CIHM Microfiche Series (Monngraphs) ICMH Collection de microfiches (monographles) Canadian InstHut* for Historical IMicroraproduetions / institut Canadian da mic r oraprod u ctlona MatorlqiMO 1995 Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes technique et biWiographiques The Institute lias attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibllographically unique, which may alter any of the images In the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming are checlted below. D D D D D Colouied covers / Couverture de couleur I 1 Covers damaged / ' — ' Couvertur- endommagte I I Covers restored and/or laminated / ' — ' Couverture lestauree et/ou pallicuiee I I Cover title missing / Le tttre de couverture manque r~| Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur r I Coloured ink (l.e. other than blue or lilack) / Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que Ueue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations / ' — ' Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material / Relie avec dautres documents Only edition available / Seule MWon disponible Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin / La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorslon le long de la marge interieure. Blank leaves added during restoialions may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from timing / II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutees lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, kjrsque cela etaH passible, ces pages n'ont pas m Nmees. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur examplaire qu'il lul a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exem- plalre qui sont peut-etre uniques du point de vue bibli- ographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modifications dans la m6th- ode normale de filmage sont indiqu^s cl-dessous. I I Cokxired pages/ Pages de couleur I I Pages damaged/ Pages endommagtes I I Pages restored and/or laminated / ' — ' Pages restaurees et/ou pellteuiees [^ Pages discotoured, stained or foxed / ' — ' Pages decok>rtes,tachet«esoupk;uees I I Pages detached/ Pages detachees rT' Showthrough / Transparence I I Quality of print varies / ' — ' Quality inigale de I'impression I I Indudos supplementary material / ' — ' Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire I I Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata ' — ' slips, tissues, etc., have been relilmed to ensure the best possible image / Les pages totalement ou partiellement olsscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont eie lilmies i nouveau de fa^on k obtenir la meilleure image possible. I I Opposing pages with varying colouration or ' — ' discolouralions are filmed twice to ensure the best possible image / Les pages s'opposant ayant des colorations variables ou des decol- orations sont filmees deux fois afin d'obtenir la meilleur image possible. D AddHkxial comments / Commentajres suppiementairBs; This ittm is filmad tt tlit rtduetion ratio chsefcsd below/ Ct dociifiHnt m film* au taux dt rMuetion indiqiii ei-dt«ouf . lOX 14X 18X 22X »X y 20X 24 X 28 X Tht copy fllmad h«ra hai baan raproduead thank* to tha ganaroiily of: National Library of Canada L'axamplaira film* fut raproduit grica i la S*n«roait* da: Blbllotheque natlonala du Canada Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha bast quality poasibia considaring tha condition and kgibillty of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract ipocif icationa. Original copias in printad papar eovara ara fllmad baginning with ttia front eovar and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or lllustratad impraa- aion, or tha back covar whan approprlata. All othar original copiaa ara fllmad baginning on tha first paga with a printad or llluatratad impraa- sion, and anding on tha last paga with a printad or lllustratad impraaaion. Tha laat raeordad frama on aach microfleha shall contain tha symbol —»• (maaning "CON- TINUED"!, or tha symbol ▼ (maaning "END"), whieiMvar applias. Las imagas suivantas ont it* raproduitas svsc la plus grand soin. compta tanu da la condition at do la nattat* da l'axamplaira film*, at sn eonformit* avae laa conditions du contrat da fllmaga. Laa aaamplairas orlglnaux dont la couvartura an papiar aat lmprim*a sont film*s an commancant par la pramlar plat at an tarminant soit par la darni*ra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'imprasslon ou d'lllustration. soit par la sacond plat, salon la cas. Tous las autras axamplairas orlglnaux sont film*s an commancant par la pramMra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'imprasslon ou d'lllustration at an tarminant par la darni*ra paga qui comporta una talla amprainta. Un daa aymbolas sulvanta ipparaltra sur la darni*ra imaga da chaqua microfiche, salon la caa: la symbols -* signifis "A SUIVRE". la symbols V signifia "FIN". Mapa, plataa, charts, ate, may ba fllmad at diffarant raduction ratios. Thosa too larga to ba aniiraly includad in ona axposura ara fllmad baginning in tha uppar laft hand cornar, laft to right and top to bottom, as many framas aa raquirad. Tha following diagrams illustrata tha mathod: Las cartaa, planchas, tablaaux, ate, pauvant ttra fllm*s * das Uux da r*duction dlff*rsnts. Lorsqua la documant ast trap grand pour ttra raproduit an un saul clich*. il ast film* * partir da I'angla sup*rlaur gaucha, da gaucha * droita, at da haul an baa, an pranant la nombra d'imagas n*csssaira. Las diagrammas suivsnts illustrani la m*thoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 "«»OC0»Y IBOtUTION IBI CHAIT (ANSI oral ISO TEST CHAIT No. 2, APPLIED IM^GE Inc tGS3 Eait Main SlrHl " (718) *B2-0»0-Vo^. ^ (716) 288-5989 - Fo. nI SPBBCH OaUVBRBO BY HON. Q. W. ROSS On the Introduction of the Bill respci.ilnc the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors, 12th February, 1902 Immediately upon the opening of the Legislature Wednes- day Premier Roas introduced his bill respecting the sale of intoxicating liquors, the effect of which is to bring into force the Hanitoba Liquor Act upon its being approved by the elect-irs entitled to vote for members of the L^slative Assembly. The date finally settled for the vote is December 4th. The act will become operative on May 1, 1904, upon getting a majority vote, provided the total number of votes oast ifor it shall exceed one- half the number of votes cast in the Provincial general election, of 1898. The address of Premier Ross, in introducing the bill, lasted two hours and ten minutes, and was as follows ; I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Gibson, for leave to introduce a bill entitled " An Act respecting the sale of intoxicating liquors 'n the Province of Ontario." In moving the firaf, reading of this bill, of which I gave notice a few days »go, I must ask the indulgence of the House [or having to speak at some length, in order to explain the more important features of the bill, which I expect the House to con- sider fully when it comes to its second reading. I have, in toy somewhat extended experience as a member of this House, takeii girt in many discussions with regard to the license laws of the rovinoe, and with regard to legislation imposing reasonable restrictions upon the sale of intoxicating liquor, all of which were thought to be in the public interest, and intended to pro- mote public morality. These discussions and attempts at legis- lation have extended over many years of the life of this Legis- lature. Even before I had the honor of a seat here, perhaps the most important legisUtion with regard to the license laws that ever occupied the attention of the Legislature was discussed, >iv io'.r «nd M now known an the Crooks Act of 187fi. I think hon Kentlemen on both sides of the House, i deed all well-wishers of humanity, *ill agree that in the main me tendencies of public opinion, (jrowing and deepening every year, by which the Legis- lature has been endeavonng to impose, and, I hope, measurably at least to enforce, restrictions upon the illicit sale of intoxicat- ing li(|Uor9, have been of great advantage to the public and have been of great assistance in inaintsining law and order, and in contributing morally, and [wrhaps Hnancially, to the welfare of the people. The effect of these restrictions has been to reduce very materially the number of places in which intoxicating liquors are sold. For instance, in the year before the Crooks Act was passed there were in the Province of Ontario ♦ 793 tavern licenses ; last year there were 2,621 In 187S there were 1,307 shop licenses, last year 308. In 1H7S there were 52 wholesale licenses, las* year there were 21. In 1875 there were 3.3 vessel licenses, last year there were none ; vessel licenses have been tjtirely abolished. We had in all licenses to the number of (>,185 in 1875, and last year we had 2,930. I mention this to show that the tendency of public opinion and the object of this legislation have been to conBne the sale of intoxicating liquors to the narrowest possible limits within which the license laws could be effectually enforced, and if it is reasonable to infer that by reducing the number of licenses 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 instance, in 1875 one license was issued to each 278 persons. Last year one license was Lssued 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 tor 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 abolition of licenses in many municipalities. We have in Ontario 736 organized municipalities. In 141 of these no tavern licenses are i.s.sued ; that 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 are issued In 625 municipalities there U not a single shop license. If we compare ouriMilves with our sister Provincta the result is e.jually sutis- fttCtory. I will not go into the details any further than merely to mention this one fact, that the eonvictioni for ilrunkennesa in Ontario are now one for each S28 people ; in liuebcc, one for each 4C1 ; in Nova Scotia, one for each 448 : in New Bruns- wick, one for each 253 ; in Manitoba, one for each 3.55 : in British Columbia, one lor 207; in Prince Eilwaril IslaU'l, one for each .S41; in the Territories, one for each 180; for the whole Dominion, one for each 310, and for Ontario one for lacli 828. It appears from these stiiti.stics, and I elo not know if you can rely on them absolutely, but they have been carefully pre- pared, and I think may be tru-sted to mean a good deal, that Ontario is the most temperate Province in the Dominion, and that the result of our license legislation has been giatifyini; in the extreme. I will not wait to go over the legislation of the various years, but will just mention one or two great ste) 8 in advance which have been taken in the la.st few years. I refer pirtictilarly to the License Act of 1897, whereby the unit of population to each hotel was raised, resulting in the closing of about 120 hotels. We also limited the hours for sale in towns from 6 am. to 10 p.m., and in cities from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Previous to this act, in many cities and inspectoral divisions there was no limitation at all on the sale of liquors either during the day or during the night Another amendment to the act prohibited the sale of liquors to minors. The effect of that, in a word, is simply that one-half or nearly one-half of the whole I)opulation of the Province was placed under prohibitory regula- tions. Other minor provisions need not be mentioned. Now, the high-water mark of our license law was reached in ' S07. Legialation vxu Postpone' f. It was thought that a year ago this act could be still further improved, and the Government had carefully prepared a bill for that purpose. While that bill was under consideration we were met by the action of the Manitoba Legislature adopting Pro- vincial prohibition. We were met, too, by strong demands froma very influential part of our population for similar pro- hibition in Ontario, and we thought that until this question of Eartial prohibition was disposed of we would allow the license iw to stand. The larger would, of course, include the lesser in the estimation of the promoters of this latter movement. We therefore had no license legislation since 1897, although we were of the opinion, au., neaaure, and yet for thirty yean, more or leiu, the question n: prohibition has been before the PHrliamenta, first of the old • rovince of Canada, thnn the Parliament of the Dominion, und before thin Purliauient, and ^et neither of the two great parties felt ilispoaed to raise an issue, a direct issue, at the poUn on the (piestion of prohibition in