions of High Authorities. First, did he think that the question of a referendum was a constitutional mode of procedure, and secondly, when the opinions of the electors had been expressed, by what procedure could the prerogative of the Crown be put into effect ? Sir John Bourinot's memorandum is a little long, but as I said at the outset, I intend to proceed with deliberation and calmness, as the question is such an important one, and I shall give in extenso his views. In answering my inquiry, he said :— " The democratic conditions of the Canadian system of Parliamentary government can be seen in the growing tendency of recent years to depart somewhat under special circumstances from the old principle of Parliamentary sovereignty in legislation, and obtain immediately an expression of opinion on some question of grave import on which there is a great diversity of opinion, and the future success of which must mainly depend on the measure of public support which it will receive in case it is brought into legal operation. It is for this reason thm the Dominion Parliament and the Legislatures of several Provinces have, within a decade of years, submitted to the people at the polls the question whether they are in favor of prohibitng the sale of spirituous liquors within the limits of their constitutional jurisdictirn before proceeding to pass legislation dealing with the subject ?" Pkbiscite and Referendum. " While the (plebiscite may be compared to the Swiss ' initiative ' which gives the right to the electors to move the legislative bodies to take up «nJ consider any subject of public interest, the referendum which is also borrowed from the same country has been also suggested on several occasions as a desirable and ethcient method of bringing into force a measure which can only be successful when it obtains the unequivocal support of a large majority of the people interested in its provisions. This democratic feature of the Swiss political system may be com- pared with the practice that already exists in Canada of refer- ring certain by-laws of municipal bodies to the vote of the ratepayers of a municipality, of giving the people of a district an opportunity of accepting or rejecting the Canada temperance act, ot permitting a majority of the ratepayers in a municipal division to establisl, a tree library at the public eicpense," etc And here, Mr Ross continued, he quotes a high constitutional nuthoritv, Cooley, of whose standing, I am sure hon. gentlemen are well aware. Mr Cooley says : " It is not always essential that a legislative act should be a cumpetent statute which must in any event take effect as law at the time it leaves the hand of the legislative department." A statute may be conditional and its taking effect may be made to depend upon some subsequent event " ,. ." 9° '"^^ question of the referendum applied to certain classes ^Xt°\^-''- p^*'"'" 1"^™ '"'•' ^«" ^'^ ■-" A general elec- tion, although in form a choice of particular persons as members has now become practically an expression of popular opinion on the two or three leading measures then propounded and dis- cussed by the party leaders, as well as a vote of confidence or no confidence m the Ministry of the day. It is in substance a vote on those measures, although, of course, a vote only on their general principles, and not, like the Swiss referendum, upon the statute which the Legislature has passed. Even, therefore, in a country which chngs to and founds itself upon the absolute supremacy of its representative Chamber, the notion of a direct appeal to the people has made much progress." And Mr Dicey an equally competent authority, tells us :-"The referendum, in short, ,s a regufar, normal peaceful proceeding, as unconnected with revolutionary violence or despotic coercion and as easily carried out as the sending up of a bill from the House of ?.ZZT^ ^-ft House of Lords. The law to be accepted or rejected is laid before the people in its precise terms ; they are concerned solely with its merits and demerits ; thei^ thoughts are not distracted by the necessity of considering any other topic. In the constitution of the new commonwealth of 8 Australia there is a provision which practically admits the use- fulness of a referendum in certain cases of legislative difficulty ; and that is, in case of a conflict between the Senate and House of Representatives, both elective, on a bill. In case of an irre- pressible conflict, the Houses are dissolved and an expression of opinion is obtained from the electorate on this measure alone, which is then again submitted to the Legislature to be settled by a joint vote of both Houses." Approved by Imperial Parliament. Now in Australia we find that a constitution contains pro- vision for a referendum. That constitution was adopted by the Imperial Legislature a little over a year ago. The Imperial Legislature accepted that constitution with a referendum clause in it. If it bo right for the Commonwealth of Australia as a proper constitutional procedure, to require a measure on which there is an irrepressible conflict between the two branches of the Legislature to be submitted to the electors, then we would be surely justified in referring to the electors a measure on which there is a great difference of opinion, and on which an opinion cannot be got in any other way. Mr Whitney : I would remind my hon. friend that the provisions to which he is now alluding were placed in the con- stitution of Australia because of a deadlock over a situation which prevents the possibility of any other settlement. The Premier : The British Houses of Parliament have often come to a deadlock, and there is no provision in the British con- stitution for such a referendum. The constitution of the Commonwealth, instead of allowing an irrepressible conflict to continue, adopted the referendum as a solution ot that deadlock, and adopted that solution with the approval and concurrence of the British House of Commons and the House of Lords, and with the best legal advice and opinions of the best minds of the empire. Mr. Whitney : It is impossible here. The PbemieR: It might have been adopted here. Mr. Whitney : The hon. gentleman misunderstands me. I say that such a deadlock is impossible here, becaus? we have got only one House. The Premier: It is not impossible at Ottawa. There may be a deadlock between the Commons and the Senate, and they must get over it the best way they can, no provision whatever Havinp been made for 8ueh a difficulty I would nn* K. ., n A Vexed Quettion. wisdom of the Legislature it,eir- And further on he savs The Privy Council. scJ4"iK'ssrp-i*sf E iB 10 and as ample within the limits prescribed by section 92, as the Imperial Parliament in the plenitude of its powers possessed and could bestow. " Limitation of Powers. Now, is there any inference to be drawn from that definition of our powers as a Legislature, except that we can do here within our own constitutional limitations anything that the British House of Commons can do ? No person will hold that the Brit- ish House of Commons could not refer a bill to the electorate of Great Britain. That would be to put a limit on the greatest Parliament in the world,' a Parliament that has legislated not only tor the United Kingdom, but for the greatest empire in the world. No such limitations exist upon the British constitution. If our powers are coterminous within our own legislative juris- diction with that of the British Parliament in Great Britain, then we within our constitution can do in the Province of Onta- rio anything Great Britain can for the United Kingdom. And this view, _ir, is further confirmed by the judgment of Lord Selborne in a noted case arising out of an act of the Government of India. A word from Lord Selborne's judgment wi'i make this point clear. He says : " Where plenary powers of legislation exist as to particular subjects, whether in an Imperial or a Provincial Legislature, they may (in their Lordship's judgment) be well exercised, either absolutely or conditionally. Legislation, conditional on the use of particular powers, or on the exercise of a limited discretion, entrusted by the Legislature to persons in whom it places con- fidence, is no uncommon thing, and in many circumstances it may be highly convenient." Powers of the Province. If we passed this bill and it became law on the signature of his Honor the Lieutenant-Governor, that would be passing it absolutely. If Lord Selborne's judgment is correct, we coi I also pass it conditional on the vote of the electors, that is, ci ndi- tional on the use of particular powers or on the exercise of lim- ited discretion. Indeed, a limited discretion entrusted by the Legislature to persons in whom it places confidence — that is, the electors — is no uncommon thing, and in many instances it may be strongly defended. You have, therefore, very strong evi- dence leading up to the view I desire to .start out with, that our 11 act was not unconstitutional. I could quote, also, Canadian au- thorities, some of them bearing as ciosuly on the subject as those I have already quoted, others a little more remote. In 1891 Mr !