^>. 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATrON 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 Hi Uk 
 
 1.4 
 
 IIM 
 
 1.6 
 
 V] 
 
 <^ 
 
 /a 
 
 A 
 
 
 o 
 
 7 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 

 l/j 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the Images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommagee 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur6e et/ou pelliculde 
 
 I I Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certafnes pages blanches ajout6es 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas dt6 filmdes. 
 
 Additional comments;/ 
 Commentaires suppl^mentaires; 
 
 L'lnstitut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaira 
 qu'il lui a M possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une imaf^i'^ reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquis ci-dessous. 
 
 I I Coloured pages/ 
 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es 
 
 rjlr Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 I I Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu^es 
 
 n Pages detached/ 
 Pages ddtach^es 
 
 [TT^Showthrough/ 
 I I Transparence 
 
 □ Quality of print varies/ 
 Quality in6gale de {'impression 
 
 □ Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t^ film^es d nouveau de facon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
I6tails 
 9S du 
 -nodifier 
 9r une 
 'ilmage 
 
 The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 National Library of Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grfice d la 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 as 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — »> (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED "), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont film6s en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — ^> signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN ". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 errata 
 i to 
 
 t 
 
 e pelure, 
 
 ;on d 
 
 D 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
F 
 
 The Manjidba 
 
 School O'JEStion 
 
 „, , „,. ■ - ^^i^" — >.^^--~'"- --^— - 
 
 ; 
 
 A SERIES OF FOUR LETTERS 
 
 BY 
 
 JAHES FISHejR^JSOLP. 
 
 To the £ditur of the Free PretM. 
 
 Sir,— To one who, like the \\ riter of 
 this letter, has from the very opening 
 of the Manitoba school ques- 
 tion, most earnestly contend- 
 ed tliat the legislature 
 and people of our own province sliould 
 settle it in a. spirit of tolerance and 
 conciliation, giving no justification or 
 excuse for federal intervention, it 
 was comforting to read the recemt 
 letters of Principal Grant and the 
 more lecent utterances of Mr. Laur- 
 ler. They inspire a hope that, even 
 yet, the grave oroblems which the 
 question presents may be st>lved by 
 the one body that can under ajiy cir- 
 cumstanceis work out the most satis- 
 factory solution. It is gratifying to 
 find that every word uttered by tliose 
 distinguislied leaders of public thought 
 is in tlie direction of an earnest ap- 
 peal for a settlement of the question, 
 within tlie province, m a spirit suoh as 
 I have suggested. Tlie great Presby- 
 terian divine luis been forced to the 
 conclusion that "tlie government of 
 Manitoba made a great mistake in 
 summarily abolishing imstead of re- 
 forming the old school system," a 
 conclusion indeed that is lieartily con- 
 curred in by thousands in Manitolm, 
 wlio are thoroughly sincere In their 
 preference for a purely mitlonal sys- 
 tem of schools, and who regard it a-s 
 • a misfortune that their Roman Cath- 
 olic brotherii cannot be brought to 
 s<H> eye to eye with them on that ques- 
 tion. The learned I'rincipal fully re- 
 alizes that the judgment of the courts 
 finds— and his own investigation con- 
 firms it— that the minority have been 
 aggrieved, and that for their griev- 
 ance a remedy ought to be found, 
 which M ill neither break up the pres- 
 ent system in its general operation, 
 nor restore tlie old one. He deprec- 
 
 ates most earnestly any intervention 
 by the federal parliuinent except as a 
 dernier resort, when every possible 
 means of effecting a settlement 
 amongst ourselves shall have been ex- 
 hausted. He recognizes that nowhere 
 cai! the question bo so satisfactorily 
 settled as within the walls of our own 
 legislature,and so he pleads with the 
 gyverniueut of the province that it 
 may deal witli the question and solve 
 It. In the most earnest terms lie re- 
 minds the members of the government 
 that "they have been at war ever 
 since lt90 with the prejudices, the 
 feelings, and even the religious convic- 
 tions of a section of the population 
 that deserved to be treated with the 
 utmost consideration." He warns 
 them tliat this war "\\lll end only 
 wlKMi they make concessions, which, 
 to the mass of the people Interested 
 will seem reasonable;" and he tulds 
 that "the sooner these are made tlie 
 liett+'r." That his appeal may be as 
 emphatic as possible he protests that 
 "the onus lies on the provincial gov- 
 ernment to make concessions to meet 
 the views of reasonable members of 
 tlu' aggrieved minority." 
 
 Tlie eloquent words of Mr. Laurier, 
 In his tour through Ontario, are 
 clu^ring to every one who sincerely 
 desires to see an honor- 
 
 able and statesmanlike settle- 
 ment of the question. Especially is it 
 gratifying to note tlie rapturous en- 
 thus1a-s,m witli which his utteramces 
 were received In the great meetings, 
 composed, a,s we may assume, mainly 
 of Knglish fipeuking Protestants. 
 Doubtless lie was roundly applauded 
 when he i)l('a.d«'d that the Greenway 
 government should Ik? "not only fair 
 but gem^roTis to the niiiinorlty.* Who 
 can fall to approve the patriotic words 
 in which, at his Renfrew meeting, he 
 
 ^(1 
 
 
 
 Xl.%: 
 
t 
 
 adviKed "that a way bi sought of 
 pencilling a mutual understanding he- 
 tweon tiie niiaj(mity and tlio minority, 
 l»etw«Min tht) governniont at Ottawa 
 and the government of Manitoba?" 
 Wlio can reluso U> follow hini, as he 
 declares im the Baine Kp<?ech that "It 
 in by a mutual understanding alone 
 that thlH question can 1k» 8<'ttl('d, In 
 a manner wlirich m ill give to the min- 
 ority tlielr privil<»ge.s and their rights, 
 iijxil will not lnfrinu:e on tli«' rljL?hts of 
 the majority ?" "This is the way I 
 would do,'' added Mr. Laurier, 'if It 
 were my fortime to b<' the adviser of 
 Her MaJ«?ety in this country." 
 