the »ame way as issues ere raised on the other questions I have named. Ifot a Partj/ (Jutttiun. That being the case, we are therefore presenting this question to the House not strictly as ii party measure ; we are not asking the electors to vote as Liben.ls or Conservr'jves ; we are sub- mitting it in the sense that it is a great question of vast im- portance to the people, a question that to some extent is of so great importance as for the time biiing to absorb or overshadow the differences which party leaders have made between each other, and ask for the opinion of the electors irrespective of their party affiliations. I can understand that if prohibition were passed by either party, in the ordinary method of political warfare, there might be a disposition on the other side to discredit it. 1 do not say that either party would do so, butsimilar things have happened in party conflicts. If this question can be submitted to the people as a question on which the best thought of the people can be enlisted, and in regard to which the strongest convictions of the people can be expressed, without regard to their party affiliations, we would have a bettor and more conclusive and perhaps a more judicial decision th.in we could get on it in any other way. It It Constitutional ! The first question with which I am met then is this : Is the referendum which we are now adopting a conetitutional mode of procedure. I notice th ■, some of our newspapers take the ground that it is not constitutidhal, aud, as a matter of course, the Qovernment are severely censured foradopdng this .aeasure. It is said to be a measure by which we are shirking our respon- aibilities. It is uid to b« un-Britinh, • departure from Britiih uaugea. The fact that we are intrmlucins the nieHaure in thii form oilds to the reaponaibilitiea which I now feel in the dis- euMioii on which I have entered. I am not merely introducioK a bill for prohibition, but a bill which may be (|Uoted aa a pre- cedent fur many year) to come oa to the proper procedure in other niatterit. I am aware what a great diverfienca it may mean from the practice of thia LegiHiaturo aince conatitutional government wax eatublinhed here. Having aome miiigivio|{a in the matter, I put myself in communication with Sir John Bourinot, who ia admittedly a high authority on conatitutional matters. I wrote him aa loni; ago aa Dec. laat, aaking him to express lus opinion on two pointa. Opinion* of High Authoritief. Firat, did he thinic that the question of a referendum w»a a constitutional mode of procedure, and secondly, when the opinions of the electors had been expreaaed, by what procedure could the prf rogative of the Crown be put into effect ? Sir John Bourinct's memorandum is a little long, but as I said at the outset, I intend to proceed with deliberation and calmness, aa the question is such an important one, and I ahall 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 {lublic support which it will receive in case it is brought into egal operation. It ia for this reason that the Dominion Parliament and the Legislatures of several Provinces have, within a decade of years, submitted to the people at the polls the queation whether they are in favor of prohibitng the sale of spirituous liquors within the limits of their constitutional jurisdiction before proceeding to pass legislation dealing with the subject ?" PUbiscite an4 Referendum. " While the plebiscite may be compared to the Swiss ' initiative,' which gives the right to the electors to move the legislative bodiea to Uko up and coniider any aubjeet of public inUreat, the referendum which ia alao borrowed from the name counlrj', haa been alao aug^rated on aeveral ocoaaiona aa a deairable and efficient method of bringing into force a meaaure which can only be suceenaful when it obtaina the une<]uivocal aupport ol a Utgt majority of the people interented in ita proviaioiia. Thia democratic feature ot the Swim political ayatem may be com- pared with the practice that already exiata in Canada of refer- ring certain by-laws of municipal bodies to the vote of the ratepayera of a municipality, of ^iviii); the people of a dintrict an opportunity of accepting or rejectin); the Canada temperance act, of permitting a majority of the ratepayera in a municipal diviaion to eatabiiBh a free library at the public eapenae," etc And here, Mr. Rom continued, he quotes a high constitutional authority, Cooley, of whoae standing, I am sure, hon. gentlemen are well aware. Mr. Cooley says : " It is not always essential that a legislative act should be a competent atatuto which muxt in any event take effect i i law at the time it leaves the hand nf the legialative department" A statute "mav be conditional and its trVing effect may be made to depend upon some subsequent eve " " On the question of the referendum ar ed to certain clasaea of legislation Dr. Jamea Bryce has well aaid : — " A general elec- tion, although in form a choice of particular persona as members, haa now become practically an expression of popular opinion on the two or three lending measures then propounded ar i -lia- cusaed by the party leaders, as well aa a vote of confide - or no confidence in the Ministry of the day. It is in subet' .3a 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 clings to and ^ uuda itself upon the absolute aupremacy of ita representative Chamber, the notion of a direct appeal to the people haa made much progress." And Mr. Dice^, an equally competent authority, telle us : — "The referendum, in ahorc, is a regular, normal peaceful proceeding, as unconnected with revolutionary violence or despotic coercioo and as easily carried out as the sending up of a bill from the House of Commons to the House of Lorda. The law to be accepted or rejected is laid before the people in its precise terms ; they are conseraed solely with ita merits and demerits ; their 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 tor 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. Mb. 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 of 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 Premier: It might have been adopted here. Mr. Whitney : The hon. gentleman misunderstands me. I say that such a deadlock is impossible here, because 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 provi-sion whatever 9 having been made for such a difficulty. I would not be at all surprised if, in revising our constitution, such a provision was included. It would be a very good way of getting over the difficulty. A Vexed Question. If a referendum is unconstitutional, how do you account for its acceptance by the House of Commons in the case of Aus- tralia ? Then, Sir John Bourinot, continuing, says : — " It .seems to me that the question of prohibition is one of those vexed questions which affect so deeply the social and moral, conditions of the people at large that it can properly be taken out of the category of ordinary subjects which can be best solved by the wisdom of the Legislature itself." And further on he says ; " The whole object of a plebiscite, as well as a referendum, is to obtain such a complete decision of the popular will as will enable the Legislature to deal definitely with a question on which there is great variance of opinion." I need not read the whole of this paper. It is all on the line that I have indicated. There are the two great constitutional authorities that I have mentioned, the action of Australia, and then there is the opinion of Sir John Bourinot himself that in this or any similar matter we are quite within our rights, that it is a legitimate thing, and it would not be an unconstitutional procedure for us to adopt a referendum, or take the opinion of the electors a.s to whether such and such a bill meets with their approval, and that opinion being expressed in the terms laid down by Parliament, then the proclamation of the Crown should issue, bringing it into effect. The Privy Council. There is another argument which is very strong to my mind, and that is the opinion of the Privy Council given in the case of the Queen v. Hodge, where the Privy Council declared that the powers of the Provincial Legislature were within its own jurisdiction as full and ample as the powers of the British House of Commons. I will just quote one sentence : " When the B.N.A. Act enacted that there should be a Legislature for Onta- rio, and that its Legislative Assembly should have exclusive authority to make laws for the Province and tor Provincial pur- poses in relation to matters enumerated in section 92, it conferred powers not in any sense to be exercised by delegations from or as agents of the Imperial Parliament, but authority as plenary 10 ■nd a8 ample within tlie limits prescribed by section 92, as tlie 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 liir-it on the greatest Parliament in the world, a Parliament thai has legislated not only for 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, sir, is further confirmed by the judgment of Lord Selbome in a noted case arising out of an act of the Government of India. A word from Lord Selborne's judgment will 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. It Lord Selborne's judgment is correct, we could also pass it conditional on the vote of the electors, that is, coiidi- 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 lo strongly defended. You have, therefore, very strong evi- dence leadmg up to the view I desire to start out with, that our 11 fict was not unconstitutional. I could quote, also, Canadian au- thorities, some of them bearing as closely on the subject as those I have already quoted, others a little more remote. In 1891 Mr. Flint, who was leader of the temperance movement in the House of Commons, spoke on the bill — Mr. Flint was not leader then — but 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. Taylor to Mr. Jamieson's bill, to the effect that " it is essential to the effectual working and permanent maintenance of such an enactment that the electorate of Canada should first pronounce a definite opinion on the subject at the polls." Mr. Mills, in speaking to the amendment, said: "I do not admit that it is an un-British or unconstitutional proceeding to refer a matter of this kind directly to the people of the coun- try." Mr. Mills wa'; 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 : " I admit that it is an undesirable course to take in a majority of 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 requires a general co-operation of the community to give it effect. I do not think a greater misfortune could befall the cause of 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 is said to be un-Erclioh, that there is no precedent for it. Well, sir, I am not aware that it is absolutely essential that we never shouUi take any step in this new country unless we can show an English precedent for it ; but we can show pre- cedents in other countries, in Switzerland, as my hon. friend reminds me." Hard to Keep Under, 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 suomitting.as the hon. gentlemen seem to anticipate, that there are constitutional 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 please," so he had no doubt as to the constitutional process. " Bi;t/' he says, " I feel very confident in the assertion that such a mode of action is utterly repugnant to constitutional principles we have adopted and followed with zeal down to the present time." Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in the same debate, says : " I agree to a large extent with the Minister of Justice that the system of referring such a question, or, in fact, any question, to a plebis- cite is not in harmony with our institutions. 