• lint, who was leader of the temperance movement in the House ot Lommons, spoke on the bill— Mr. Flint was not leader then— uut he spoke on a bill introduced by Mr. Jameison, now Judge Jamieson, who was then leader of the prohibition party in the House of Commons. There was an amendment moved by Mr lay lor to Mr. Jamieson's bill, to the effect that " it is essential to the ettectual working and permanent maintenance of such an enactment that the electorate of Canada should first pronounce a Uefanite opinion on the subject at the polls." Mr. Mills, in speaking to the amendment, said : •• I do not admit that it is an un-Biitish or unconstitutional pioceedine to refer a matter of this kind directly to the people of the coun- try Mr. Mills was always regarded as a high constitutional authority, and as proof of that regard he now occupies, to my great delight, a seat on the Supreme Court Bench. He says- 1 admit that it is an undesirable course to take in a majority ot cases, because there is no difficulty, in the majority of instances, in enforcing a measure which is placed upon the statute book; but this would be a sumptuary law and it r^uires a general co-operation of. the community to give it ettect. 1 do not think a greater misfortune could befall the cause 01 total abstinence than the placing on the statute book of a measure which would be imperative." Then Sir Louis Davies, now of the Supreme Court also, spoke. He said : " It i^ said to be un-English, that there is no precedent tor It. Well, sir, I am not aware that it is absolutely essential that we never should take any step in this new country unless we can show an English precedent for it ; but we can show pre- ceJents in other countries, in Switzerland, as mv hon friend reminds me." Sard to Keep V In 1892 the same subject, for it seems hard to keep it under came up again in the House of Commons on a motion of Mr. Charlton, in which Mr. Charlton asked that the question be re- ferred to the electors of Canada at the polls. Speaking on this question. Sir John Thompson said : " I am not submitting, as the Hon. gentlemen seem to anticipate, that there are constitutioniil questions involved." Sir John Thompson did not raise constitu- tional objections. He said : " I have no doubt we can change 12 and mould our constitution in that respect as we pleMe." "o ^^ had no doubt as to the constitutional process. " But, he says, "I feel very confident in the assertion that such a mode of action is utterly repugnant to constitutional principles wo have adopted and followed with zeal down to the present time. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in the same debate, says : " I agree to a lar.'e extent with the Minip-^r of Justice that the system of referring such a question, or, m fact, any question, to a plebis- "ite is not in harmony with our institutions. 1 would rather see this question, and all other questions, disposed of in the old British manner, that is, bv Parliament itself. The hon. gentle- man and all prople who look at this question dispassionately must admit that, in this instance, therj might be an exception made. Rules exist, but there are few rules to which there iB not an exception. This question of temperance and prohibition is one which might well be disposed of in this manner. . . I doubt if you can have any better mode of ascertaining the views of the country at large, and therefore I would favor the refer- ence of this question to the people, not that I would do -t as a general rule, but as an exception which might properly apply under the circumstances." Then, again, Mr Mills in 1898, six or seven years after his first expression of opinion ■on the question, referred to the same matter when the bill for the plebiscite was brought before the Senate of that year. There the question was raised as to the propriety of such a course and as to its constitutional effects. Mr. Mill's, speaking in the Senate in 1898, said : " Ordinarily, the work of legislation ought to be carried on by Parliament, and the Government ought to assume the responsibility of determining what they propose, because in a great many in- stances the questions that, as a Government, they are pledged to and that they are called upon to deal with are questions with reference to which the elections have turned. Now, this is not an ordinary question of legislation, and no question relating to . a sumptuary matter can be, because it is not what is best in the abstract, but it is what the people are ready to sustain, that you are bound to determine." Constitutionality of the Referendum. Furl T evidence shows that Sir John Macdonald and Sir Mackenzie Bowell, and all who had any status in Parliament in fact for the last ten or fifteen years, either by their vote or by 13 their speeches, accepted tlie constitutionality of a referendum. If, therefore, we are making a departure, we are making it on high legal sanction, on the sanction of the British House of Com- mons, the sanction of the Australian Commonwealth, the sanc- tion of the Canadian House of Commons, the sanction of the Kreat leaders in constitutional law on both sides of the Atlantic. We are making it in view of the difficulties, to a certain extent, which are involved in legislation of this kind, and I would be rather disposed, in a conservative way, to echo the view ex- pressed by Sir Louis Davies, that we must not allow ourselves to be too strongly bound by precedents. Precedents are useful in steadying the decision of the courts, and therefore useful in legislation ; but we pass — I was almost going to .suy daily — in this House, bills for which there has been no precedent. How is society to grow ; how are the liberties of the people to expand, if you are to sit down and study musty volume afler musty volume in order to ascertain if our gran<'*Hthera or great-grand- fathers, or ancestors a hundred years ago, did so and so ? Should we, then, while recognizing the good sense, the prudence and judgment and loyalty to the liberty of the people, and to popu- lar institutions of our ancestors ; should we be for ever in lead- ing strings ; should we be restrained by hands th.it practically have mouldered years ago and gone to their original dust ? We are in the living present We have the responsibilities of living legislation before us and the full realization of that larger sense of manhood we enjoy, some of which we have inherited from our fathers. A Philosophi". Expedient. That leads me to the next v w Is the referendum a mode of procedure which one might reasonably expect to meet with the approval of thoughtful men ? Legislation to he effective, and to maintain its dignity, must keep within the lines of the best thought of the people. If we are too conservative we are discarded, and very properly so ; if we are too radical, we may introduce revolutions and changes which will be very disturbing and very unconstitutional. The golden mean in legislation must always be our aim. Does the referendum commend itself to those who have given it thought, the leaders of the great move- ments which are crystallized in legislation ? I have no less an authority than the Premier of England, Lord Salisbury, on that point. Lord Salisbury said — and I believe that anything on a question like this coming from a man like Tjord Salisbury is 14 full of thought aoil signiBcance— Lird Sttlisbury naid : " I believe nothing could oppose a bulwark to popular patisior except an arrangement for deliberate and careful reference of any matt>eeome tlie great politic^' isHue in the immediate future. Tho people are hein(j educatec; by event*. 'I'lioy are coming tu .«ee that there in no hope for reform under the existing Hy.Hteni of voting. It i« the duty of every citizen to ciirefnily iituily this great i|UCBtion." .Iu»t a word from another, ii famouH American, Dr. l.ynian Abbott, editor of The Outlook : " In my judgment the reme sixteen ot the United States on the quo»lion of prohibition alone, so that the referendum is sustained by numberless prece- dents as the proper course to pursue under certain circumstances, and certainly as the proper course in regard to all legislation affecting the liquor traffic. I need not, therefore, fortify the •In torn «.li.B hi" rcmirk.. Mr. Em. »niHt«i to |vid st thU point th. wordi. • „( rt.l~gtat.tar.,'' .nd .lt.rw.rd. " by . m.iorltir In met .«.. of th. .I™fe«. 