 And how A\ould the I>il)<.»ral chief- 
 tain bring about a condition of afiairs 
 that would lead to such a mutual un- 
 dereitanding ? Just by following in 
 the li(ne« advocat<>d by his own dis- 
 tinguished predeceissors in the leader- 
 Bhdp of Canadian Liberals— Brown, 
 McKenzie and Blake. Hear him at 
 the lienirew meeting, as he t<ells ids 
 hearers how it could l>e done. "I 
 clKMj.se conciliation a« my motto," said 
 he. "We must have jwace in this 
 country. We must have harmony. 
 We are above everytJiing Canadians, 
 whatever may be our religious beliefs, 
 whatever be our opduioms. . . If vrn 
 want to build up this nation we can 
 do it only b"" everyone of us individual- 
 ly making sacrifice, upon the altar 
 of OUT common country, of somethdpg 
 of our own opinions and prpjudlces. If 
 the question is approached in this 
 way, I thiak it is easy of .solution, 
 but if it Is apiirioaehied in any other 
 way, I&ee nothdng but strife and dis- 
 cord for the future in this land of 
 
 OUITS." 
 
 No more true or patriotic words 
 were ever siM>keai by a statesman in 
 any land, and they ehoaild be well 
 weighed by both the minority and ma- 
 jority in tills province. Unless wise 
 counsels, such a,s Mr. Laurier recom- 
 mends, are to prevail, and that ere 
 long, the divergence between tlie con- 
 tending elements will have become so 
 wide as to make a reconicUlation im- 
 possible. Then, Indeed, as the Lilieral 
 leader foresees, and earnestly warns 
 us, "tliere is nothing but strife and 
 discord for the future in this fair land 
 
 Ol OUITB." 
 
 At Bpockville, on a later day, Mr. 
 Laurier returned to the subject, reit- 
 erating the opinion lie had already 
 expressed. "We may be separated by 
 creed, but we are all Christians. We 
 acknowledge the law of Clirist, and 
 surely tliei-e is in the hearts of all of 
 us enougii of the Christian character 
 taught by Christ, to allow every one 
 of us to make, for the regulation of 
 this question, a sacrifice, on the altar 
 
 of his country, of soniL'tlilng of lii- own 
 l>ref«*r<'nc<'«." 
 
 Like Dr. Grant, Mr. Laurier urges 
 tlwit the settlement of the question 
 should be effected l>y our own 
 legislature. The difficulty in lils 
 view of it do.-^ not arise 
 so mucli from any objection on the 
 part ol the majority to make conces- 
 sions tliat will hatisfy tiie aggrieved 
 minority, but rather iroiii an objec- 
 tion to tlie fi'deral i)arllament exer- 
 cising its authority to legislate on 
 the qui'Htlon, even tliougli Its posses- 
 sion of that nutliority may be alto- 
 gether undoubted. 
 
 When In his IJroekvilie address lie 
 openlj' made the declaratlnii: "I am 
 anxloufe' to see those privileges re- 
 stored to the liomun Catiiolic min- 
 ority In Manitoba," Mr. Laurier said 
 no more of course tlian we could ex- 
 pect him to say, as from the very first 
 he has not hesitated to express his 
 entire symiiatliy with hi-: co-reli Zion- 
 ists here in their hard fought strug- 
 gle. He went much furtiier, however, 
 and In the most emphatic terms ex- 
 pressed his unlimited confidence tiiat 
 If Ottawa left Manitoba alone, his 
 I'rotcstant hearers would gladly see 
 the claims of the minority conceded. 
 ''There is not a. man in this audi- 
 ence," exclaimed Mr. Laurier in an 
 outburst of eloquence, "but who 
 would be glad to see the Catholic 
 schools restored by tlie legislature of 
 Manitoba." This was said at the 
 Merrlckvllle meeting, which, accord- 
 ing to the Globe's report was a spec- 
 ial y enthu lastic d munstration, 
 where "cheers went up for Mr. Laur- 
 ier from a thousand throats," and 
 wliere ''there was not a dissentient 
 voice amongst the shouts of approb- 
 ation with which the Liberal lead- 
 er's (declaration of policy was re- 
 ceived." 1 wish to be permltted,Mr. 
 Editor, to join most heartily in those 
 expressions of approbation. 
 
 Tliere Is a "but," however, which 
 Mr. Laurier liad to interpose before 
 he closed the sentence from which I 
 last quoted. "But", said he, ."there 
 Is a repugnance to the Canadian 
 parliament overriding the legislature 
 of Manitoba." Ah, tliat is just where, 
 tlie shoe pinches. Principal Grant 
 and Mr. Laurier have correctly diag- 
 nosed the difficulty. We do not like 
 to be told by outsiders that we are 
 in the wrong, much less to have an- 
 otlier power actually intervene, even 
 to Correct our ml-tiikes. Were Mani- 
 toba, herself to make the most Ilheral 
 concessions to the minority, the fact 
 would .scarcely elicit a word of unfav- 
 orable comment in the other prov- 
 