1 would rather see this question, and a'l other questions, disposed of in the old British manner, that it', by Parliament itself. The hon. gentle- man and all people v>^ o look at this question dispassionately must admit that, in this instance, there might be an exception made. Rules exist, but there are few rules to which there is 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 it 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 tbat year. There the question was raised as to the propriety of such a cour.se and as to its constitutional effects. Mr. Mills, 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 Gov(;mment, 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. Further evidence shows that Sir John Macdonald and Sir Mackenzie Bowell, and all who had any status in Parliament in fact for thu last ten or fifteen years, either by their vote or by 13 their speeches, accepted the constitutionality of a referendum. If, therefore, we are inalcing 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 great 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 tlie decision of the courts, and therefore useful in legislation ; but we pass — I was almost going to say 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 grandfathers 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 tb' liberty of the people, and to j.opu- lar institutions of our ancestors ; should we be for ever in lead- ing strings ; should we be restrained by hands that 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 Philosophic Expedient. That leads me to the next view. Is the referendum a mode of procedure which one might reasonably expect to meet with the approval of thoughtful men ? Legislation to be 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 Lord Salisbury is 14 full of thought and significance— Lord .Salisbury said- "I believe nothing could oppose a bulwark to popula- passion except an arrangement for deliberate and careful reference of any matt»rs in dispute to the people, like the arrangement existing in the United States and Switzerland." I commend these three or four lines to the thoughtful attention of the members of the House and the people of the country We are apt<|obe,to use a vulgar expression, stampeded in legislation, and to be stampeded in opinion by the intensity of the advocates of any partiCLilar opinion. We are apt to lose that Judicial poise which a legislature should always maintain if it is to deal nghtly by both parties who are to be affected by our legislation Va the one hand, we have the' militant temperance men. thoueht- ful, moral, pure-minded, earnest, anxious to see this world blossom out m beauty and freshness, and we have their case presented with such intensity-I shall no-, say emotion— as to almost overcome us by the argumenU as well as the illustrations jised. On the other hand, we have those in the trade who say Ihe trade IS our lite, we depend on it for our existence" They see no harm in it. To destroy it would be to turn them on the streets, to make beg?ars of wealthy men, and they bring before us the result of absolute prohibition. We have to stand midway between these two parties. They are both citizens ; the motives of one may be purer than ol the other some of you may say, but that is not the question we have tJ consider. ^u J**® ^question we have to consider is how so to legislate that, while we promote the moral influences the templrance man advocates, we do not inflict a moral wrong on the other man whose business we are disposing of, and this view has had 8 great deal of weight with me in thinking over the re-sponsi- oUity or a referendum. '^ A Single-chamber House. Moreover this is a single chamber; there is nobody to be ap- pealed to from this body. In the Dominion there is a SenatS ■ the object of a second chamber in all legislation is to steady the more volatile public opinion which finds expression iii the Lower House. If you will read the debates on confederation or the history of the House of Lords, yon will find that this is the view presented by the advocates of a second chamber. In the United States the compheations arising oui of the existence of a 15 second chamber are greater perhaps than in Great Britaio, and yet you will see that in the United States hasty lefpslation is more strongly guarded against than it is under the British system, and consequently the American constitution is less elastic than the British. We are the only Province in the Dominion that started out with a single chamber. We have guided legislation on the whole wisely, prudently, and with some little regard to conser- vative public opinion. We have in this instance to see it' the pressure— I use the word in a proper sense — that is brought to bear on us by those who are anxious for this legislation, is a Pressure endorsed by the electors in their minds and judgment, 'her^ is no other body to stand between us and the elector to give this question a second thought, and for that reason there is a good deal of force in the view I now entertain, that in a ques- tion like this, partaking somewhat of a material character, and in which there is such intense religious zeal involved — and some- times zeal perhaps outruns the good sense of the individual with regard to both views of the question — it does seem to me there ought to be some way of getting at the calm, judicial thought of the whole people, or shall I say some neutral body, or some other body that will give the subject sober second thought, and will give that sober second thought without any legard to the conse- quences involved. We are to a certain extent influenced, and in the main primarily so, by the effect it should have on our vari- ous circumstances. We ought not to try to get away too far from that principle on whicn, I think, the security of British in- stitutions depends, of occasional and frequent appeals to the electors. One of the great planks of the Chartists was triennial Parliaments, bringing the House of Commons to account every three years, if possible. We have to give an account every four years, but I want to point out, while this is our constitutional method, it may be well in a question of this kind, and this ques- tion seems to be unique, to nave some resting place where that second thought will be given, and where those who in the last analysis have to take the consequences, for good or evil, shall have an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon it. English Opinions. I have mentioned what Lord Salisbury said on the question of the referendum. The view of the great Conservative party of England is in harmony with Lord Salisbury's views. The official leaflet issued from the Central Conservative ofiices pre- 1« vious to the last eampugn, anuinerated the following items of the party platform : (1) A Hrm Imperial policy ; (2) a strone navy; (8) the referendum. Now, 1 am sure that the Conserv- ative party in England has in the past moved as slowly as any party could move and exist. J do not know but it is going somewhat slowly still on some political ijuestions, but, notwith- standing Its immobility and iu conservatism on general prin- ciples, It bus accepted as one of its party planks the referendum on some questions. I have also a quotation from Mr. Lecky member of Parliament, and author of " Democracy and Liberty " in winch be points out the advantages of the referendum : " The referendum would have the immense advantage of disentangling issues, separating one great question from the many minor questions with which it may be mixed. Confused or blended issues are among the greatest political dangers of our time It would bring into action the opinion of the great silent classes of the community, and reduce to their true proportions many move- ments to which party combinations or noisy agitations have given a fictitious prominence. The experience of Switzeriand and Amenca shows that when the referendum takes root in a country It takes political questions to an immense degree out of the handa of wire-pullers, and makes it jrassible to decide them mainly, though not wholly, on their merit, without producing a change of Government or of party predominance." I have also the opinion of Mr. Strachey, the editor of the London Spectator: "The moP' democratic measure conceivable is the referendum. No one who upholds that institution can be accused for a moment of not trusting the people or of failing to Mquiesoe in the principle that the people themselves constitute the ultimate sovereign power in the nation. That is the true touchstone. The man who refuses to agree on the referendum may be a good Jacobin— one, that is, who holds certain abstract views as sacred— but he cannot be true to the essential prin- ciples ot democratic government."" Mias WillareCa View. The late Miss Frances Willard, for many years President of the Women 8 Christian Temperance Union, a woman of superior culture and of great insight, said of the referendum : " I believe in direct legislation, and think it is so greatly needed that lan- guage caanot express the dire necessity under which we find ourselves. The reign of the people is the one thing that my soul 17 (iMins to aee. Thereign of the politician is a public ignominy. I alao believe that direct legislation is certain to become the great political issue in the immediate future. The people are being educated by events. They are coming to see that there is no hope for reform under the existing system of voting. It is the duty of every citizen to carefully study this great question." Just a word from another, a famous American, Dr. Lyman Abbott, editor of The Outlook : " In my judgment the remedy for the evils of democracy is more democracy, a fresh appeal from the few to the many, from the managers to the people. I be- lieve in the referendum, and, within limits, the initiative, because it is one form of this appeal from the few to the many, from forces of abstract democracy to democracy, that is, the rule of the people." What In the Referendum ? I admit thot in the minds of some of the hon. gentlemen of this House they look upon the referendum with some little fear and dread. After all, what is it ? As Dr. Abbott says, " De- mocracy, and yet more democracy." It is but trusting to the electors. ■ It is but removing from the sphere where we may be unduly influenced by deputations to a sphere where each man may, governed only by his own thought, and the responsibility which every voter feels with the ballot in his hands, express that opinion without fear, favor or affection. If that procedure would strengthen constitutional government, the sooner it is adopted the better. If that feature would give us a more judi- cial opinion upon a question upon which it is exceptionally hard under the present conditions to get an opinion, the sooner we adopt it the better. Then we have many precedents. 1 will not refer to the example of Switzerland. Australia a few years ago had the referendum on sectarian education, on the Bible in the schools, on grants to denominational schools. Then, referring to my own experience of the great commotion that was caused in this country in 1886—1 think it was in 1886— on the subject of the Bible in the school, I am sorry that we did not seek then the referendum on that question, when I think of the hate and religious bigotry and prejudices that were appealed to, and the strife of religious feeling that entered into that contest. When I think of the hard things that were said on both sides, parti- cularly on one side— (lau„'hter)— I do feel as if anything that could prevent the country being overrun with a frenzy like that ought to be avoided, and the shelter of the referendum would be 18 a boon greatly to be desired. In Aastnlia they did what we did not do. The conatilution of the Australian Commonwealth wos sabmitted by referendum to the people, and bills have been introduced into the Australian Legislature to make the referen- dum part of the constitution, but that was before the foundation of the Commonwealth, so that these bills have not been acted upon. Popular in tht United Statu, In the United States every constitutional amem'' lent— and every State of the Union except Delaware has the power to make constitutional amendments in that way— has been submit- ted to the people, and in every one of these cases, so far as I can ascertain, they are approved by a two-thirds majority.* The con- stitutional amendments are not only approved In this way, but various other matters are approved in this way. In tifteen of the States no law changing the location of the capital is valid without suhmiasion to popular vote ; in seven States no laws establishing banking corporations ; in eleven States no laws for the incurrence of debts, excepting such as are specified in the constitution. In Uae in Canada, Too. The referendum has been very extensively used in Canada also. For instance, we have the referendum in many municipal matters. In school matters, if the trustees have any doubt or difficulty as to the location of a school site, then ii referendum is held as to which site it shall be, and so on. We have had it in connection with the Dunkin Act, which was introduced in 1864 and in the Scott Act, in 1878. We have had local option on our statute bof ks ever since confederation. A referendum was taken by Prince Edward Island in 1892, in Manitoba the same year, and plebiscites have been taken in Ontario, in Nova Scotia, and over the whole Dominion. The precedents for the referendum accumulate as we look them up. A referendum was taken in sixteen of the United States on the question 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 It f *J° compruBaing hia remarki, Mr. Roaa omitted ta |idd ftt thia jiolnt the wntda, of the legialature,' and afterwude " by a majority in mott caeeti of the elfctoi*-" 19 ™f!