19 oction of the (Invernmciit in con»i- Sir John Mac^ i,« if Tnl ■°'""':' ""•"« '"■■ » "'ree-fifth, majority in the ItZll r *".""' ^'.r'"'""' ""«•=""« "'« liquor traffic. Be- Jlon. Alexander Maekemien Viewa. country *Ih; w" h" 'T"°" ,°^ Prohibition was before the country, the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, then Premier, 20 speaking at Colborne, said: "I have always taken the around that until public sentiment has reached such an advanced stage of maturity that we would be quite certain of a very large ma- jority in favor of such a measure it would be unwise and impolitic to attempt to enforce a total prohibition of the liquor traffic " Mr. Mackenzie, you see, said that to enfone it a large majority would be necessary. In 1878, when the Scott Act was passed and the measure was before the Senate, one of the strongest prohibitionists whom I have had the honor to know, and who for many years was President of the Dominion Alliance , Senator Vidal, was anxious that an easy mode should be pro- vided whereby the bill could be put into force in the Provinces, or, in other words, whereby we could have Provincial prohibition, 11- well as prohibition by counties and cities, and speaking on that view of the case, he said : " I am perfectly satisfied that unless this measure receives the support of a large majority ot them (the people) it must be inoperative." Senator Aikin, on the same occasion, said: "I think it would be most unfortunate if public sentiment was not educated up to that state where a decided majority of the people were in favor of the law that it should be applied in any province." Opinions of Prominent Men. Another distinguished leader of the temperance movement in the same discussion— I re'er to the late Senator Allan- moved an amendment, providi .g that it should only be enforced bv a majority of the whole number of electors qualified to vote fir a member of the House of Commons. Another well-known public man, Hon. Mr. Campbell, did not believe that law which so .seriously affected the liberty and property of a certain por- tion of the community should be enforced by a bare majority of the votes. . ,. i Senator Dickey said :— " It would be a great mislortiine to undertake to put this law into force in any community where there was not a decided preponderance in favor of it — not -.i preponderance of the active, enthusiastic people who chose to go out and cast their votes and exercise themselves on this question, but a decided preponderance of the whole body of the electors." These are the views of prominent Senators, and some ot them active temperance men. Mr. Mackenzie, when the subject was before the House of Commons, repeated in substance the state- ground ed stage irge ma- rise and liquor a largo Act was B of the ;o know, iUiance , be pro- rovinces, ihtbition, iking on led that jority of Likin, on ortunate where a I! that it lovement Allan- enforced d to vote U-known iw which ■tain por- ijority of >rtune to ;y where t — not :i lose to go on this dy of the e of them bject was the state- 21 nient I have just quoted. He said, " His mind liad always been thatthecommunity had a perfect right to protect itlTbv a aw of this kmd. On the other hand, he qSite adm tted ^at trolTn'^r"'" "■ ''^'"■"' """'''''y that'there should li a Z^t 7.' ""'^^'•™'. opinion in favor of the enactment. A rZn n7fh'^ ''"""'^P'""''"'^ "^'"'''«'l '•>« members of any lommunitv -Tf"'?.-^ °" «'''!™' S"''"'^' """^^'^d ""> ''hole immunity , and for this reason he would never favor the en- actment of a prohibitory law which was not subject to the test ot the vote of^the people, until he was .satisfied that there was tuXme'sur^'-^J^"'^"^ ''" "•""o — ity iXvorof I Sir Leonard Tilley's Experience. HoulTfn'Il™' '"H t,P?'"'.°° "■« '"''>'=' "f prohibition in the Hou.se of Commons debates in 1884, and with whom I had the career wa,''^ T '" '^t??°"^'' '" "'^ -''^ P-liamentar; career, was Sir Leonard Tilley, regarded by all of us earlv ten, perance workers as the advocate of temperance and profbition par excellence. The proposition was before the House of Com ; mons on motion of Mr. Foster :-" That thi.s House is of th^ opinion^ for the reasons hereinafter .set forth tl«Lt the Lm ITa most effectual legislative remedy for these eviU is to be" 1 ,und ^ nortati„r '"'r"".'' enforcement of a law prohibiting the "m portat.on, manufacture and sale of into.-iicating liquors f"r beverage purposes," to which an amendment was movld as fo^ lows:-.' And this House is of opinion that the^ub"ntTmeni of the people of Canada calls for immediate le„onths-in fact I do not know whether it was in operation so long as that-wheS Sir Leonard, owing to the action of the Lieutenant-Goveraor had a dissolution of the House forced upoil him. An eSon (followed and Sir Leonard Tilley and many of his colleagues were defeated, and only two or three ot those who supnmed the prohibition measure were returned. Drawing fromTwde 'hXful toT. 1^'"' '"' '"'™*''' '^'^'^ "^»' '- wo^rdsThouldt helpful to the temperance cause. Sir Leonard sneakim? to thA resolution, sa.d:-"I can understand the delicacy oTan hoi Intle- .man voting against the last amendment, as a^temperancf man 22 and a prohibitionist, because as such he would seem inconslHtent, and I noticed cheers when my name was called as voting against the immediate adoption of prohibition, but I did so because I believe it is in the interest of temperance that we should not enact a law that will not be enforced. I speak with the experience I had thirty years ago, and have had ever since 1856. When the convention was held in Montreal, I was written to by one of the leading friends of temperance, asking my opinion. I was unable to be present, but I wrote a letter in reply, which letter Mr. Ross read at a convention held in Ottawa. What was the opinion I then expressiJ ? I stated that if they decided to submit thf proposal to the pc ilar vote they should not suggest less than a three-tiftha vote, because if carried by a bare majority, and without public sentiment behind it, the law would fail, and the cause of temperance would be damaged in- stead of benefited. . . . If a prohibitory law were enacted to-morrow I am satisfied it could not be enforced, and nothing could do more damage to the cause of prohibition than the enactment of a law, followed by its non-enforcement and ulti- mate repeal. It would then take us a century to get back to our starting-point." That is a very strong expression. Perhaps it could not be from any other source in which I have greater confidence ; an expression calling for thought, giving an experi- ence of twenty-five or twenty-six years in the temperance movement, in all its ups and downs, flows and ebbs in Canada and the United States, and it is worthy of the most careful consideration. A Great Majority Hequired. Another very active member of Parliament, and a member of the Dominion Alliance, was Mr. Dixon Craig, who expressed his opinion in 1896, when the subject of prohibition was before the House. Ho says : — " But we must admit, and I admit it frankly, that this question of a prohibitory law is a most diffi- cult one for any Parliament to deal with. I claim that a pro- hibitory law must have a great majority behind it, not only of those who vote, but of all who have votes in this country. It was a great weakness in the Scott Act that it required for its adoption only a majority of the votes cast. It would have been far better if it had required a majority of all those entitled to vote, because in some cases very little interest was taken in the election, and the majority of the voters were not represented. The law must have a great majority behind it to be eftective. • 23 It is no use placing such a law on the statute book by a bare ".ajority-m fact, I would be opposed to it." And he sDoke L^ a similar strain in 1898. P ® '" A Preponderating Sentiment. «..hd°K"j*t^ *"*'•* M 'l"".'"""" from Mr. Foster in 1891 in which he takes a similar view. I will trouble the House with reading as lithe of it as may be necessary to nut his"ews faWv belore you. Mr. Foster in 1891 said —"I H^iTthlt iTr ^, Whit Irlh""^ of a prohibitoryTw unJerl at end it What are these conditions 1 I will name but one That s tl.o condition which follows as a logical se,,ue„ce. a a necessary de ductioa from what I have just blen stating, thit before a nrol^ibu Td "rd fn\h" ''-' "T '«'!;-'' ^'ore ifian be ,„rta?ned t a to do good in the country, there must neces.saiily be the basis of a strong and preponderating public sentiment I U favT "n order not only to lead to this enactment, but to tend to its en forcemen as well ; and I say again, what has been „uotc,l Ta reproach to me, and I say it boldly and earnestly, that tlu man IS no true friend of the temperance cause, or the prohibit on movement who will enact a law to-day if he does not h>mlv believe ,n his heart that that law finds'^ its .-ufle.vn tie over the S,™?:'ft°" "'■ ': P7P<"jJ.-*""g -a -tive mljoii?;Tn Is wenand /hfrh ■ ""'n" y "l "' »'«=''»"■'. but enforcement as well and that h. .vould do the worst possible to the cause nf prohibitiou to snatcn a verdict for the enactment of the aw and find out afterwards, if it were not a reflex of such a prepo^der ating sentiment in the country, that it would become a dead ™hrth'''"'' '?"''" ''^""'■^ ■" "- eommurty!anda reproach to the very temperance men who favored its^ enact- In a Judicial Mood. He repeated similar .sentiments in 1898, with which I will nerane?