t 
 
 Ills l.Wll 
 
 r urges 
 liiestlon 
 r own 
 
 in l:i-« 
 
 arlis« 
 
 on tlie 
 
 conces- 
 jgrleved 
 ol)j ce- 
 nt »'S(T- 
 
 ate on 
 
 ; poB.seS- 
 
 be alto- 
 dress lie 
 "1 am 
 'ge8 rc- 
 )lie niin- 
 fier said 
 3uld ex- 
 ery first 
 •ess his 
 •reli-iitm- 
 it Strug- 
 liowever, 
 rms ex- 
 nce til at 
 one, his 
 adly see 
 'onceded. 
 is audi- 
 • in an 
 it who 
 Catholic 
 lature of 
 at the 
 , accord- 
 1 a spec- 
 istration, 
 ,Ir. Laur- 
 its," and 
 ls«entient 
 f upprol>- 
 a\ lead- 
 was re- 
 litted.Mr. 
 y in those 
 
 er, which 
 )se before 
 
 wlilch I 
 p, ."there 
 
 Canadian 
 egislature 
 ust wliere, 
 al Grant 
 ctly diag- 
 not like 
 
 it we 
 have 
 
 are 
 an- 
 
 rene, even 
 ere Mar.i- 
 ost lll)eral 
 , the fact 
 of nnfav- 
 lier prov- 
 
 inces. But the int)!uent the fcdj-ral 
 arm in raised to attack our lejiriHia- 
 tiirf, popular sympathy i.s stirrVd in 
 favor ot tlie provincL', even amongtst 
 the clasBi'H vviiose Kymiiatiiy. under 
 other circumstances, would Im* ex- 
 t( nd d to the minority— to the \v«'ak- 
 • r lK)dy tliat complaiiu'd of a griev- 
 ance Inflicted l\v the stronger one. 
 
 There la no disposition, J InMievc, 
 on the part of tli • Protestant major- 
 ity, tlirougiumt the Dominion at 
 large, to refuse c mcessiims that 
 will satisfy all reasonabl" members (;f 
 the minority, ii" the question is once 
 fairly put b-fo-v them. This faet \v;iis 
 well illui^trated a good many years 
 ago, when the great Liberal leader of 
 th" day— hou St and tilerant Alex- 
 ander Mat'kcnale— so el xjueut y jilcnd- 
 ed for the restoration to tin' Cath- 
 olics of New Brunswick, of tlio priv- 
 ileges that they had formerly en- 
 jt.yed. Nay, the privilegCN tliat tlK'y 
 had before enjoyed were nf)t even 
 theirs by sanction of law, hut by tln' 
 grace of the authorities; jind Mr. Mac- 
 kenzie pleaded that they slutuid not 
 only be restored, l)ut made sure by 
 statutory enactment. And with re- 
 markable uriaiuimlty, l)oth sides of par- 
 liament applauded Mr. Mackenzie, 
 and voted with him In asking tlie sov- 
 ereign and her Imnirial advisers t'l In- 
 t<'rcedo with the legislature of New 
 Brunswick o:i l»ehalf of the aggrieved 
 minority. Mr. (Jreenway lilmself was 
 there anioiigst the rest, an<l recorded 
 his vot«' for toleration anil concilia- 
 tion and conc<'^sslon. The voice of 
 the I'rotestant majority throughout 
 tli<» land stocxl at that time, t()n, with 
 Mr. Mackenzie. Tie spoke in the nauu' 
 and he expressed the sentiments of 
 that Trotestant majority, when, in 
 his place in the Commons, referring to 
 the struggle of the New Brunswick 
 r'athollcs to PtH'ure the rights enjoy- 
 ed by their co-rellglonists in »)ntario, 
 he reminded the house that.though he 
 hims<»lf preferred above all others, a 
 public Kchool system fror from denom- 
 i nationalism, yet he ha<l by speech, and 
 vote supported in the confederation 
 debate, the scheme whicih pernetuat- 
 ed separate schools for Catholics in 
 Tpper Canada amd for l*rote«tnnts in 
 Lower Canada. It was so 
 
 also when he made the 
 
 memorable declaration of his 
 
 desire that the privileges enjoyed 
 by the Catholics of Ontario should' Ih- 
 ext<>rided to their co-religionists In 
 every province In the union. Mr. Mac- 
 kenzie's language at that time is so 
 api>licable to the position i'u Ma7iitob;t 
 that som? of lii-< words may well le re- 
 jiroducotl at this tune. 
 
 '•Sir,' saiJ .Mr. Mack 'Uzlo. "the« 
 same grounds wliJch Iwl me on that 
 occasion to give loyal assistance to 
 tile confedcr.'ition iiroject. embracing 
 as it did a scheme of having seiiarate 
 schools for Catholics In Ontario and 
 for I'rotestjuits In C^uebec, cjiused me 
 to feel bound to give my sympathy, if 
 1 could not give my active assistance 
 to those ill other provinces, wlio be- 
 lU'ved they were laboring under the 
 same difiicultles jind suficring under 
 the s;ime grievances that the Catho- 
 lics in Ontario comi)laiTied of for 
 years." 
 
 Then- is evidence of a strong feeling 
 on the part of the I'rotestant major- 
 ity in Ontario agaiiist federal ieglsla- 
 ti Ml establishing .separate schools 
 in Manitoba. But this feel- 
 ing can scarcely Im- based 
 on any decided objection to a sys- 
 tem in itself, which i)ermlts Bomaa 
 Catholics to have schoo.s in Catliolic 
 districts, in which the tenets of tlieir 
 own faith are taught, su long as the 
 pe<iulrements of the law as to secu- 
 lar education are complied with. 
 That this is so, plainly ai)i)ears from 
 the general satisfaction given by the 
 (system that prevails in Ontario it- 
 self. That It Is accepted l)ecauH(! of 
 Its real merits, and not because tlu^re 
 .•ire constitutional obstacles In the 
 way of Its removal, is also amply tes- 
 tified. It is scarcely necessary to do 
 so, but I may quote just a little 
 testimony on this point. There Is 
 for instance, the Toronto Globe's edi- 
 torial statement in April of this very 
 year. "We advocate the Ontario 
 system," said the Globe at that time, 
 "not because it is fixed by the constl- 
 ' tion, but because we consider it to 
 bo a good syst'm, embodylnu; a sat- 
 isfactory settlement of a vexed (jues- 
 tlon. If this province were making .a 
 fresh start to-day, absiilut''ly Tin- 
 trammelled l)y con-;titutiona! restric- 
 tions. Ave do not know tliat It could 
 do better than continue that arrange- 
 iw'Tii without (iny material change." 
 