~„S' "" '''"■"•""ent in connideriiuf thin question of the referendum auy further by p.«edent. They are overwhelminif UnilTitar"'" "f. "'« «'°'»; *» E-ope Au,tranri„"Z H^i!!.,.,!^-. •,'™? '". ^"«''"''' " f«* y^"- ^goSi' William Harcourt introducd wh«t i. culled a locaroptioi\w, to become operat veunk.H» voted «ga,n|.t by two-thi,/. „f the rHtepayer-. Lord Kandolph Churchill had a «ii,ii;a bill, Sir Henry Campbell-Bunnernian had one aNo. There »^ the WeUh bif^ 5olni Ph^"°fM^",''„''^'^,^""r """="-'•- ''"' ""J Lord Kan ■ fn t^h„ ^'^"7'"" « b.!!. all involving the principle of the reference u.^n;Whe»t!!::^si!rri'"''''*'' '-">« ^'''— • The Bans of the Volt. M,. wfl?T "r '?.,r* ".' ""' ""■■"='*' P°'"'« ■" connection wii;h » i^h IL '""^- "^''" **"?'i''* '* "'» '««'» °f "■" vote in a case i-,?dL.^„» f .r "°"; ~°«'d«ring? On what basis should the i„/^n„l"- •PrP'**"'T'*P'*'' *« 'heir ultimate, complete rnthrn^hrn7J"''^"""'V ' "»"' *» "»'"'''« """ i«>i'" "i^^i" in the light of opinions from several sources. The referendum ?o"if" Tn L n"'>^'«r''.'- l'""-''"''-^ °f ""^ elector, voting Z „ .i. • "'^ f**"'*" ^''*'' Pi-ohibition was first submit- ^.fv!^- fTr' ^•?'"' "'"'' '''"' the case, but when it was r^ il" '^° ?°"'""«'i'"> of the State and made permanent a vot^ of .'V 'r""^"' "" ^^^•'*' ^^"^^ "Po^tivo only on m«^Wn.lK r°"""'''''""''J°^'y- (See previous note.) Some tTothS, '^TrVp T"a'"* ""'y"" this l«r?e majority of Hnlr.f P McCartliy Act, which wa, introduced in the House of Commons m 1»83, and which was afterwards declared ««*ra «""», provided that local option should only W^^per amnloftl, n'-;^ «r '"'•j.''"'^- ^"^ therefore, hive thel- tZof A ^'?"<"'|.'«'«'' i" 'eff»>-d to changes in the constitn- A^^^Lnf /k"T ^^^^- *"^ ">« ^'''■"Ple of the McCarthy inkw »P P ^ *' '^°,';?' °' ^°"""°"» "hen Sir John Mac^ i?, if Tn '""":■ ™"'"» '"■■ " three-fifths majority in the 7a\J: ET^rr* "T""'"' '''^«"=''"g "■« liquor traffic. Be- sl'rolsrstmen "' '"''"™ ""'' "^^ "P'"'""" "^ »- "^ "- Hon. Alexander M. icemiea Views. In 1877, when the question of prohibition was before the country, the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, then Premier, M ■pMkinff kt Colborne, Mid : " I hare alwayi Uken the ground tint until public wntiment bM reached luoh an advanced atage uf maturity (hat we would be quite certain of a very large nia- jurily in favor of such a meaaure it would be unwise and impolitic to attempt to enforce a total prohibition of the liquor traffic." Mr. Hacnnitie, you see, said that to enforce it a large mai' ''*v would be neceaaary. In 1H78, when the Scott Act wan pa.v and the measure was before the Senate, one of the strongest jirohibitionitts 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, ax 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 of them (the people) it must be inoperative." Senator Aikin, on the name occasion, said ; " I think it would be most unfortunate if pu.ilic sentiment was not educated up to that .«tate where a decided majority of the people were in favor of the law that it should be applied iu any province." Opinions of P'omintni Men. Another diitinguished leader of the temperance movement in the same discussion — I refer to the late Senator Allan — muved an amendment, providing that it should only be enforced by a majority of the whole number of electors qualitied to vote for a member of the House of Commons. Another well-known public man, Hon. Mr. Campbell, did not believe that law which 90 seriously affected the liberty and property of a certain por- tion of the community should be enforced by a bare majority of the votes. Senator Dickey said : — " It would be a great misfortune to undertake to put this law into force in any community where there was not a decided preponderance in favor of it^not a 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 of them active temperance men. Mr. Mackenzie, when the subject was before the House of Commons, repeated in substance the «tate- >1 nient I have jual (|notod. He nid, " Hiii mind had alwtyii been that the oommunity hod a perfect right to protect itnelf by a law of this kind. On the other hand, hn quite admitted that there was almost an ahuolute neceiisity that there should be a strong, if not univenul, opinion in favur of the enactment. A meaiure which even apparently restricted the members of any portion of the community on sfeneral grounds atfected the whole community ; and for tliis ix-iuion he would never favor the en- actmont of a prohibitory law which was not subject to the test of the vote of the people, until he was satiafled that there was an overwholmini; majoiity of the whole community in favor of such a measure." Sir Leonard TilUy'i Experience, Among those who spoke on the subject of prohibition in the House of Commons debates in 1884. and with whom I had the honor of a place in the House in my cnily Parliamentary career, was Sir Leonard Tilley, regarded bv all of us early tem- perance workers as the advocate of tempcrniict.' and prohibition par excellence. The proposition waf lieforo the House of Com- mons on motion of Mr. Foster: — "That this House is of the opinion, for the reasons hereinafter set forth, that the right and most effectual legislative remedy for these evils is to be fonnd in the enactment and enforcement of a, law |)rohibiting the im- portation, manufacture and sale jf into.xicuting liquors f ' i beverage purposes," to which an amendment was moved as fol- lows : — " And this House is of opinion that the puuiio sentiment of the people of Canada calls for immediate legislation to that end." Sir Leonard Tilley spoke against the resolution, and in so doing rekted some of his own experiences. He became Premier of New Brnnswick in 188.5, and passed a prohibitory law. It was not in operation more than six months — in fact, I do not know whether it was in operation so long as that — when Sir Leonard, owing to the action of the Lieutenant-Governor, had a dissolution of the House foi-ced upon him. An election followed, and Sir Leonard Tilley and ninny of his colleagues were defeated, and only two or three of those who supported the prohibition measure were returned. Drawing from a wide «xperienco and with an earnest desire that his words should be helpful to the temperance cause, Sir Leonard speaking to the resolution, said: — "I can understand the delicacy of an hon. gentle- man voting against the list amendment, as a temperance man S2 and a prohibitionist, because as such he would seem inconsistent, 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 1 then expressed ? I stated that it they decided to submit the proposal to the popular vote they f hould not suggest less than a three-lifths 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 i>nd the XJnited States, and it is worthy of the most careful consideration. A Great Majority Required. 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. He 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 weakne.ss in the Scott A, 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, beca -^le 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 eflective. 23 It is no use placing such a law on the statute book by a bare majority— in fact, I would be opposed to it." And he spoke in a similar strain in 1898. A Preponderating Sentiment. And then I have a quotation from Mr. Foster in 1891, in which he takes a similar view. I will trouble the House with reading as little of it as may be necessary to put hi.s views fairly before you. Mr Foster in 1891 said :— " I said that I believed in the feasibility of a prohibitory law under certain conditions. What are these conditions ? I will name but one. That is, the condition which follows as a logical sequence, us a necessary de- duction from what I have just been stating, that before a prohibit- ory law ought to be enacted, and before it can be maintained so as to do good in the country, there must necessarily be the basis of a strong and preponderating public sentiment in its favor, in order not only to lead to this enactment, but to tend to its en- forcement as well ; and I say again, what has been quoted as a reproach to me, and I say it boldly and earnestly, that that man is no true friend of the temperance cause, or the prohibition movement, who will enact a law to-day if lie does not firmly believe in his heart that that law finds its roHe.x in the over- powering conviction of a preponderating and active majority in the country in favor, not only of its oniictment, but enforcement as well, and that he would do the worst possible to the cause of prohibition to snatch a verdict for the enactment of the law and find out afterwards, it it were not a reflex of such a preponder- ating sentiment in the country, that it would become a dead letter on the statute book, a by-word in the community, and a reproach to the very temperance men who favored its enact- ment." In a Judicial Mood. He repeated similar sentiments in 1898. with which I will not trouble the House. Now, these views are the views of tem- perance men, and I am not giving them with regard to their politics at all, because they are not of one shade of politics, but I am giving them in order that we may endeavor to put our- selves in a judicial mood, and that the country should endeavor to put itself in a judicial mood, and consider, when such a law is being submitted and considered by the electors, if the senti- ment in favor of it is preponderating, is so great as to give it 24 vitality and efficiency. The men whom I liave 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. Anothei circumstance indicates the necessity for calmness. We have had Local Option on the statute book since 1864. To-day it is enforced in ci:ly twenty-one munici- palities. I mentioned in my opening remarks that something like 174 municipalities gave no tavern licenses. That '"»»'•'« action of the License Commissioners. It was not felt that they were required. But only three municipalities to-day, after 36 or 38 years' experience with the Dunkin Act, keep that act as a by-law operative within their borders. Scotl Ad't EdiLCational E^'ect. The Scott Act was carried in twenty-six counties and in two "Sties, and it was repealed in all. It was carried by majorities aggregating 131,000 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 efTect 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 ineffective, 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. And then, as Carlyle says, " History is philosophy teaching by experience." We might regard the United States in relation to prohibition. The prohibition was carried in sixteen States, and is now operating in five. A very curious record of ups and downs ha.-! prohibition had in the great Republic to the south of 25 us. In Delaware it was repealed after two years ; in Rhode Island, after eleven years. Massachusetts had two trials — one of sixteen years and another of six years — and repealed it Connecticut repealed it after eighteen years ; Michigan, twenty years. Iowa has given it two trials extending over thirty-six years ; Indiana, three years ; Illinois two, and South Dakota eight. So that, in the United States, it would appear that this move had its ebb and How. It was sometimes a tidal wave sweeping everything out of its way ; then came a reaction. I do not know that these feverish and emotional expressions of opinion are the best, after all, '^ir the welfare of the common- wealth. I would rather have a steady educational process, encroachi: • inch by inch upon whatever evils we wanted to remove, and holding every inch of the ground, thus making the goal of to-day the starting-place of to-morrow. I would much rather do this than make a further onslaught upon an evil, or supposed evil, fancy I had demolished it, and then find shortly afterwards that it had obtained additional vitality, and was thriving perhaps more freely and actively than in its previous state of existence. The experience of the Scott Act and local option in the United States warns us 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 of the referendum as a temperance movement. 