^' '"' ^T"' ^°"' '^'^'^ ^^^^ ^'^ '^e vTews of tTm peranco men and I am not giving them with regard to thSr I amSvt: th';*^"" 'i^^.f" "°' "f ""^ ^'""J" ofpolitL bu LZJn^- \-,""""i'"^^'^^ '^^ ""y endeavor to put our- o put tsel in'al, r"1' ''°^"^»'i»'« "o-n'^y should Endeavor to put itselt in a judicial mood, and consider, when such a law IS being submitted and considered by the electors if the l„t* ment in favor of it is preponderating, is so great" as to gWe it 24 vitality and efficiency. Tlie men whom I have mentioned were leaders ; some of them are leaders to-day, and those who are leaders must necessarily study public opinion, and must neces- sarily give thought to every legislative act which they are required to consider. The thoughtful opinion of these leaders is in the direction that a large and preponderating majority is required, and no snatch verdict, because in New Brunswick and some other cases a snatch verdict resulted disastrously to the temperance cause. Another circumstance indicates the necessity for calmness. We have had Local Option on the statute book since 1864. To-day it is enforced in only twenty-one munici- palities. 1 mentioned in my opening remarks that something like 174 municipalities gave no tavern licenses. That was the action of the License C'omi. ssioners. It was not felt that they were required. But only riiree municipalities to-day, after 36 or 38 years' experience with the Dunkin Act, keep that act ae a by-law operative within their borders. Scott AcVt Edtuxitional Efect. The Scott Act was carried in twenty-six counties and in two cities, and it was repealed in all. It was carried by majorities aggregating 1.') 1,000 in round numbers, and repealed by majori- ties aggregating the same number, so that there was a very decided change in public opinion. Now, the Scott Act is not to be under-estimated nor discredited as a temperance factor ; yet it is very disappointing to find it cast aside in every instance where it was adopted. The effect of the Scott Act was educa- tional, and it may have done a great deal of good ; but as an efficient means for repressing the liquor traffic or arming the officers of the law with the power which it was supposed to afford them, the Scott Act has been discredited, has been found inefTective, and has not, excepting in an educational sense, done any particular good. This is another reason why we should proceed with some deliberation and care. Prohibition in the United States. fi nd then, as Carly le says, " History is philosophy teaching by experience." We might regard the United States in relation to prohibition. The prohibition wa.< carried in sixteen States, and is now operating in five. A very curious record of ups and downs has prohibition had in the great Republic to the south of I 3S Island after eleven years, Massachusetts had two trials-one of sixteen years and another of six years— and repealed it Oonnecticut repealed it after eighteen years ; SlichigaS. twenty years. Iowa has given it two trials extending over thirty-six e^hT' SolH-^'r >r?iiH""'''» '"°' "°d South Dakota mnvl" », .? -^ '• l°u"'^^^"*'' ^^"^^' •' «""''d "PP*" that this move had its ebb and flow. It was sometimes a tiial wave sweeping everything out of its way ; then came a reaction. I do not know that these feverish and emotional expressions of wealth. I would rather have a steady educational process l^^lt't , •'°'d'°S every inch of the ground, thus making the goal of to-day the starting-place of to-morrow. I would much , .ather do this than make a further onslaught upon an evil or supposed evil fancy I had demolished it, and then find shortly j afterwards that it had obtained additional viulity, and wm i ,t.'f'!T P"**P' """i^l ^'^^y »°^ ««"'«'y """> in 'ts previous If L ^ fi Tt'"-. 7^^ "Perience of the Scott Act and local ■ I^Ta ">« United States warns ua that in this matter we should proceed with some deliberation. Origin of Referendum. I now want to spend a few moments in considering the origin ot the referendum as a temperance movement. 1 speak ' dwK "'\'«'«™°dum as distinct from the plebiscite, It is said I by those who do not like the present party in power that we have invented the referendum to get us out of diflicultiea. Now I (»nnot claim the paternity the Liberal party cannot claim the paternity, of this measure ot reform. The referendum origin, ated in the Senate of the Dominion of Canada. You will find the first expression of approval of this kind of legislation brought down by Mr. Vidal on the 27th day of March, 1873 h„«.„.r"v'^'l'- 'f^Sl*' °J ""^ ^«°"« committee, presented by Senator Vidal in 1875. But perhaps I should preface this bv saymg that m 1874. and 1875 an unusual number of petitions :were presented to the House of Commons and to the Senate also asking prohibitory legislation. There were petitions signed by nearly 100,000 individual names; there were petitions from many municipalities, from the Legislatures of the Provinces, one troL thip Legislature. These petitions were referred to a com- in inittee of the House of Commons on one side, and ii committee- of the Senate on the other. Proposed to Consult the People. The concluilinj; paragraph of the report i» as follows:— " That, should the Government not feel satisfied that the indica- tion of public opinion afforded by the numerous petitions pre- sented to Parliament is sufficient to justify the early introduction of such a law, it would be desirable to submit the question to the decision of the people by taking a vote of the electors there- on as soon as practicable." This was in March, 187-5. This view of the proper procedure to take in such cases became somewhat more- decisive in time. Members of this House who have followed this (jHestion during the last twenty-four years will remen.ber that in September, 1875, a Dominion convention was held in Montreal, at which there were representatives from all parts of the Dominion, representatives of all churches and from all classes. A few days prior to the meeting of the convention the Ontario Prohi- hibitory League met in Toronto, and through its president addressed to the people remarks which I am now going to quote. . The President was Mr. Robert McLean, who said : " The question of prohibition is one that requires the greatest consid- eration on the part of any Government, however strong, before deciding to put a prohibitory law on the statute hook. It is agreed on all hands that such a law, to be effective, must have an undoubtedly strong sentiment in favor of the law and its rigid enforcement. What, then, is the beat method of ascertain- ing what public opinion is on this most important question ? Some propose making it a test question at the polls. The expe- rience of the past shows that very little dependence could be placed on the result of such a test. So many side issues would arise regarding men and measures that the question of prohi- bition would in many cases be lost sight of or he subordinated to some other issue. Others propose that a plebiscite be taken, thus affording each elector an opportunity of saying yea or nay to that question, irrespective of any other question of public policy. This would still leave the law to be passed upon by Parliament, which might or might not be done. The best way " here is the point — "would be to ask Parliament to pass a strin- of Sher- brooke sent his approval in a letter to Secretary Oales; the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manitoba also sent a sympathe- tic ,etter. Kepreaentatives were there from every Province in the Dominion except British Columbia. The convention wa.s in session for .several day.. A Committee on Resolutions was ap- pointtd. This is the resolution adopted by the convention in 1875 : — " That in order that a prohibitory law when passed may have that sympathy and support so indispensably nece».«ary to it« success, It 18 the opinion of this convention that the Domi- nion Parliament should be urged to enact such a law, subject to ratification by popular vote." Now, if we are submitting this referendum in this year of grace 1902, we are only doing what the temperance men ap- proved of by the greatest convention ever held in Canada m 1876, and we are therefore acting in good faith, so far aa their requests are concerned, in submitting this law. Senator Vidal was President of that convention ; I had the honor of being pre- sent at It myself. Still further, to give light on our action in this Parliament, I have the minutes of the Dominion Alliance for 1898-99, held in Ottawa. A committee was appointed to draft a resolution for the approval of the council and the repre- sentatives of the alliance present there. The first resolution they recommended was : " An Act totally prohibiting the manufacture, importation and sale of intoxicat- ing liquors for beverage purposes in any Province adopting such an act by a vote of the duly qualified electors." This was as late as the end of 1899. A committee was appointed to take steps to secure the introduction into Parliament of a resolu- tion along these lines. The Flint SeaoltUion. That committee made a report on the 20tli of April The committee perhaps was not very numerous. I do not know 2H many of llie members personally. 