 There is also the testimony of the 
 Hon. David Mills in 1^92, when he 
 said. "The course taken in the prov- 
 ince of Ontario, on the whole, pro- 
 duces the most satisfactory resullM 
 on this continent, of the educational 
 (luestion ... I say there is no 
 
 public school system on this contin- 
 ent, producing m :)re satisfactor.v re- 
 sults, and that works out with less 
 friction than tlie separate school sys- 
 tem of Ontario." 
 
 Kveu la the province of Manitoba, 
 in the hottest of the present agita- 
 tion, an earnest and eUxiuent voice 
 was raised in testimony to the satis- 
 
 I 
 
fartion jrlvpti by tin* Ontiirio nystem, 
 jind in ttdvoi'Jitinir Ken thus treatment 
 to the minority here. Tlie Rpv.l'ptor 
 "Wright, of I'ortiiBc la T'ralrle, lilin- 
 Melf an Ontario teacher In past years, 
 ilelhared an adilreHs on the schi ol 
 qneftlon In hlH own town last April. 
 A fill! report of it was pnltlished in tlie 
 Tribune, oT this city. Tliat paper, 
 than whicli there Is not 
 
 II more staunch advocate of the 
 pres«'nt ^f;initoba law to be found 
 prefaced tlie report with the remark, 
 "Mr Wright Is one of the soundest iiicn 
 in thf Vresbvteri.'in ehurcli in th-' 
 \\ iioh Northwest." .Vnd this is svh.it 
 Mr. AVrlsjht s.iid: "'In Ontario verv ex- 
 cellent work is l)einK done in mativ of 
 the separate schools. Th" late '^ of 
 "S (.imi». whf'u inspector of the iiiirii 
 schools of Ontario, was asked by tlie 
 ^(;^ern^llent to inspect such sep.irate 
 schools as hf- conveniently eoii!tl. I 
 remember a conversation T had with 
 him, in wliich he bore testimony to the 
 excellent condition in which he found 
 m.'inv of them." TTe then went on to 
 !iiake a powerful plea for tolerance 
 jind conciliation, urtrinf; that wo 
 sliould be fair and irenfMous to the mi- 
 nority. whil( earnestly protestinc: at 
 th' sanif time ;i,jrainst federal inter- 
 vention, and insistine that .inder no 
 eireumstfif 'is should we submit to a 
 restora' of the old law. Mr. 
 
 ■v^rifrht ords are well worth <piot- 
 inff: "Let us make it as easy as possi- 
 ble," said he. "for our repr.'sent.'xtives 
 to be not only f.iir and just, but noble 
 and iprenerouH. EncoiiraRe them to look 
 int(> thf alleitjed grievance. Tf it exists 
 let tlieni see .'ibout tlie remedy in !\ 
 spirit !\t- brofid and generous as is com 
 p.-itible with the cardinal !)rinciples of 
 our institutions— eqiir.l richts .ini 
 privilege-' to .'ili." .Vnd after a refer 
 enc<' to the manner of settlement that 
 some propose— the abolition of all re 
 liu'ious exerci';o^ frf)m ttio vcl'ools — he 
 proceeds: "Will the Catholics then call 
 our schools irodless? Well. let tlieei 
 havf the i>rivileire of nreo/iri'ic: relitr 
 iou« exorcise'* after their own ideas, <ts 
 distinctiv Catholic as they pleaso. so 
 loni: as the teaching is nfit subversive 
 of civil oblic'ition— and let thesp be 
 iisied 111 every .•^clioo'i where the trustees 
 so determine, in lieu of the present re 
 li^rious exercises, and with the same 
 lii'iitatirms as to time and attend 
 a nee," 
 
 r air. firmlv convinced. Mr, IMitor, 
 that ^Ir Laurler did not fiverstate the 
 fact when he said the question U 
 "e-isy of solution." without feder.il in 
 terventlon.lf .-ipprcaihed by botli par- 
 ties to the conflict in 'tiii> 
 
 ag:ainst our 
 eouce-sslons, 
 Wrifflit, for 
 agaiiiust the 
 
 spirit tliat h( rpc»»inmends. f iK'li.-ve 
 there i.s no hucIi strong feeling in Mani- 
 toba ;\M some iw'oplc imagine, .igiiin^t 
 nuiking renMcmable conc«»sslons on th«« 
 lin ■« suggested by iImIp Iyf>rdaliips of 
 the jirivy council. Certalnl.v a pro- 
 jiois.al to restore the old systimi as it 
 existe^d prior to IHQO would Im- met 
 with the most deterniine«l oppo>iti(m. 
 And if tlie federal parliament were to 
 re-enact that law, I am convinced 
 that an attempt to enforce it would 
 evoke a deg^♦^• of hostility tliat would 
 shake the very foundations of our 
 I'-oai/federatlon. 
 