1 -eak now of the referendum as distinct from the plebiscite. It is said by those who do not like the present party in power that we have invented the referendum to get us out of difficulties. Now, I cannot claim the paternity, the Liberal party cannot claim the paternity, of this measure of reform. The referendum origin- ated in the Senate of the Dominion of Canada. You will tind the first expression of approval of this kind of legislation brought down by Mr. Vidal on the 27th day of March, 1875. I have here the report of the Senate committee, presented by Senator Vidal in 1875. But perhaps I should preface this by saying that in 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 from this Legislature. These petitions were referred to a com- 2G inittee of the House of Commons on one sid., and a committee 01 the Senate on the other. Proposed to Comult the People. The concluding paragraph of the report is as follows : - Ihat should the Government not feel satisfied that the indica- tion of public opinion afforded by the numerous petitions pre- r,?i . ?•"■'■*!"""' '.■^"^r"* V, J"^«fy t'"' 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 ot this House who have followed this .jnestion duriim the last twenty- tour years will remember that in Septembef 187.1, 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 uoir '^^°^ remarks which I am now going to 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 book. 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 best method of asceiiain- mg what public opinion is on this most impo- '■Ant question ? borne propose making it a test question at the polls. The exne- rienceof 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- b.tion would in many cases be ,ost sight of or be subordinated to some other issue Others propose that a plebiscite be taken thus affording each elector an opportunity of saying yea ornaV to that question, irrespective of any other question of public policy. This woiild still leave the law to be passed upon by Parliament, which might or might not be done. The best wav " -here is the point-" would be to ask Parliament to pas^ a strin- gent prohibitory law at its ne-tt session and submit it for the 27 ratification of the electors of the Dominion at the next general RatiHealiim Favored. Now, this is the origin of the referendum on the question of prohibition, in the form in which we now have it. The conven- tion which met at Montreal consisted of 283 delegates All classes were represented. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Sher- brooke sent his approval in a letter to Secretary Gales; the Roman Catholic Archbishop of iManitoba also sent a sympathe- tic letter. Representatives were there from every Province in the Dominion except British Columbia. The convention was in session for several days. A Committee on Resolutions was ap- pointed. This IS the resolution adopted by the convention in lo7o : — '■ That in order that a prohibitory law when passed may have that sympathy and support so indispensably necessary to Its succew. It is the opinion of this convention that the Domi- nion Parliament should be urged to enact such a law, subject to ratincation by popular vote." Now, if we are submitting this referendum in this year of grace 1902 we ai,. only doing what the temperance nien ap- proved ol by the greatest convention ever held in Canada in 187S, and we are therefore acting in good faith, so far as their requests are concerned, in submitting this law. Senator Vidal was President of that convention ; I had the honor of beine nre- sent at it myself. Still further, to give light on our action in fni°l«?««o"TV''*n!.**'* "T"'^" of the Dominion Alliance for 18SS-99 held m Ottawa. A committee was appointed to draft a resolution tor 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 Rea^iution. That committee made a report on the 20tli of April The «ommittee perhaps was not very numerous. I do not' know 28 many of the members personallj'. I see tlie Hon. J. C. Aikins^ Senator Vidal, Major Bond, Mr. F. S. Spence were there, a repre- sentative from Prince Edward Island, Mr. Jas. McMullen, and others I do not know personally. It was not a very lar);e com- mittee, and I have mentioned most of the members. The com- mittee recommended a bill in favor of prohibition to be submit- ted to the electors. Acting on instructions from that meeting, Mr. Flint, 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. "(2) That the act prohibiting such sale should not come into force in any Province or Territory unless and until a majority of the qualified electors therein, voting at an election, shall have voted in favor of such act." In speaking on that resolution, ns 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 n^ny years doing good work in connection with the prohibition ofthe 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 labor. I would 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 it 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 duly 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 sajie shall have been repealed in said Province or Territory. Such repeal shall not take effect therein until a majority of the quali- fied electors in such Province or Territory vote for the repeal thereof; the proceedings for such repeal to be similar in all respects to those bringing the act into force." 19 The Majority Meant, Hr. Whitney : Is the majority mentioned there a majority of the total qualified voters i Hon. Mr. Ross : That is 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. Whitney : In favor of the bill ; the repeal would require a larger majority. Hon. Mil. Ross : A majority of the electors. I am bound to say that in reading the debates on that occasion I obeerve that one member — I think it wag 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 report 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 Pr -vincial Legislature. The further voting proposed will be no', 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 any petition." Ther« the words are, " by a majority vote in any Province." That brings us to the position practically in which we are now. It 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 whrt we propose. When they do I sin- cerely trust our course will meet with their approval. 30 The Government's Pledge). One thing more in this very discursive address, and I have ,"»"%,."" ^?. ^f^' "' '"y *"'"■ '"«■"! from North Toronto (Mr. Marter) will allow me, tj that interesting period in the history of the House when the hon. member brought in a bill known as the Marter Bill, in 1893. At that time various depu-' tations waited upon the Government and asked for Provincial prohibition. Sir Oliver Mowat, who was then Premier, was not clear upjn the question of jurisdiction. He therefore framed certain questions which were suKsequently referred to the Privy Council, and on which the opinion of the Piivy Council was afterwards obtained, and I am sorry to say, witnout any re- proRoh to the Lords of the Privy Council, that I never could quite clearly understand what their decision was. However the Legislature of Manitoba and aLsoof Prince Edward Island intro- duced what was known a« a Provincial prohibitory law. That of Manitoba has stood the test of the Privy Council, and there- fore it acted within its constitutional limitations. Now going back to 1894, we are confronted with the pledges which the Government are said to have given to the prohibitionists at that time. On the 26th of February, 1894, a large deputation waited upon us. I had the honor of being present as a member of the Government, and we were asked what we were going to do if Erohibition would be within the competence of our Provincial egislature. 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 Qove"nment." Relation of the Manitoba Bill. I think we can safely say, I do not think we need at all to exercise any ingenuity or casuistry in saying, that the prohibition bill adopted or passed by Manitoba is not a prohibitory liquor law as to sale, but it does prohibit the sales in hotels and in olubs, and in private boarding-houses. It docs 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 jurisdiction to pass only a par- 31 tial proliibitory liquor law, I will introJueo uuch a bill ii.'i the decision will warrant, unless the partial prohibitory power is so limited as to be ineffective from a temperance standpoint." Bownd by the I'ledgea. It would be unworthy of me to attempt by any verbal or technical or metaphysical distinction to explain away the force of that pledge. I think I could make out a very strong case that some features, at all events, of the Manitoba law would not be eflective from a temperance standpoint. The public estimate, however, or appraisement of that pledge, was that whatever Manitoba would do we would do, and I would rather take the responsibility of redeeming the pledge in that frank and open way, in which it was accepted by the public, than attempt by any word of mine to explain it away. We took the public into our confidence, and stated thus and so, and the public understood us to mean that when partial prohibition was introduced by Manitoba we would do likewise, when it was 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 our responsibility as a'Gov- 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 shi.'ced 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 1894, 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 hcpe there is no further falling off in that sentiment which makes for temperance and sobriety • and without seeking to jn.stify my action by what I think every- body will admit is a change in public opinion, a change which "is 32 wideapread, I take the stroDgest ground, and I shall take it as original ground, that the wiseat thing for the temperance men anil the wisest action for the public men of this country is to let the people judge between them as tu what is the ctate of public opinion on this question. The Later Pledget. That is what I propose to do, and I do that asauming, as I do, to a certain extant, full responsibility, or a certain measure of responsibility, for the promises which Sir Oliver Mowat made, promises which were assumed by Mr. Hardy in March, 1897, when he said : " We take the responsibility ; we were parties to that pledge. We were parties to draw- ing the declaration, and we stand by it, and we will not be driven from it because people tell us in a moment — I think some- times of recklessness — that we have violated our pledge." That is what he said in March, 1897. I stated to a deputa- tion 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 question. I farther said to a deputation on March 31st, 1891, that the Government were always prepared lo go as far as the law would allow, and 1 had not re- ceded from that position. A week later J said to a deputation representing 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 know exactly where we stand. We stand where we always stood." We promised in 1894 that we would go to the full extant of our constitutional limitations, and, as I said a moment ago — the House will pardon the repetition — i am assuming that that pro- mise implied a responsibility on the leader of the Oovemment following Sir Oliver Mowat. The People the Judges. We have not receded from the substance of that. We are doing in substance what Sir Oliver Mowat would have done in 1894 if we introduce a bill to the full extent of our constitutional limitations, and we 9 going to a^k the people to accept the substance of our constitutional limitations as our pledge and our S8 Juty to the country. We are uking the country to consider «Dd review the pcition taken in 1894, ,nd to ,i wh.°herTt thi. moment, or when this bill will be eubmitted, the sentiment I nl!'"""''^ ".'i"' " "»" ^ ettectiye. I am aw.re that we w« L^ "Tl^"^ \'°,'"' •"•"■ ff^""'™*- opposite for the course we have taken, and I can anticipate what some of the hon Sontlenien and sume sections of the press will say. Well I have right than President," and I would much rather submit the bill under consideration that would give us an honest expression of opinion than introduce it under conditions with a viewTlecur- inKa-lactitious' vote It is under these circumstances thatTe caM the ro.spons,bil,ty of legislation of this kind on the peopTe and It they are capable of saying who shall occupy seats^n this i"Tmat^ oTthTkt"'^-"^^'"^ "■ '" "*"" '^ '^'^'«-' -- ^ol Another PlebiKcite. I do not agree with the view that this referendum is another plebiscite. The Hrst plebiscite was a much more compreheMWe of1sn17h "^ "P'r""" 't?'J." '"^°'^'"' '" ">'« bill, ly thTIct of 1893 the question which was submitted was as follows •• A™ thTi»n ?»