1 Hee the Hon, J. C AikioH, Senator Vidol, Major Bond, Mr. F. S, Spence were there, a repre- Hentative from Prince Kdward Island, Mr. Jan. McMuIlen, and others I do not know personally. It wan not a very lorjte com- mittee, and I have mentioned mo«t of the members. The com- mittee recommended a bill in favor of prohibition to be .submit- ted to the electors. Acting on instructions fi'om that meeting, Mr. Fhnt, on the 28th of July, in the same year, introduced a motion into the House of Commons, the first two clauses of which I will read : — " (1) That, subject and except as hereinafter mentioned, the sale of intoxicating liquor in every Province and Territory in Canada should be prohibited. "(-) That the act prohibiting such sale should not come into force in any Province or Territory unless and until ii njajority of the qualitied electors therein, voting at an election, shall have voted in favor of such act." In speaking on that resolution, as you will see by referring to Hansard of that date, Mr. Flint said : " This resolution, as a majority of hon. gentlemen are aware, emanates from the Domi- nion Alliance, an association which lias been for many years doing good work in connection with the prohibition of the liquor traffic in Canada." I agree with that too. " It is the aim of the alliance to represent the general public sentiment of those who believe in a prohibitory liquor law for the whole Dominion as the proper goal towards which citizens favorable to the progress of temperance should labo"-. I v/ould have much preferred had more time been placed at the disposal of those who sketched out this line of prohibitory effort that it could have been incorporated in a bill. After discussion this resolution was sketched out, and I trust no one will treat it as if it were an attempt at a complete exposition of the case from that standpoint." The third clause of Mr. Flint's resolution was as follows: — " (3) That upon such vote in favor of said act being only cer- tified to the Governor-General in Council such act shall be brought into force in said Province or Territory and shall remain in force therein for four years and thereafter until the same shall have been repealed in said Province or Territory. Such repeal shall not take effect therein until a majority of the ((uali- fied electors in such Province or Territory vote for the repeal thereof; the proceedings tor such repeal to be similar in all respects to those bringing the act into force." 29 The Majority Meant. Mr. WuiTXKY: Is tlie majority mentioned there a inajnrity of the total qu aitieU voterx ! Ho». Mr. Kois : That in a little ambiguous, but I will give it to you as I understand it. It reads a majority of the qualified electors therein, and then the resolution proposing the repeal reads in precisely the same terms : " The said bill shall not take effect therein until a majority of the qualified electors in such Province or Territory, voting at an election, shall have voted for the repeal thereof.' It does seem grammatically very clear, that Mr. Flint and the Alliance then committed themselves to the majority vote, a vote of the majority of the electors. Mr. Whitnkv : In favor of the bill ; the repeal would require a larger majority. Hon. M::. Ross : A majority of the electors. I am liound to say that in rjading the debates on that occasion I observe that one memher -I think it was Mr. Bell, of Prince Edward Island — referred to the resolution as meaning not a majority of the electors, but a majority of those who voted ; but, as I said a moment ago, the resolution appeared to me to mean a majority of the electors. The Alliance Manifesto. In following out this the Alliance issued a manifesto to the people of the Province in which they said : " The legislation pro- posed in the leport of the committee will be a long step in advance. It will enable each Province to secure prohibition of a more thorough and effective kind that could be enacted by a Prcvincial Legislature. The further voting proposed will be not like the plebiscites already taken, mere expressions of opin- ion, but actual law-making action bringing prohibition into force by a majority vote in any Province. Voting should be at next general election without auy petition." There the words are, " by a majority vote in any Piovince." That brings us to the position practically in which we are now. If we be charged with acting from political motives and shirking our responsibility we have a pretty good answer in the action of the Alliance and the resolution they adopted. I do not know if this meets the approval of the Alliance or not ; per- haps they do not know what we propose. When they do I sin- cerely trust our course will meet with their approval. M The Government's I'ltdget. One tiling inoiu in this very discursive HildreNx, and I have ifone. I will go back, if my hon. friend f'^om North Toronto iMr. Marter) will allow nie, t) that interesting period in the liintory of the (louse when the lion, member brought in a bill, known lui the Marter Bill, in 1893. At that time various depu- tations waited upon the Government and asked for Provincial prohiliition. Sir Oliver Mowat, who was then Premier, was not tienr up in the question of jurisdiction. He therefore framed certain questions which were subsequently referred to the Privy Council, and on which the opinion of the Privy Council was afterwards obtained, and I am sorry to say, without any re- proach to the Lords of the Privy Council, that I never could quite clearly understand what their decision was. However, the Lei'islature of Manitoba and also of Prince Kdward Island intro- duced what was known as a Provincial prohibitory law. That of Manitoba has stood the test of the Privy Council, and there- tore it acted within its constitutional limitations. Now, going back to 1894, we are confronted with the pledfjes which the Government are said to have given to the prohibitionists at that time. On the 26th Df February, 1804, a large deputation waited upon us. I had the honor of being present as a member of the Oovernment, and we were asked what we were going to do if prohibition would be within the competence of our Provincial Legislature. Sir Oliver Mowat's pledge was, " If the decision of the Privy Council should be that the Province has the jurisdic- tion to pass a prohibitory liquor law as to sale, I will introduce such a bill at the following session if I am at the head of the Government." Relation of the Manitoba Bill. I think we can sitely say, I do not think we need at all to sxercise any ingenuity or casuistry in saying, that the prohibition bill adopted or passed by Miinitolia is not a prohibi.o.- liquor law as to ."lalc, but it does prohibit the sales in hotels and in elubs, and in private boarding-houses. It does not prohibit the sale in drug stores, nor to citizens of Manitoba who desire to buy it from outside the Province. I do not think that that pledge of Sir Oliver Mowat's was covered by the Manitoba Act. The next pledge is somewhat different : " If the decision of the Privy Council is that the Province has jurisdicoion to pass only a par- 31 tial pruliibiloty liquor law, I will intruJuce such a bill an th« deciaiou will warrant, unleaa the partial prohibitory power in no limited as to lie ineffective from a temperance itandpoint." Bouiui by the I'Utiyu. It would be unworthy of me to attempt by any verbal or technical or metuphyeical distinction to explain away the force of that pledge. ] think I could make out a very Htroug cane that aome featurea, at all events, of the Manitoba law would not be efiective Ironi e. temperance standpoint. The public estimate, however, or apprrJaement of that pledge, •"m that whatever Manitoba would do we would do, and I would rather take the responsibility ol redeeming the pledge in that frank and oped way, in which it wiw accepted by the public, than attempt by any word of mine to explain it away, we took the public into our confidence, iind seated thus and so, and the public understood us to mean that whtn partial prohibition was introduced by Manitoba we would do likewise, when it wax shown to be within our constitutional limitation, acting on and fulfilling that pledge to its very letter, without any reservation or misgivings either way. But some will say this is not a fulfilment of our pledge, to introduce a bill and refer it to the people for approval, and that we should introduce the bill on ourre.spon8ibiiity as aJOov- ernment, and in the heroic language of our