 It would be n great mistake. hov\- 
 evor, in luy Judgment, tfi as-^-unie tlmt 
 tliere iw any such feeding in Manitobfi 
 own legislature making 
 sucli as the Rev. Mr. 
 instance, sugg(>sted : or 
 introduction of a systeMii 
 ba»sed on tlint of Ontario, but modi- 
 fied in i*onie respect.-! so as to ,'ivold 
 M'Ome of the weakDt\sse8 charged 
 .against it. 
 
 L'pon the question of rmr own legis- 
 lature making n-asonalile concessions, 
 it is particularl.v interesting to note 
 tlK- opinion of Mr. .Joseiiii Martin, M.I'., 
 tlie ex-attorney general of Manitoba, 
 liimsjli tli«' originator of the present 
 Kicliool law. 
 
 The Hon. Mr. Ou'imet, tlie Frencli 
 leader in tlie commons, was reiM)rted 
 during last session of the Dominion 
 Iiarliament, in .an interview in an 
 Ottawa jiaper, to have stated that 
 Jill the lUmian ( atholics of Manitoba 
 .•iskipd was, "to Ih» at lilierty to add 
 to tlie secuhir education required in 
 the luiblic sclionls sucli religious tiacii- 
 ing .-IS will meet their religious viw.-." 
 .Vnd he uddL'd,"Ii tliat had been pro- 
 vieled for in the legislatiejn of 1890 we 
 would ne\e'r have' he-anl of the' Mani- 
 toba school question." 
 
 Mr. Martiu promptly wrote to the 
 same paper, over his own signature, 
 eleclariug that if Mr. Ouimet accura- 
 tely stat'd the position of the church, 
 then "there is no need eif .any remed- 
 ial legislation in order tt) bring jiliout 
 such u state of affairs." "I be- 
 lieve," added Mr. Martin, "that the 
 people of Manitoba would be willing 
 to give the Roman Catholics all th.at 
 is asked for. Everybnd.v wishes that 
 a solution of the (piestion may be 
 found without .any coercion on the 
 pari of the Dominion i);irliaiiient. .and 
 if the el.'uiands of the minority are 
 eorieitly represente^d by the>' min- 
 ister. I Jim very much at .sea in my 
 acquaintance wltli the view'> 
 
 oi the Mauitolxa people, if they 
 wil: not grant of their own accord all 
 that Is nsked." This is indeed stronir 
 
 i 
 
r )H'ii.'V(> 
 
 nu in Ma (li- 
 no, .ijjain-t 
 nns (in tli«« 
 DrdalMps <if 
 nly a pro- 
 st(Mn ;i« it 
 Itl Im' niPt 
 oppo-ltion. 
 nt \v«'i«' tf) 
 convlncod 
 it would 
 tliat would 
 of our 
 
 x'lko. liow- 
 
 UlllO t-llJlt 
 
 Manitoba 
 
 o making 
 
 R*'v. Mr. 
 
 gcstfid : or 
 
 u sysUvui 
 
 l)ut inodi- 
 
 i to avoid 
 
 charged 
 
 own U^gi.--- 
 ;>ncj\s.-l(ins, 
 ng to note 
 irtin, M.I'., 
 Manltolia, 
 hv prcficnt 
 
 If Frt-neh 
 reiK)rted 
 
 Dominion 
 iv in an 
 ated that 
 
 Manitoba 
 ty to add 
 <(piir«'d In 
 iou.s ttacli- 
 ►us vl w.-." 
 
 been pro- 
 if 1890 wo 
 the Mani- 
 
 te to the 
 signature, 
 ?t accura- 
 lie church, 
 ny remod- 
 iug about 
 '•I l>e- 
 that the 
 :»e willing 
 •< all that 
 hes tliat 
 
 may l)e 
 fi on the 
 lUMit. and 
 rity are 
 ilu> min- 
 ea in my 
 vie\v> 
 
 if tiiey 
 iccord all 
 ?d strnntr 
 
 testimony to tlu' readiness uf the 
 Manitolm Mm]<»rity to concech' what 
 is, at nil events, the main demand of 
 tiie Koman Catliolic minority — that 
 tht-y m;iy bi- allowed to iiave religious 
 extTciseti in public kcIiooIh nccording 
 to tlicir own fiiltli. I iK'lieve he was 
 'luite juHtifi 'd in muking the state- 
 ment. But ilr. Martin did not stctj) 
 at a declaration that tlic pcoiVe f)f 
 Manitol>a were willing voluntarily to 
 concedi* all that the I'rench leader 
 wanted II: frankly expressed the 
 ■ piniiiu tliat justice to the minority 
 deniMmieO that redress should 'm- 
 h' given. IIIh language in tlds cun-' 
 M<'Ctii>n should J> > carefully real and 
 ponder -d by every I'rot'stuTit. and 
 espL'ciaily by every Liberal, in the 
 priivince. L 't me (piote lil-* words: 
 "Wlien I introduced tlie school bi 1 
 uf I'-WK" Kild Mr. Marti 1 ii this 
 Kame letter, "1 said, aud I sti 1 
 think, that the clause of the 1 1)0 
 ;ict which provides fur C'rtaiu relig- 
 iuu- (X rcis'K is mist )i; jus!^ to Ko 
 man r.-itholics. If the state is to 
 recognize religion in its schof)'. legis- 
 lation, sucli n recognition as is ac- 
 <e]»table to I'rotestants only, and in 
 fact only to a snajority of I'rotes- 
 tants, is to my mind rank tyranny. . 
 . . The nature of the reliuinus ex- 
 ercis'-H hliould b? hucIi as is agreeable 
 U> the consci'nces of those wiiose 
 money li- tnk n to support the 
 schools." 
 