■"' ""* P™''"'i«on by the competent authority of the importation, manufacture and sale, as a leverage of intJxt eating liquors into or within the Province of Ontarii"" That was the clause of the Act on which the vote was taken, and the ballot on which each elector voted contained this question •■Are you in favor of the immediate prohibition by law of ?he [mportation, manufacture and sale of intoxicating Hquors a ! beverage ; This plebiscite, which provided for the ImmXte prohibition by law of the importation, manufacture Td^e of hn^^r n ^ •"'■"°" f .? '^''""Se, was a sweeping law i^d^d but the Dominion plebiscite of 1898 was, if anything a IMe stronger. Cause 3 of the Dominion Act reads: "Af; yo^n favor of an Act prohibiting the importation, manufacture or «le of spirits, wine, ale, beer, cider, and all other alcoholic hSu^™ for use as a beverage 1" We should have had a dry t°me Sd hibYte7"Th"e Wllnl""^ t t'""" "''"''' «freshments we« p„. hibited. The ballot on that occasion read : ■• Are you in favor of the passing of an Act prohibiting the importation, mknXture or sale of spirits, wme, ale, beer, cider, and all other Solic liquors for use ai beverages ?" aiconoiic S4 A Straight Queatiim. Now you will Ha tlwt we voted in thow two plebiacites on fn u-T*^" ''"**''°" """ ** ''»*« » "K'lt to cover by tlK bill whieh we are now brinKinfj down. We were votiRir then upon a .lueation, and everybody construed into the ballot his own thouffht 88 to what prohibition might be, and what it in- volved. We are not now voting on a question at all. Ma«s». chuMtta once voted on wo,„an'H suffrage. New York vote.1 on the question of prison In ix)r. We voted once, in Toronto, on the question of Sunday l.ibor. These are questions different from by-laws. The referendum involves the submission of an Act We are submitting an Act which, if it passes the House wilt become law under certain con.litions. The fact that we have taken two plebiscites on an abstract question docs not in any way affect our voting for a bill which contains the means of its Its enforcement, penalties aa to its violation, and sets out the full scape of Its restrictions so far as the li.|uor traffic is concerned We propose that the referendum shall be based on Parliamen- tary frnnchise, that is we are going :o say that those who are qualified to send members to the Legislature are qualified to say whether prohibition is, in their opinion, a desirable social condi- tion, or otherwise. It has been said, in some cases, that it would be better if the vote was taken on a municipal franchise, but we rather prefer keeping within the lines that control the action of this Legislative Assembly. TAe Question of MajorUy. ,.J^^ "*''' P°'"' ** ^^"^ '° consider, and one of the moat dithcult ones, is the majority on which it should be made oper- ative. I say, without hesitation, that I favor very strongly the majority of electors on the voters' lists. That is a majority of the whole people. But there are some practical difficulties in carrying it out which we have to consider. It yon take the list of qualified voters and say that the majority of these shall make a prohibitory law, there is still a considerable number of absentees whose vote cannot be registered. Many people have died in the meantime also, and that mode is, to a certain extent handicapped. You cannot take a majority of voters on the list' although this is a question, largely, for the whole people. I mean for the whole voting people, and the more electors who come out 35 and (xpreM ra opinion the better. It hu been BUftKested, there- lore, and the weight of opinion is greatly in favor of it, that there should be a large majority, that we should take some per- on«rd Tilley favored three-HftliH of a majority, and that IS a larjje majority. You will have seen from the newspapers, and by the opinions of several clergymen and other leading met), that three-fifths «i,d two-thirds and other majorities are spoken of, ami «11 the reliRiiius papers are in favor of a sub- .Htantial majority. There .leems to be, therefore, in the air, and '" »') circles, a feeling that if this law is going to be elticient it should have something stronger to back it than was the case in the .Sott Act, which had only a bsre majority. The opinion ai reganis « three-tifths msjority is a basis for which something can be said, and iigainst which some objections can he made. It may involve but a small expression of public opinion. In 1894 only .57 per cent of the vote was polled, and only 4(1 in 1898. Any expression limited in its area, or any vote that does not give a large enough majority to insure the law being observed will not be a sufficient mandate to the legislature to put that law into operation. The Majority Requirtd. Wo were, therefore, obliged to abandon the .Jea entertaineil at one time of a majority of three-fifths, and we ultimately settled ilown to this view— that the vote should be based upon a majority of those who in the next general election elected the Parliament of the Province of Ontario. Let me be concrete Wo usually poll -100,000 votes in a Provincial election ; we may poll 440,000. In a keen contest it runs from 72 to 75 per cent and in some cases over 73 per cent., but very seldom 80 per cent' If more than one-half of tho.se who make this House, and who make and unmake political parties in this House and country vote in favor of a prohibitory liquor law, then a prohibitory liquor law will be enacted. That is the view we have finally settled upon. Thus we will make the majority of the electorate ,i- 5^" ''^' ">e. "lajority of the electorate rule in a question of this kind, und we say with the utmost frankness that if we can trust the people of this country to change the complexion of this House by a majority vote, we can trust the majority of the people to change the social order of things. The majority •of people in the United States make or unmake a President ■ a majority of people in the United Kingdom make or unmake the 36 Government. Governments ate important and Presidents are important, bat it is more important for the moral well-being of this country that we should not 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-five years. We are greatly impressed with this view of the question, which has been strongly represented to us, that a bare majority should carry. A bare majority in a case of this kind is a very different thing to a bare majority even in the election of members of this House. It is a very different question. It will create a condition of things which will affect in this Province some !J30,000,000 or $40,000,000 worth of pro- perty, which will affect the occupation of ten, fifteen or even twenty thousand people. It will affect the varied industries dependent upon the trade of intoxicating liquors for their exi.st- ence. I do not say it is revolutionary ; that is too strong a word, but it would be such a change in so many occupations and callings, and it would so antagonize those who would be mater- ially affected therewith, in the first place, that unless the majority at its back is strong, it would go under as the Scott Act went under, as the Liquor Act went under in the Province of New Brunswick, where it carried practically by a two-thirds vote. I do not like trying experiments in legislation. I do not like what is commonly called " backing and filling." Wise Gmernmeiit Will Consider. I think a wise Government and a wise Legislature will reso- lutely and with purpose sit down and consider whether it is putting its hand to a law that is going to be effective, and with the same earnestness as I speak to yon, sir, I say to the people of the country that never in the history of the Province of Ontario, so far as the question of prohibition is concerned, should they more seriously consider the step they are taking, not simply because it is going to be a restraining influence, presum- ably upon the liquor traffic, but to see whether the step they are going to take is one which they will not be obliged to retrace subsequently in a few years. Nothing has been more ruinous to the progress of temperance reform than the accidents which have befallen the result of temperance legislation in cities, towns and counties. We want to guard against those accidents. 37 but I think it is a most i 'isonafclo tliis-^ that if a majority of the people of this Provi icc .'-.ay thu tim" is ripe for prohibition they should be allowed ; ulibition. Date oj iviiig. We next propose, that the voting shall be held separate from the municipal election, and from the Provincial or Federal election. We have fixed in the act the second Tuesday in October as the day for taking the vote, assuming, of course, tliat the election to this House will take place in the meantime. At that time we will know how many votes were polled in the Provincial election, and when the returns are in we will know how much of a majority is required to make prohibition effect- ive. I am aware that some temperance men think we should not do this, but hold the election at a municipal election. Now, I do not want to furnish any excuse for myself in going to the polls to vote for prohibition, and what I do not ask for myself I give to no other. I do not want a person to excuse himself going to the polls to vote for prohibition simply because he is going to vote on a municipal election. We say our Provincial elections to this House are solemn and important occasions. It is a solemn thing to .say who will be our legislators for the next four years, and it is even a more solemn thing for the people of Ontario to say what shall be the policy of the Province of Ontario for the next four years, or, it may be, for the ne5ct forty years, for all I know, on the temperance que.stion. To mix u]p that act with the election to the municipal council would be to weaken the force of the act, would be to weaken the responsi- bility of the elector, would be to dim the judicial state of mind in which he should be when he went to the ballot-box in order to discharge that duty to the State. I do not think, I do not entertain for one moment, the suggestion that the elector should not be put to this trouble. I have voted for most of the plebis- cites. It took ten minutes of my time in each case. I voted for the Scott Act and took the platform on its behalf for a week, and did not begrudge the time. Any temperance man who will begrudge the time in going to the polls to vote for prohibition will be of very little use in enforcing prohibition should it be- come operative. What we want is earnest, strenuous men. It is the time for strenuous men, as Roosevelt would say. It is time for men to have a little heart-searching, and see if this is going to be effective, and, if so, they will go to any amount of 38 trouble in ord.T to record their vote, and do so witliout any hesitation. And so we name the day in the act now, so that those who wish to consider what they are going to do will have ample time to ponder on this thing. Mr. Whitney: What course will you pursue in the case of an election by acclamation ! Mb. Ross : In the case of an election by acclamation, when the percentage is struck for the whole Province, if there is, say, 75 per cent, of the votes polled, then 7.5 per cent, will hold where there has been an election by acclamation. The Question of Jievenue. There are two other considerations which I will submit to the House in a few words. This bill not only involves serious changes in the busine.ss of a great many people, and a change perhaps in the social organization of many families, but it also means a substantial loss of revenue. 