opponents, "stand or fall by it." I do not know what Sir Oliver Mowat had in his mind, or whether he proposed introducing the bill on his responsi- bility as Premier. I cannot attempt to say what was in his mind. Change in Public Sentiment. Public opinion at that time was particularly active on the subject of temperance. I do not want to apologize if it be said that we have shifted our ground from .Sir Oliver Mowat's time that is, within the last eight or nine years. Everybody will admit that temperance sentiment in Ontario is not as intense, as deep and as strong as it was then. In 1891, when the first plebiscite was taken, the majority for prohibition was 80,000. In 1898, at the second plebiscite, it was under 40,000, a great falling off in those four years. I hope there is no furtlier falling off in that sentiment which makes for temperance and sobriety ; and without .seeking to justify my action by what I think every- body will aduiit is a. change in public opinion, a change which is I wideapreail, I taka the ■trongeat grounil, and t nhall take it H •riftinal ground, that the wiaeat thing for the temperance men and the wiaeat action for the public men of this country ia to lei the pvopio jud);e between them aa to what ia the atato of public rpinion on thisr|iii;ation. The Later Plidgtt. That ia what I propoae to do, and I 4I0 that oaautning, iH I do, to a certain extent, full rosponaibility, or a certain nicaaure of reaponaibility, for the promisea which Sir Oliver UowHi made, promises which were aaaumed by Mr. Hardy In March, 1MD7, when he aaid : " Wo take the reaponaibility ; we were parties to that pledge. We were parties to draw- ing the declaration, and we atand by it, and we will not be driven from it becauae people tell ua in a moment — I think some- timea of recklessness — that we have violated our pledge." That is what he aaid in March, 1897. I atated to a deputa- iioD which waited on the Qovernment since I had the honor of becoming Premier, that I would not recede from the position taken by my predecessors on this queation. I further said to a deputation on IV'.rp* "Ist, 180!, that theOovernmentwerealways prepared to go as far as the law would allow, and I had not re- ceded from that position. A week later I said to a deputation lepreaenting the Methodist Church : " You know what our past record has been, what our predecessors have agreed to, and what is the general policy of the Qovernment upon that question. That need not be repeated over and over again, because you !'- -•" 'he ea"e in renards a fhre. fif ^ ■ / " ^'"l '"''J°"'>'- '^'he opinion as regards a three-fiftha ...ajority is a basis for which somethinir may .nvolvc but a small expression of public opinion In 1894 onlyo- percent of the vote was polled, and oi^y 46 i„ 1898 Any expression limited in its area, or any vote that does not g.ve a large enough majority to insure the law being observed Uw iX t™rn^;-; --''^^^ -> ">« I-egislatur':"t? S^i The Majority Required. We vyere, therefore, obliged to abandon the idea entertained atone t.me ot a majority of three-fifths, and we ultima.elv settled down to this view-that the vote should be based unon p'^or^r^^o'^irr^-n^'-^^™"'^-^'^ poll 440,000. In a keen contest it runs from 72 to 75 per cent of this k.nd, and we say with the utmost frankness that if ws can trust the people of this country to change the complexion of this House by a majority vote, we can trust the Sitv n^ the people to change the social order of things. Themaoritv of people ,n the United States make or unmake a PresWrf ? majority of people in the United Kingdom make or unmake the i ! Uovernment. Governments are important and Presidents ure important, but it is more important for the moral well-beinn- of this country that we should noi, by the legislation of a small portion of the people put on the statute book a prohibitory law which in a short time will be repealed, and behind which 'there was not a sufficient public opinion, and which will so discredit the temperance movement that it will not rally for twenty or twenty-Hve years. V'e are ^'reatly impressed with this view of the question, which has been strongly represi ti'd to us, that a bare majority should carry. A bare majority in a case of this kinm I would sooner consult than he— I go to Dr. Carman. But in law, I follow the constitutional advisers, and many of these are not aliens to the temperance cause, for I understand that Dr. Maclaren has not said it is un- constitutional. If its constitutionality is settled, then the whole 43 force of the criticism of the bill lien itj{ain8t tliu courHe we have puroueH. Havn wo followed a proper course ! Im it a ri;;lit thing for the (iavernment to trust the people to take u third or fourth step, having alriwly taken two I I |>ro|«jse to trust the people, th It is up to that point. The next (|Ue-.tion which con- fronted us was. if a prohibitory liquor law was passeil what would be the end— for a wise man endeavors to see the end from the bej,'inning, if he can. We know what the end was in the case «{ local option : it was passed by ft large majority. We know the eml in every case here of the Scott Act. It wa.s passed lu twenty-six counties and two cities, by a large inajority. Dr. McKay and I have laUjrcd together un the same platlorm in favor of the Scott Act, and if the enthusiasm of two vigorous men would have made it conclusive, it might to have been successful. It was not. Jt was repealed. In the United States prohibition was adopted in sixteen States and repealed i.T eleven of them. I put it to you as reasonable men, if you were in my place, responsible for the legislation of the country, would you have advanced legislation in favor of partial pro- hibition where it had been found almost invariably to fail ' I don't think one of you would have done .-o. Having found in the United States a system of voting and basis of legislation which in so many cases— every one except five— has failed, would it not have been the maddest thing for us, the most inex- cusable folly for us, to abandon the license laws and project the country into partial prohibition, which would have been repealed when it was found to be working unfavorably and which would in the ineantiiiie place us in a position of turmoil and confusion which, in my opinion, would be very injurious to the teinper- atice cause. We know the general tone of public opinion in favor of a bare majoriity, but as public men— you i..ay call us politicians if you like— responsible for law and order, the Government haon.sider the matters of deaths absentees, etc .Vow let us analyze the matter for a moment mathematically : We polled 75, in WM of the men on the lists. We polled ..j , that is to say 400,000 odd- if 200000 say that prohibition shall carry, you have it. That is if 50 of the ,0 say so, you shall have it. That is, if 37 ( on tlie lists say 8u. 'I'liat is, if :1 out of every H on the lists a'ay so, you can have it. That is the proposition in s-"iplc Eniflish We say that a minority of three voters out of e y eijrht shall have the right to force prohibition on the other hve. Now I want you to think that over. Three men ^. this Province who™ out to the polls ami want prohibition can force it on the other five l-rohibition becomes the law of the lan.l the Government will by proclamation make it the law of the land— and the Oovern- ment will ijive all its power, if this Government is in to make the law effective. That is as far as I have gone. I want to say now that that is as far as we can go. There is no use mincing matters. I cannot say that a bare majority of the votes polled will give prohibition. That might mean a large or a small vote. If the day of voting is bad that might mean a very small vote. Temperance men are not more likely to come out to vote on a bad day than other people. You have great diffi- culties, you say, in inciting them or in forcing them to come out. that IS unfortunate, but we say if three out of every eight of you come out for prohibition, you can have it. You say that wc are not forcing the other people to come out. I say we don't care about them (Some cries of " Oh, oh.") I say we are not troubling ourselves about the other people. Let us be reason- able I don't care, for instance, whether the other side in West Middlesex come out and vote against me. I don't care whether they come to the polls or stay away, but I want my own people Ui to coiiiH out. If you Imvn 2110,1)00 peopli) in the Province of Onutrio who want prohibition brin^ thuin out. Whiit ilous it matter to you if your opponentH do not conie out r • — (Some ilixunler, HuvernI Kentleinen attempt to Hpcak in reply). Thk PnBMiKtt: Onler.order. ({cntlemen. I have not interrupted liny body. Let your enlhii.siamn be reHtrained. my friends ; we are down here at piactical [lolitioi, piactioal l.u.siiieK«. We siiy til the temperance men of Ontario if three out of every eiglit of you come out to vote for ]irohibition, wo