 These arc somewhat striking state- 
 ments, Mr. I'ditor, from pretty strong 
 uieii— men whose judgment is entitl- 
 ed to no little weight. Shall I recapi 
 tulate some of them? 
 
 "Tlu- government of Manitoba made 
 a great mistake," and "the onus lies 
 on tlH>m to make coneeKsions,'" said 
 the Kev. Triiicipal (irant. 
 
 "I am iinxlous to s^-e those privil- 
 eges restored to the Roman Catliolie 
 minority in Manitoba," said Mr. I^aur- 
 ier; and at u great gathering in ;i 
 i'rot<'Stant district he followed up 
 tliat avowal by challetiging a single 
 mail to say that he would not In* 
 "giad to w-e the Catholic schools re- 
 stored by the legislature of Manltolia." 
 Not a man took up the challenge, but 
 from (I thousand throats burst forth 
 applauding chwre. 
 
 "1 gave loyal assistance in estab- 
 lishing s«'paratt» schools for Catholes 
 ill Ontario and for Trot^staiits in 
 tiMieliec," and T was "ImuiikI t* give 
 my sympathy to those in other jirov- 
 iijces who lielieved they ^\ere laboring 
 under the grievance that the ('ntho- 
 lics of Ontario had complaim'd <tf for 
 years," said grand old Alexamdej* Mac- 
 kenzie 
 
 "Then' Ih no public school system on 
 the continent producing more s.'itis 
 factory n-sults than the separate 
 scIkki; system of Oiitario," said David 
 .Mills. And no nnu'e sound, tlKUightfu: 
 a lid safi- man than Davjd Mills statidH 
 in Canada. 
 
 "\V«' advocate tlie Ontario sys- 
 t<>ni iM'cause it is a good sy>tem, and 
 iH'cause it embodli's a satisfactory 
 sftt'eii'.eKt of a vexed questinu," saiil 
 the CIoIk'. And I may be jianhuied for 
 -aylMg that thousands in «>very part 
 if Canada, and a vast majnrity of tin* 
 i;<"ip:e of Manitoba, I doubt not.airree 
 '.\ ith iiK' in the opinion that the (JIoIm? 
 is no mean judge. 
 
 "Let ratholicH hav<' the i»rivllege of 
 jireparing relighuis eXTcise^ after 
 their own Ideas, as distincly Catliolie 
 as tii(>y please, so huig a.-* the t««.icli- 
 ing is not siibv<>rsive of civil 'ibllga- 
 tions, and let tlii'se be useti In every 
 sclinol where the trustees so determ- 
 ine," said the Uev. Peter Wright, I5.I). 
 And the Ilev. I'eter Wright, .iccordlng 
 to the Tribuiu' — yes, and it needed not 
 tlw TribuiK-'s testimony to estal>lish 
 it— "is one of the soundest men in tlie 
 l'resbyt<'riari Church in the whole 
 Northwest." 
 
 Then Mr. .los<']tli Martin, most fit- 
 tingly, came forward to cap the 
 climax, and magnificently and eff<;c- 
 tlvel.v he did it. "Kverybody wishes," 
 said he, "that a solution of the (lue.-- 
 tion may be found witliout any coer- 
 cion on the ]>art of the Dominion par- 
 liament." *'Th^ clause of the 1-90 
 act whicli provides for certain relig- 
 iotiH exorcise?! is mo«t unjust to Cath- 
 olics.'' '"Such a Tecognlthm of relig- 
 ion" in the schools, "as is acceptable 
 to I'rotaetants only, N rank tyranny." 
 These are the welllconsldered views of 
 Mr. Joseph Martin, not utt.<^'red in the 
 excitement of .iebat<', or under tli<' In- 
 spiration of stuiii)! oratory, but calm- 
 ly aiKl thotightfuUy written with hid 
 own hand for publicatum. 
 
 What tlien stands in the way of 
 a settleuK'nt of the (pi<>stion '.' Mani- 
 festly, witliout federal intervention un- 
 der the appeal «)f tli'' minority, there 
 is but one way of .settling it. That, 
 of course, is by the Manitoba legisla- 
 ture nio<lifying tlu* law. That again 
 dejiends altogetlK-r upon the jirovincial 
 government. I'rincipal Grant, recog- 
 nizing tlii.-, ca-t-i tli(> onus on that 
 governuK'nt of .settling the cpiestlon. 
 Mr. L.Murier, of course, .s«'t's it in the 
 same light, ami intiniate.w that it is 
 tliroiigli the jirovincial governnu'nt 
 that relief sliouid come. And the 
 • luestion is Jiow can Mr. Greenway and 
 his colleagues be j)r<'vailed on to adopt 
 a fair and generous and jiatrlotlc pol- 
 icy ? Mr. Laiirier thinks it ii»«i»ends 
 