1 have always taken the ground that we should never consider loss of revenue as against the moral advantages of prohibition and temperance where they were in force. I have said so years ago. 1 have said so in the House of Commons. I say so now, that if it is a matter of choice between loss of revenue and the evil consequences to flow from intoxicating liquors, we c.jukl very well afford to give up the revenue, .providing the evil consequences of intemperance could be preventud. That is the only judgment I have had, and j'et we must not, be blind to the fact that there will be a substantial loss of lovenue. The holders of licenses pay into the treasuries of the municipalities and the Provincial treasury a revenue of about $700,000 in tavern and shop licenses, and the licenses on distilleries and breweries. Of this sum the Province receives $376,000. We could adjust our finances to that loss without much difficulty. No doubt the municipalities could adjust their accounts to the loss they would sufTer. I mention this as one of the points to be considered in coming to a decision as to what should be done. Question of Compensation. Then there is the larger question of compensation. It has been said that any legislation dealing with the prohibition of the liquor traffic would not be just without compensation to those whose business is aflfected. The bill does not deal with 39 this phase of the question, as it would be needless to provide the machinery for such purposes until the bill had passed. Some of England's greatest statesmen, Mr, Gladstone and Mr, Chamber- lain, expressed their approval of the principle of compensation. My own view, as expressed on several occasions, and many years ago, is, if we could be entirely relieved for all time of the evil effects of the liquor tratSi, the purchase of the vested interests of those concerned would ii^t be too big a price to pay. Mr Whitney: Is there anything about it in the bill ? Mk. Ross : No, for the reason given. I merely mention it here as one of the matters to which our attention was called by some of the deputations that waited upon us, and which, it was alleged, we should consider in the event of the bill becoming law. If considered at all, it must be by some future Legisla- ture. I am making a general statement now as to the views that were presented, without assuming any obligations as to the future. I do not know as to some departments of the trade that compensation would involve very lurge expenditure. In regard to others it would involve considerable expenditure. That is a (|uestion we cannot ascertain or even guess at intelligently. The money invested in the trade "s put at some seventy odd millions of dollars. How much of that ought to be recouped to those 'n the trade no one can tell at this distant point ; the whole ques- tion is one that would have to be relegated to a commission, as a case is sometimes referred to the Master in Chambers, and threshed out. Pledgee Redeemed. I have given pretty fully the circumstances which led to the adoption of this bill, and an explanation of the main features of the bill so far as putting it into operation is concerned. On the second reading we will deal more fully with the clauses of the bill dealing with the liquor traffic itself. I hope it will be felt that this bill is in the public interest. I hope the bill will be received by the people as a fulfilment of any promise we have made. On that I am as anxious as on the other point that the bill will be received as an effort on the part of the Govern- ment to promote legislation for which there have been many appeals in this House. The next hope is, should the bill become law and receive the necessary endorsement of the people, that it will be made an effective instrument for elevating the morals of the country and preventing evils which we know are serious in every walk of life. It is a new departure in many ways ; it i.'s 40 a new departure constitutionally, and it is a uew departure leeislatively. The principle of the referendum is a new thing. The features of the bill are so new in many other respects I can only ask the House, with the utmost care, to consider its meritorious clauses, and the circumstances with which members of the House are more familiar than I am, in order that when the bill receives the approval of his Honor the Lieutenant- Governor it will have been perfected by the members of this Legislature with the utmost care. As the Premier resumed his seat he was heartily applauded by his supporters. REPLY HON. Q. W. ROSS To the Deputation of the Dominion Alliance on 26th February, 1902, in reply to Rev. Dr. McKay, who introduced the Deputation On the f 6th of February a deputation of the Dominion Alliance waited on Mr. Ross. The deputation was introduced by the Bev. Dr. McKay. The following is Mr. Ross' reply : — You have put your case with a great deal of force and point and earnestness, as we expected you would have done. I have not had time to read the report of the meeting yesterday, except briefly to glance over it, and from what I did see, I assume that the convention yesterday was as enthusiastic as the deputation to-day — Dr. McKay and others : More, more. (Laughter.) The Fbehier : Probably more so. Well, between yesterday and now you surely could not have cooled off very much. (Laughter.^ Enthusiasm is a good thing, and is needed in a cause like this. When we approached the question of prohibi- tion— partial prohibition as it is, and as Dr. Caiman character- izes it — we were confronted with this condition of things : We had a good license law, though susceptible of improvement, ti» all laws are — otherwise parliaments would cease to exist. The country had twice pronounced in favor of complete prohibition, that is, the prohibition of the importation, manufacture and sale. We had before us a law for partial prohibition, which was little more than could be accomplished under our license law aione. It was not what the temperance men had asked for, it was not what many of the temperance men of Ontario had been led to expect, and we had to decide whether, even although the countrj- had pronounced on prohibition out and out, it were wise for us to cast aside the license law — and that is what this means if prohibition prevail — and take upon ourselves as a Government the responsibility of adopting partial prohibition. You may say 42 that the country has spoken out as to total prohibition ; so it did somewhat emphatically in both instances; it had never spoken on the question of partial prohibition. And we there- fore, had to consider what we were to do. The temperailce men were urging that we should do something this session. We hadn t a mandate from the people for prohibition of this kind no election had turned on it, no man had been sent to Parlia- cause f he had any authority or quasi-authority, it would be for total prohibition. As the matter was urgent, the Govern- ment said : "No, we will not take the responsibility of castine into the waste basket the license laws," and they said, inasmuch as loca option and the Scott Act, which were in each case a form ot partial prohibition, had beensuhmitted to the people bv reterendum that in this case we would take the same course anH fo.mw the old precedent. The precedents were so strong that they governed the Parliament of Ontario, as to local option since Confederation and the Dominion Parliament whi-h passed the Scott Act, since 1878, and in both instances the referendum had been accepted as the policy of Parliament, As you see the precedents were so strong that the Government did not feel justihed in passing a partial prohibitory liquor law am a complete prohibitory liquor law we could not eive We had to take a middle course. We could have brougfft in this bill, Bubmittec. it to the House and see what its fate mieht be I cant say what its fate might have been on a vote in the House if we had proposed direct legislation, and I can't say what the fate of the Government would have been if thev had assumed it as a Government measure, but we thoiight, ^ the peop e of this country are sovereign, and had already Mcepted the referendum in the liquor law up to a certain point, that to ask them to go a little further was not at all unreason- able i do not think it was unreasonable, with all respect to what has been said. \ on say the referendum is not constitu- tional ; high authorities, and the authorities that guide Parlia- ment, say It IS constitutional. I propose to follow the hieh authorities on constitutional law. When it comes to good Cal- vinistic doctrine I go to Dr. McKay, and for Arminian theol- ogy-and there is no one whom I would sooner consult than he-I go to Dr. Carman. But in law, I follow the constitutional ad visera, and many of these are not aliens to the temperance cause, for I understand that Dr. Maolaren has not said it is un- <»nstitntional. If its constitutionality is settled, then the whole 43 force of the critici^im of the bill lies against tlie <'ourHe we have pursued. Have we followed a proper course ^ Is it a right thiuf; for the Government to trust the people to tiike a third or fourth step, having aii-eady taken two { I propose to trust the ?eople, thnt is up to that point. The next que^stion which con- ronted us was. if a prohibitory liquor law was passed what would be the end — for a wise man endeavors to see the end from the beginning, if he can. We know what the end was in the case of local option ; it was passed by a largo majority. We know the end in every case here of the Scott Act. it was passed in twenty-six counties and two cities, by a large majority. Dr. McKay and I have labored together on tlie same platform in favor of the Scott Act, and if the enthusiasm of two vigorous men would have made it conclusive, it ought to have been successful It was not. It was repealed. In the United States prohibition was adopteil in sixteen States and repealed in 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 ? 1 don't think one of you would have done so. Having found in the United States a system of voting and basis of legislation which in so many cases — every one except live — has tailed, 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, iind which would in the meantime place us in a position of turmoil and confusion which, in my opinion, would be very injurious to the temper- ance cause. We know the general tone of public opinion in favor of a bare majoriity, but as public men — you may call us politicians if you like — responsible for law and order, the Government had to deal with still another consideration ; and if, as happened in the case of the Scott Act, there was an unusual amount of law- breaking, and if there were serious trouble in making the Scott Act as effective as the license law has been, and if the benefit to the temperance cause, by the suspension of the drinking habits of the people, was not material, as the figures show at least under the Scott Act, then, as I said before, should we submit a measure, which, perhaps, would be more stringent than ^fae Scott Act, on a new basis, or stand by well-established precedents? Our first thought was that we should assume the fuU respousi^ 44 bility of this bill, as sustained by the Judicial Committee of the ^rivy Council. We do not propose to alter it, because in so doing we may destroy it. The line of constitutional demarca- tion IS very fine, and any such alteration might put it out of Court. We take it as the Judicial Committee gave it to us After having agreed that we would Uke the Manitoba Act, we then began to consider on what conditions we could make this Act ettective ? Now it is easy to believe, and it is too often the' case, —you will permit me to say— that clergymen and others who are ta,r away from the administration of the laws, think that the administration of law is an easy thing. Far from it. It is not an easy thing. Had it been an easy thing, the effect of the •Gospel would have shown far greater results than it has done in the last two thousand years. Human nature is very, very bad— ( laughter)— and requires a great deal of restraint. I don't mean the human nature that is here— (renewed laughter)— human nature IS very bad, and it is a very difficult thing to enforce the law. It takes 20,000 constabulary in Ireland, I believe, to enforce the coercive laws, and they are not very well enforced then. We cast about to find a basis of a specified majority which would give us the assurance that the law would be' enforced. You have read in the newspapers what was said, home of our most influential clergymen— not more influential perhaps, than are here— have said that it should have a large majority, some saying that it should be as high as 60 to 75° . 1 hey are as good temperance men as I claim to be ; some of you may discount them— I don't know, that is not material— but they stand high in the church. I agree with them. Moreover I attach a great deal of importance to the remark of Sir Leonai-d 1 illey, who had a great deal of experience in the Province of New Brunswick, and who said that such legislation should have a three-fifths majority. We cast about, then, for some basis and we were about settling down to a basis of 60%, when after con- sultation with temperance men— and we are bound to consult all classes of the community— we found that some did not agree that the basis should be as low as 60%. Then we talked about a two-thirds vote. We found that temperance men would not agree to 60%, and said it would be a " loaded vote," and very strong things were said, and very disagreeable things were said. 1 then began to cudgel my mind, to see if we could not get some basis that would look reasonable and to which the majority principle would apply, and I said, if a majority can make or unmake a Government, it cannot be unreasonable to say (bat a 45 similar majority will make or unmake partial pruhibition. (Hear, hear.) If a majority of the votes polled in West Middle- sex says that Ross will be ele ^d, Ross will be elected. He is ^'oing to be anyway, 1 suppo-i'!. (laughter.) A Voice : I don't know a!