will give it to you iind enforce it. That is ii very easy proposition. I am hen' on that b»»is inyaelf — yes, about on that baaia I am here niysilf. I am here by a majority of the votes polled, and you will be successful in prohibition by a majority of the votes polled, and I don't think you have a ri^ht to be succeaaful in any other way, it you will pardon me for sayinj; it. Mrs. Thornley has ajked as to how We provide ajjainst corrupt practices. There is the same pro- vision H((.iinst corruption as in our own election. The law is a» stronj; in one caae as in the other. You will say, of course, that the liquor men will try to keep people at home. So they will, no doubt, and if you had the liquor men voting they would try- to bi iiiR them out. Mrs. Thornley said there was gross corrup- tion in London. That amse because they came out, and if you keep them away there will lie no corruption. You will come out and vote purely, I am sure. You say they tried to stuff the ballot-boxes, but they cannot do that if they stay at home, and you will do your best, and 1 will, to brin'; tl, ,i out by proper means. I know I do not satisfy you all, '^' I ' ! p?ct to do that, but neither did I try to satisfy all 'it . i ■• dors. My desire is to give the people of Ontario a liquor law that can be enforced, fain too jfood a temperance man, and I hope the good Lord will always keep me that, by word or speech to do anything that would be prejudicial to the temperance cause. It is too good a cause to be sacrificed, even by the enthusiasm of its friends. But we are here to legislate for the liquor-dealers just as much as for you. They are exactly the same in tht eye of our law as you. All are citizens of the country, and all have the rights of citizenship. And, of rourse, we have to do what is fair. We propose to change the condition of things that have existed ever since Canada had a Government, by saying that three mtn out of eight may force prohibition on the rest of the people and put them to all sorts of irconvenience, and yet nobody says that prohibition is a religious obligation, to be observed no matter what the consequences. Surely those citizens who 47 .lo ii.,t huUl Hroiin vieWM <,:i,. way or lliu oilier, K. wIkiim tlilH muaHiiro will Ik olmoxious, h«vi' lu be counulcreil. I coiii» im tlif other p.mt, but Hrtt, pertrnpi, I »l,ouM iiiake oiu remark in reply to something Dr. ( ariiian wi.l. He wild that uii.lcr the preijcnt conditions of voting the ballot-lioxen would bo stuffed with iOO,00() voteM before tlie voting In to({un. \\ay mean a small minn^^^M'^ * T*""'* .™''.' Y°" «"'»'<^> therefore, have a minority of the people putting into operation and giving life and vitality to a bill in regard to which there had^not^been an ^TJ^^J'^'^TT °' P°''''= "Pinion- I" ordinary legislation lelution^ "f""'' "J""'' "'"'•""y b« go»d and wen, but in lr!ln W f";'''^- "'^' J"""*"? S '" "^ny- t°"<=''ing those who are in business touching those who are in public life, touching the social relations of a large number of our people, one can read ly see how a law like that, born in weakness ani feebleness would only exist in a sickly and ineffective condition for some S6 time and be cast aside by those who ^ave it their support We therefore, insist upon one-half of those who have voted at an election, who may vote to signify their opinion of this bill and in obtaining one-half, if that one-half be a majority of the votes cast, then prohibition becomi'S effective. It is a very simple proposition indeed. If not one-half of the voters of thin Province say that the present balance of political parties shall or''o^^Hr';^"'!X"^ " ?'"'" ^ ohonged. then iHs changed or continued accordioaiy. I cannot get away from that as Sne of the simplest and fairest propositions that could be submitted IT:'?'!^ °^ *''? ■?" occasions such a, a general election go out to express an opinion upon public questions affectin.r the Province, being asked to come out and express a public oph.ion the rlT' N Ik"""':' '" ^- /"™y Judgment, conclusive as to the result Nothing less si ould be taken, nothing more need '.e ^.,lL;.t '■ '^«.P"°<=iP'« of equipoise, which maintains our institutions in their present shape. Vote of 1S98 the Basis. That vote is to be based on the elections of 1898, as we at present intend. In my opening speech I said it would be based upon the general elections that may take place some time durine the coming summer. Objections were taken to that on two groi-nds. First, it was said that some would refrain from votinir m order that the aggregate vote may be small, and thus make prohibition easy to carry. Others said : We will force the vote make It as large as possible, and make prohibition difficult to carry. Both proposals are objectionable, and, so far as the law H concerned should be prevented, if the law can prevent them In order to hnd a sure basis, and one that is already determined' we have taken the vote of 1898, and in taking the vote of 1898 we assume that the registered vote on the bill will be as near as may be the same as the vote which may be polled in 190" For instance, I find in 1898 the registered vote was 582 345- that was in our last general election. In the last Dominion election, S 1898 AnnTf r** """^r"" ^^^•??^' °' °°'y "« Sre>iU<^ than vt ; ■ ," ''°°- arentlemen will notice this fact they will see that my inference from that is a sound one. The vote ot 1S»8 was practically taken upon the lists of 1897, for the elec- Xo^fn^^"'^; T'"'.™'?"^ 1900 was taken upon the list fLI ■ ^ A.^* vote was in November. In these threVyears the increase in the registration was only 58. so that since last elec- 87 tion the presumption is reasonable that the inereane in the reeii.. tration ii. a matter of a very few hundred at the very most even If It would amount up in the hundreds. The Majority Rules. The vote polled in 1898 was 426,876 ; one more than the half ot that means prohibition, if recorded in favour of this act, pro- vided that those on the other side do not poll a larger nuniber of votes We believe that on that basis we would get a law that could be enforced. We believe in the principle that the majority ought to rule, and the bill provides that it shall rule. (Ministerial applause.) We poll about 75 per cent, of the regis- tered vote in the general elections. We arc taking one-half of 75, or 37J per cent, of the voters on the list. That means, as I sai.l a few days ago, that if three out of eight voters on tlie list recorcl them-selves in favor of the prohibitory law it prevails, that IS certiinly as reasonable, as comprehensive, I was going to say as j;euerons, as we can make it. (Ministerial applause.) It IS said that only those in favor of the measure require to vote in this ewe. I do not know about that. I believe that tho.se opposed to prohibition will vote. They have the privilege and there is no reason why they should not vote. I saw an announce- ment in the papers the other day that it is their intention to vote. Their argument is that if the vote for prohibition is very large, and only a few straggling votes cast against it, the coun- try will come to the conclusion that there is no anti-liquor senti- ment. Prominent temperance men think it would be in the interests of a thorough test of the question if both sides will vote. It IS possible that the other .side will vote with greater energy than is expected at this moment, or is desired later on X hope that this is not the case. It- there be a sufficient number ot votes for the measure, temperance men need not care if the votes on the other side be few or many. As to the Date. Another objection is that we have fixed on a special day We have mentioned the Uth of October. We propose chanain - It to a day later in the year ; early in November, or some con- venient date when we believe that the means of transportation would be better than later on, and a sufficient time had elapsed after the holidays to enable those who have views on the subject 58 to prenenl them to the people. We are certainly of the opinion that thia cjueHtion m of aufflcient maKnitude and importance to demand the coneideration of the electom of tbia country on a aeparate day. (Miniaterial applauae.) I cannot get away from that. Local option in on a separate day, though the vote is aoiiietimes doubled with municipal electiona. The .Scott Act haa a aeparate day. I waa in the Home of Commona when it became law. .No one wanted it to be mixed up with municipal elec- tiorm ; everyone ajfreed that it should Ije held on a aeparate day Mo far aa I remember, and it waa so. The plebiacitc of 189H waii taken on a aeparate d*y, and 1 never heard that the temperance men wanted the plebiscite taken in 1N98 to [le taken on the day of the municipal elections. Indeed, in looking over the papers I hnd that the report of the Plebiacite Committee of the alliance aaked two thinga : First, '■ that the basis of the vote be the fran- chise on which the