(( 
 
 on the numner In wliicli tliOKO n 'ntlt- 
 men arc npprojifliod. lie critli'izfK 
 the provornuK'nt of Sir M;ick<'nzl«> Uow- 
 «'ll ix^caus*- tln'V approaclKMl Mr. 
 (Jrrenwa.v uitli a jM'ri inptory domanil, 
 inwtcnd of a jioiltc r«Mni>'st. He i; not 
 at all Miri»risp(l that tlif provinelal 
 jfoviTTiuK'nt n'fiis«(l to do jii^tlci" to 
 the aiimority, M'<'im; a (h'Uiand wan 
 l«M'«')iintorily made that tlu' law 
 Hliould Ix' cJi.mijrt'd. a('roiiii»aiii('d with 
 n tlircat of federal Icjfi^latioii in the 
 ev<"nt of refusal. "Tliey passed an 
 order-in-coutu'll," said Mr. I^aurler, 
 at tli« llenfrrn- iiHM'tlnj;, "calling iipnn 
 Manitoba to reverse lier li'Ki>'l'iti"n, 
 and thrcateninw; that if Manitoba fail- 
 ed to do it tlK'V would do it tiieiii- 
 H<>lv<>s." "Do y(ni exjM'Ct,"' 1m' added, 
 "that M.'initoha wjis to be inducoil to 
 rover.s<' lu^r course wlwn she was not 
 aj)prf)aclHMl in a ponciliatory manner, 
 hut when she \\ as almost tlireat<>nfMl 
 at the jM);int of the bayonet to do 
 whflt sill' did not w.'int to do? Mani- 
 toba's ansAvor Mas, 'we will not be 
 coTiipplIod' " . . "If thi'v hail L'oni- 
 ni^pnc'd Willi nejirotiatinns :nst<'ad of 
 threats, jwrliai's the matter would 
 have Inen setthsl now.' .Vpraiin i\t 
 MerrifkviUe, he said : 'IL' did 
 not think that the gov«»rn- 
 Hient could hope that Mr. (ireeu'.vay 
 would jvive way under coiiii)ulsiou. but 
 li" iiimlit uive w.'iy undfr com-iliation." 
 And auain, at the .'^anie meeting, he 
 said: "lif l)cli(>ved with all his lieart 
 that ;\f soon as the fi'overnment aban- 
 doned till policy of coercion .ind threat 
 and brji,i . . . aTid appealed to the 
 people of Manitoba on the broad 
 )u:round.'- of common ( hristianity, the 
 ppoph of tlif province w«)i;ld be not 
 only just and fair, but jiyenerous to the 
 mrrtina." f 
 
 Al Ills ^lorrisburjr meeting Mr. I.au- 
 rior referred to tliis feitiire of the fjues- 
 tion once more, and announced the 
 manner in which lie would have ap- 
 proiiCliPi' the local ffovornment if h" 
 had been in Sir Afackenzie PowiMl'j 
 pl/icp. "1 would approach this man 
 Tireenway," s.aid he, "with tlip sunny 
 way,' «)f pfitiiothsni, .askinp: him to i»e 
 just and to b? fair, ask- 
 iniG: him to he Kenerous 
 
 to the minority, in ordt>r that 
 Avo may have peacp amonprst nil thc» 
 crppd.'- and races which it iias plpas.^d 
 Ood tf l)rinK ni)on this cor- 
 ner of our common conn- 
 try. Do you not believe there is 
 morf to l)p iBjainpd by uppealinK to the 
 hearts and souls of nipn. rntlipr than 
 by tr.vinp to compel them to do .a 
 thinsr?" 
 
 What Mr. Laurlpr says .iia.v indeed 
 be perfectly true. It is quite possinle 
 
 tliar i,li( iieri-i.>tent refusal of the pro- 
 \iuiial irovernment to tak.> a 
 oiirse that is just or fair 
 or jrenerous, to borrow the leader's cx- 
 jiressivf lan;;uaue. ma.\ have arisen 
 from till manner In wliicli they weri 
 •iliproached on the subj-ct, rather than 
 froii: an objection, on principle, to mak'- 
 ill).', reasonable concessions. .\t th«' 
 same time om can scarcely heli) feel- 
 ing that it is soiiie.vliat iiiifortunate 
 to lid VI the settlement of so yraw i 
 (pie-tion. invohinur possil:|y the very 
 coiitiiiiiaute ol the fcilMai union, il"- 
 l»endi lit on ;: mere oiiestion i "t - 
 ipa-tte. 
 
 Mr. l.;iurier in the nanif of iiatriot- 
 ism, ;iii(l that \Vi» may have jicace in 
 this jLiDoil Ifiiid, would appeal to Mr. 
 Creenway to bf fair .and just. The 
 poiiteiies-. if the Libfr.il chieftain res- 
 trains him from cli;ir«;inir, in i)l.'iiii 
 words, that tlie difi'lculti s tlirc.aten- 
 inir the p -ace of the Dominiiui arise 
 from the uiirairiiess ;ind iiijiistici* of 
 the pro\inci;il admiiiistr.atioM, whoso 
 meiiilH'r.-i liki' myself, are his own pol- 
 itical followers. r,ut just as pl;iinlyas 
 if he hiid said it the nccess.ary Infer- 
 ence from ills lan>j;uai::(' is that Mr. 
 (ireeiiway !ij\s failed t</ bi' either 
 • r fair on the ipiestion, that he 
 UsMi both unfair and unjust to 
 minority, and that therefori', he 
 
 just 
 lias 
 the 
 and. 
 the 
 
 his colleaifiK's are responsible for 
 continuance of tiie present unhappy 
 situation. Mr. liauricr, not Immuk '" 
 ofiir<> cannot spe.-ik jinthoritatively on 
 I ehalt >i' th > fe lera; i owerH, hut j-peak- 
 iiiy as an outsider — as the leader of 
 the party in opposition — liLs meaning 
 cannot he misunderstood. and 
 his words plainly condemn 
 
 the provincial >>:overnnient be- 
 cause they fall to relieve 
 the difficulty by adopting? that policy 
 of conciliation, that principal of fair- 
 ness and generosity for which rrinei- 
 jial Grant .and the Itev. Teter Wright 
 ple.aded. Mr. Laurier Is a polisiieil 
 