>out that. The Premiek : Ther ' will '« some doubt I hear a friend say behind me. Well, i Have lived in the midst of doubts tor some time, and I am good to live for u while yet. That is the position of the matter — if a majority of the people of the country want a Government, it goes in or out. If a majority of the people want prohibition, they shall have it. 1 don't think it is desirable that it should be a majority of the voters on the lists, for you have to consider the matters of deaths, absentees, etc. Now let us analyze the matter for a moment mathematically ; We polled 75% in 1S98 of the men on the lists. We polled 'oZ. that is to say 400,000 odd ; if 200,000 say that prohibition shall carry, you have it. That is, if 50,1 of the 75 say so, you shall have it. That i», if 37< ''^ on the lists say sti. That is, if 3 out of every S on the lists say so, you can have it. That is the proposition in simple English. We say that a minority of three voters out of every eij.'ht shall have the right to force prohibition on the other five. Now I want you to think that over. Three men in this Province who go out to the polls and want prohibition can force it on the other five. Prohibition becomes the law of the land — the Government will by proclamation make it the law of the land — and the Govern- ment will i^ive all its powe> 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 lorge 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 per^ple 46 to come out. If you have 2(K),000 people in the Province of Onwrio who want prohibition bring them out. What does it matter to you it your opponents do not come out ? (Some disorder, several gentlemen attempt to speak in reply). Thk Frkmiisr : Order.order, gentlemen. I have not interrupted anybody. Let your enthusiasm be restrained, my friends ; we are down here at piactical [lolitics, piactical business. We .say to the temperance men of 0-tario if three out of every eight of you come out to vote for prohibition, we will give it to you and enforce it. That is a very easy proposition. 1 am here" on that basis myself— ye-H, about on that basis I am here myself. 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 right to be suecessful in any other way, if you will pardon me for saying it. Mrs. Thornley lias asked as to how we provide against corrupt practices. There is the same pro- vision against corruption as in our own election. The law is as strong in one case as in the i'tli.fr. You will say, of course, that the liquor men will try ti. k>. .; people at home". .So they will, no doubt, and if you had the liquor men voting they would try to bring them out. Mrs. Thornley said there was gross corrup- tion in London. That arose 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-ooxes, but they cannot do that if they stay at home, and you will do your best, and 1 will, to bring them out by proper means. I know I do not satisfy you all, I did not expect to do that, but neither did I try to satisfy all the liquor-dealers. My desire is to give the people of Ontario a liquor law that can be enforced. 1 am too good 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 tempe-^nce cause. It 18 too good a cause to be sacriBced, 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 the eye of our law as you. All are citizens of the country, and all have the rights of citizenship. And, of course, 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 men out of eight may force prohibition on the rest of the people and put them to all sorts of inconvenience, and yet nobody says that prohibition is a religious obligation, to be observed no matter what the conscquencas. Surely those citizens who 47 do not hold KtroDK views one way or the other, to whom thiv measure will be obnoxious, have to be contidered, I come to the other point, but first, p«rhapi, I should make one remark in reply to something Dr. Carman said. Ue said that under the present conditions of votine the bullot-boxes would be stufled with 200,000 votes before the voting is begun. Well, that is not fair. I hope there will not be a single ballot in the boxes when you start. What you want is 200,000 in fovor of prohibition alter you have voted. I don't see where the force of the remark is that youi hands are tied. 1 don't see anything in that at all. 1 am not going to speak on that point. I took it down, anil I just mention it — my hands are not tied — Dr. Carman's hands are not tied : he can speak well, he ciin instruct, preiich ond ini[ilorc, and he can do it well, and elo(|Uently and forcefully. Now as to the day. We inserted in the bill, an the day of voting, the 14th October, after consideration. I found, I think from Dr. Carman or some member of his Church, that the 1+th of October would be inconvenient to the Methodists, on account of the Quadren- nial at Winnipeg, and instantly and on the spot I said it shall not bo on Hth October; wc will put it oil two or three wteks, any time you see tit, because we don't want anybody, as far a.s we can help it, restrained from exercising a full vote. The election will not be on 14th October. You say you do not want the Act on a separate day — I don't know that you think so, but some people say that a separate iibition ? I don't believe it is. I think it is rather a reflection to say that the employers would exercise restrict n over their employees. And yet it may be said that there are those in the liquor trade who would watch the polls and see who voted and get at them that way. There is some force in that, and It might be done. It would be a very improper thing to do. But I do not see that it could be prevented. From what you say I will hold myself free, I and my colleagues will hold ourselves free to take into due consideration if it would not be fair all around to take the date of the Municipal Elections as the day to fax. (Hear, hear.) I do not say we will do that. It is a new issue, presented to us for the Brst time I will take that into consideration— respectful and thoughtful consideration. I don't want to handicap the temperance cause by anything that the law or procedure of Parliament can protect them against. I don't propose to do that. I simply propose to ask for an expression of opinion on the part of Ontario that will make me feel sure that the law will be enforced, if I am in power— and it will be no easier for any other Government to enforce it than for me, should I remain here. That is all I want. If it can be made Msier for the temperance men to come out strongly and express their views manfully, then let them do so. I may make this remark before dismissing that You may think it unkind. It 18 not unkind. If we as temperence men asserted ourselves a little more euurageoualy than i» often the case it would be a good thing. We have great difficulty in enforcing the present 49 good tiling. We h«ve (jreat dirticiilty in enforcing the present law, anil temperance men are no more help to us in ent'orcine the prewnt law than anyone elite. That i» their |>articular ublijfation. Temperance men are not an courageous in aaHertiii^f theniBelven as tliey shoulil he. The ((reat failure of the Scott Act WHS thin: It was asked for by temperance men, and when temiieraiicc men ),'ot it, thoy left the law to enforce itself. You caniiut put u constable in every hotel and a policeman on every highway. If those who know the law is not beiii({ enforced take no stops, we cannot here in Toronto enforce it without an exfwniliture of money that will be enormous. Tlie tost of eiiforc- inj; will be enormous. It cost us S>78,000 to enforce the Scott Aci for one year. That was only in 2(1 counties. With this Act, over all the Province, it wdl prolmbly cost us «;iSO,0UO a year! That is all riaht ; of course it is the people's money, and if pro- hibition i.f adopted no doubt we shouhl take the people's money freely to protect this law, and I don't suppose anyone here will grumble at it. But when we spend money tor a law which the temperance men want and the others do not want, those who do not want it will complain about the expenditure of money, and that may be embarrassinjj for us. For, while we an? endeavoring to enforce temperance lefjislation, we have as jjood friends I don't mean in the trade, I am not speakin}? of the trade al all — as j,">od frien<-y thoughtful temperance man believes we should pass a law, i^nd submit that law to the people, in order to ascer- tain what public upinion is in regard to it. Having done so, then the law has full force and effect. It has the ratification of the people. The Objections Contidered. Now, I propose considering for a few moments some of the objections we have heard. The tirst objection is the basis of voting. It is held by a great many that the decisive vote should be a majority of the votes polled. That view, as I showed in my argument in introducing the bill, has no substantial support among the leading temperance men in public life, nor among many temperance men who in the Church are supposed to repre- sent the best sentiment of the various churches to which they belong. A bare majority of votes has not been au /ocated by any man of large experience in legislation, and is opposed by very many men of large experience in connection with religious and Christian work. The strongest authorities are against a bare majority of votes. We, therefore, are not disposed to sub- mit the bill for ratification in that way. A bare majority may mean a small majority, as in the case of the Scott Act vote, as in the case of the last plebiscite in Ontario ; it may mean a small percentage of the whole vote. You would, 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 adequate expression of public opinion. In ordinary legislation that merely affects a few, that may be good and well, but in legis'ation so far-reaching, touching so many, touching 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 readily see how a law like that, born in weakness and feebleness, would only exist in a sickly and- ineffective condition for some 56 time, and be cast aside by those who gave it their sappon. We, then y'«"»ns in Scotland were hunted like nart ndKes in the mountains because they were marked n«n "^Thi I £ 61 S?.^ '^^.1"'', '°'"''^? to ''»1J M umbrella over u, « we go to the polls to vote for prohibition, and we ..k "nebo.?^ u, take u, to vote for John Smith a. Alderman, and then whe^ you get mMde and mark a ballot for councilor you .Ho a baUot into the box for prohibition, and in thitTay vou aTnot^woi inTh'".'^ '""'jl?' •""" "'Ovement. and rL?™ reproach themeelve. more than another it ie becaurthev were orfo?r sc'ot^ir "' - "^ -"■"«•' «'"•" '- "'-'•" An Unworthy Reproach. dutJ inT'^. "!" " ? T'"'"'y """""^ fof failing to do one'. hibition ae the men who serve them. (Hear hear ) It La reproach wh.ch should not be c«,t upon them, that they will 1? f iTl f""" K*""" ""P'' '*""'"«» '"K" o"t and vote The law p^:fi;z':^irt^ljL:-tdZ^;c iSrr ;t^: -- ^'«^ "" "-'^ - • b^^^^h '^i^je";^ Vote ill November. in^^'weThaThrve'ir"",^'* of I.ovember as the date of poll- b^ convenienf Th. *. P""'"^ ?",* "^^^ '° ">" "-""'h. It will h^r/i !k ! Tv 1"' K*°''"' election of the Dominion was .1 '" '''*i'"°'"^- " «"« considered to be seasonable weathT and under these circumstances I think we may ex^t as full .n expression of public opinion as the occasioT^iU Arrant We without \^^wl "■"" 'l"'^ f""««' expression of opin on Wear" .ado? the J''''°f- ^^^ ''J" "« P"'^^'" <"" that'^ba^s if th^Kfi M ™eept""> alfeady given it. We shall be slad iL fS » ! P™''?'''- ." " P'^™"' ""3 we are in power we slall hi adaortionmlly, knd it will Mttle on* way or the other a quMtion that hai hang apon tha (ring* of politici, •omatimM projaetad into politica, aomatimaa a diatorbins alamant, aomatimaa a difficult mattar to diapoaa of ; and haring baen lettlad, it will ba for Parliamant to eonaidar what baat ean ba dona to maintain that high atandard of morality, of which Parliament ha* approved ao often in the paat. (Cheer*.) I am not going to diaoiua the Tarioo* clanaea of the bill. They are somewhat draatio, but they are quite clear, eaaily com- prehended, and in committee may b* diapoaed of in a vary few momenta. I do not auppoae there i* any doubt what they mean, they having been referred to the Privy Council. I move the aacond reading of the bill. (Loud tfiniaterial cheer&)