next Parliament would be elected ; second timt the laaue of prohibition should be submitted separate from' hII Dther questions of public policy. Especially," the report says, do we object to any method of raising revenue being joined with prohibition in the vote, aa the problem of revenue has been, i» and will continue to be a public question large and important enough to be dealt with by itself." (Ministerial applause.) You can only get the question separated from all other questions of public policy on a aeparate day. If you have it on municipal election day it is mixed up vith municipal electiona. Previoi l^iewi as to Date. The propriety of a vote on the question on municipal election day was discussed in thia House in the Ontario plebiscite de- bates of 1893. Mr. Meredith, who was then leader of the Oppo- sition in this House, said: Another objection to the bill was that, instead of submitting the (|uestion at the expense of the I'rovince, It was proposed to interject it into the municipal politics of the country. Instead of parties dividing on local matters, the issue would be the question of prohibition, and •"""'Cipal Councillors would be elected on the question aa to whether or not they were for or against prohibition. Why should not the question be submitted at the Provincial election, at which were to be elected the men who, if they had the power would pass a prohibitory law ? Mr. Whitney argued that the quertion should not be submitted to the women entitled to vote at municipal elections. That would mix it up in another way. 59, .1 (MiniHterial upplauaeO Mr. Magwood uid that the importnnt ciueittioni brought up at municipal electionn would dintract the attention from the ijueation at iimue. Also on the ground that many iwrsons aiMefMed in ditferent municipalitieii could vote more than once. The intention there wa.t, you see. in one form or another that the question should br separated from municipal elections purely m order that it should not be mixed up with other (lues- tions. On tho motion for the third reading Mr. McCleary moveii an amendment that the vote be taken at the Provincial instead of the municipal elections, and in favor of that resolution tho Opposition voted. (Ministerial applause.) They voted against it being held on a municipal election doy. The Uovernnicnt supported it, on the ground that the plebiscite was u moral expression of opinion on an academic ([uestion ; that it would only indicate the tone of public opinion ; that it would not necessarily come into operation to create a law. Should Stand Alone. The position now is quite different. The bill submitted to u" ,,?""*■ '' approved of, does become law. We think that it shoiild be submitted when the whole attention of the country can be given to the issue. (Ministerial applause.) As against this there are a few expressions of opinion. Some say we would get a fuller expression if the vote were held on municipal election u^' ''"''*' ""^^ " ™"y °°' *** the case. From inquiry I find that the vote .-i municipal election day is comparatively small. In Toronto at thi last municipal election only about 40 per cent, voted for the candidates for the Mayoralty. The presumption or expectation is that you will get a larger vote, because the people who go out to vote, being on the ground, mny at the same time vote for prohibition. Is it a fair way to deal with a great issue like this? Is it fair to assume Jiat men take so little interest m a great moral issue (and it is that) that they need extra inducement to go out and vote and express their views ? They are given no extra inducement to vote for Aldermen, and so on, and yet here is one of the largest questions ever seriously before the House and the country, and some men say it is not large enough to stand alone, that it must be attached to the election of some Alderman or township Councillor, or somebody else, because it is not able to stand alone. I decline as a tem- perance man to be put in that position. If the qufjstion cannot uu -tiiil ,il.)n« it ciniiot HUmUt «ll. (ChourHj AoiImo, wl.an wu aro ukiu^ thu tii-t »top, let uh l.mk at the »ecun iMimri.l A xepttrHte ilay itii.l il^clare thomnelves for the priii- ciples which they have alvocntBil iiml propagated for twenty or thirty yeari. That ii the IumIn I want tor my»e want for iiiyHcIt I want for others. nyaelf, anti what I yo Belitf in Intimidation. It will be xai.l that those who fto out and vote will be markeii ii.un. Who IS afraiil of bein({ ii marked man < Do you want to iMiply that a prohibitionist is tinctured with moral cowardice ; I declinn to be put in that class as a prohibitionist and advocat.' of temperance. Atarked men, foiwioth \ In my early days every man who signed the pledge waa a marked man, and was scotfe.l at as a man too weak to take a drink or let it alone, and had to fimten himself up by pledges and obligations, being unable to Bland without such obligations. And we stood our ground for a quarter of a century or perhaps a longer period, and now that feeling has swung to the other ai.le ; a man is not dogradeii Qor scoffed at because he is known to bo a temperance man. In my early elections a man who did not spend freely at the bur was lookoil upon as unworthy of the respect of the elector) limes have changjd. Treating at the Imr may not be pru- hibite-i, but It is now lookeil upon only a' a mark of generosity, apart altogether from the impropriety of spending money to get men intoxicated to shout for the candidate. Marked men ! rho men who laid the founilations of civil and religious liberty •were strong enough and bold enouj^h to permit themselves to be marked, in order to assert themselvea, and show the world that they had convictions. The early Christians were marked men. The Presbyterians in Scotland were hunted like part- ridges m the mountains because they were marked men. The abolitionists in the United States were marked men, and William Lloyd Qarrison said in his preface to his first edition of The Liberaio'r that " I have taken this ground ; I will not retreat a single moh ; I will be heard " ; and he was heard above the booming of the cannon in that terrible civil war. And why ' Because he .'ared to be a marked man— dared to be a marked ^s,n for the cuuse of human liberty. (Ministerial applause.) We are here n tie full blaze of the twentieth century liberty ei »nd we iiilc aonietxxly to liold iin iiinbrella over an m wu m. to the poll* to vot.' for prohilntion, an.7y to take UK to vote lor John Smith a« Alilerinan, and then wi.en vou K«t ULide and mark a Ullot f "ouncilli.r, you »lip a ballot into the Iwx for prohihitio . in that way you expect prohibition to be effective! (Jr.; , .oveniontN m„l rufor.ui. are not won in that way, (Minl»teriai cheera.) And if there W ■.iiythin« for which the temperance men ol CanailH hnv.- to reproach theniHelvea more than another ii ia becausn they wore not prepared to HUnd up or be counted either for referenda or for the Scott Act. An Unworthy Reproach. I disraina that m an unworthy excuse for failinc to do one's duty in a great moral reform, and I di»iiii>iH aa unworthy of notice the pretence that employee will ,.xerci»e undue influence over the voter,, I do not think that will l« done. Humlred. and thouwnda of men who employ labor are as anxious for pro- hibition as the men who serve them, (Hear hear) It i» a reproach which .hould not be cast upon them, that they will not give their men ample facilities to go out and vote. The law allows two hours at midday to vote ; our bill will ^ive the same privileges, and I will be disappointed if a single man is tol.l by his employer that he must yield his liberty as a British subject in going to the polls. ■* Vote ill November. ■ ' 'f.T *? P'""''"' ""* ■""""' "'' ^'ovemlwr as the date of poll- ing. We shall have the polling on a day in that month It will be convenient. The last general election of the Dominion was hel.l in that month. It was considered to be sea.sonablo weather and under these circumstances I think we may expect ii.s full an expression of public opinion as the occasion will warrant We hope to close the hotels on that day in order that no undue influence iiught be exerted. We hope that those who have changed their residence since the June election may be enabled to vote. What we want is the fullest expression of opinion without let or hindrance. The bill we pre,.ent on that basis, •f fk^^u.?,, °^ '!;* "-eception already given it. We shall be glad If that bill prevails. If it prevails and we are in power, we shall see that it is enforced to the best of our ability. It is no objection that this election will cost something. It will effect a great deal 62 educationally, and it will settle one way or the oth„ . S&tss^:i^sSi?:l^-T^-::: ^^i:^.teiSL'::i^SSV^^-''"'- high,ta„dardof mor^ity of wh cnarii»°°'/u '"«''"*''' ">"' often in the past. (^eL) ^"'""'ent has approv„,| ., The^*::s^°UtTd^t11"b^tw'""""%'='T''' °f "- '^■"■ prehen