 French gentleman who, with great in- 
 tellectual power and .ahilit.v, conihines 
 tli<» most attractive personality, and 
 the most jx^rfect politeness. His 
 strongest ccmdemnatlon of his own 
 political friends must l)e> expressed in 
 kindly phrase. Not so. however, with 
 Mr. .TiKsejili Martin, who is always 
 ready to call a spade a spade. lie doea 
 Hot hesitate to characterize the law 
 that his political fri<Mids upluild, and 
 that owes its very paternity to him- 
 self, as most unjust to Koman Catho- 
 lics, and as Ixnng in fact, rank tyr- 
 anny. These two gentlemen represent 
 two widely different phases of charac- 
 t<'r, but their statements practically 
 lead to the same conclusion— that tlie 
 
 law isl 
 .\fter 
 scarcei 
 of Mr. 
 his lal 
 some *■ 
 porteii 
 And \i 
 peace-l 
 chieftj 
 
 him. <{ 
 f>ii thq 
 Macdil 
 
 li tl 
 
 dif(i<'»| 
 
 Ir,- inil 
 
 erniiul 
 
 cial il 
 
 fore 
 
 der. 
 
 that 
 
 biunt 
 
 llngli 
 
 the 
 
 og> 
 
 tioi' 
 
 an 
 
 the 
 
 that 
 
 ('ana 
 
 for t 
 
 u- ill 
 
 Sir 
 
 the 
 
 miicl: 
 
 bv 111 
 
 Id.'^ 1 
 
 I'erb 
 
 is di' 
 
 !in<l 
 
 intr 
 
 tion 
 
••I I ",' tlu' pri- 
 tak.' ,1 
 
 •>•■ fair 
 "' l<',l<l»'r's ex- 
 luivc .irisi.js 
 li tlic.v ucr, 
 r.'ttlicr tluiu 
 t'ipic, t.> iiiak- 
 At til., 
 "ly Ix'lf) /».,.|. 
 iinfi.rtun:itp 
 «'> trr.'n;- ,i 
 .'•' tli<> vi>r.v 
 i urn. ,11, ,),!. 
 •tii'ii , I ,.t . 
 
 "i patriot 
 
 v<' jd'jicf in 
 
 )(';i: t(. Mr. 
 
 ji'^t. The 
 
 liif'ftjiiii rf>s- 
 
 k, in p|,ii„ 
 
 •'^ tliroatpn- 
 iiiinioii arisp 
 itijiistici' of 
 ti"". wlinso 
 his Mwii j)()i. 
 ■•IS pl.ijrilj- as 
 I'i^'^.M-y InffT- 
 tliat Mr. 
 ■ citiicr 
 li;it ill" 
 
 ijUKt to 
 
 i-ri', lie 
 ■il):(' for 
 'it iinii;)p])y 
 >t l»<>^inK In 
 itntivp'y on 
 
 ^. but .V peak 
 
 ' leadtM- of 
 lis UHNaning 
 <">o(l. and 
 condenu) 
 ment l»e- 
 > rpiieve 
 tliat policy 
 I>al of fair- 
 licli iTInci- 
 ter Wrij^iit 
 
 a p.')lishp»! 
 Ii lerrpat iti- 
 » f^ornhines 
 unity, and 
 "ess. FfLs 
 
 his (»\vn 
 prpssed in 
 J'vpr. Mith 
 '^ always 
 t'- Ho does 
 e the law 
 ho!d. and 
 y to him- 
 an C'atho- 
 rank tyr- 
 
 rppresent 
 >t 'Miarac- 
 ractlcally 
 -tliat the 
 
 just 
 '•as 
 the 
 an<! 
 thp 
 
 law is \iiiJUHt ami sliould In* anipndpd. 
 AftiT ail, iM'op'.u of MritiHli orlviln ran 
 hcarcpjy help aduilrlnii; the mar. InenH 
 of Mr. Martin, tiiouKJi it is said tliat 
 Ills lanj^uaK*' s^avp ^jn-at offcnco to 
 som«' of ills former colleat^fiips and sup- 
 portcrK in tlic provincial >.fovi'rnmpnt. 
 And \v«> n«>pd not the I«'hs admirp tlip 
 pfacp-l)riiitfin>? words of tlie LilK^ral 
 cliltftain, which art' <piitp natural to 
 him, upon wiiom apppars to havp fall- 
 • 'II tliP mantle of the latp Sir .Fohn 
 Macdonald a> a winiior of niPii. 
 
 li tlip holutiou oi this di'li(.-ate and 
 difficult problem is really to «lpi)end on 
 \ <|UP^tion vif pti(iuette, and if it 
 I..- indeed trup tliat tlip fpdpral gov- 
 ernment did not api»roacli the provin- 
 cial authorities in ;i fair spirit he- 
 fore issuing the form.il remedial or- 
 der, it i^ to b' rPKrett«'d, perhaps, 
 that we have for a premier a l>luff, 
 blunt, .Tolin Bull I jurlisliman, who, 
 l.nKlishman like, sinipl.v stands upon 
 tli(> cou.>-titiilion. ami m.-ikes no ipol- 
 ou\\ for invoking? <ui behalf «»f a see- 
 tit)!- of the comniunit.v. airKii^'ved b.v 
 an •'unjust" and '•tyrannical" law, 
 the provisions of the constitution 
 that have been, b.v the p.irliampnt of 
 Cfinada, and of the empire, framed 
 for their express protection. Honu' of 
 u^: In \\innlp'H' had ocia^-inn to m et 
 .'^Ir ^fackenzie Bowell recpntl,v. In 
 tlip discussion of another matter, and 
 much fault Avas found with him, even 
 l>,v IiIh own |)olitical friends, hecaiise of 
 lii.-: bluntness and p'ainness of speech. 
 I'erhaps It is a misfortune that he 
 is deficient in the use of honied words 
 and courtly phrases, hat it Is a fall- 
 intr that possibly has its eompens.i- 
 tion.- In ,1 public man. 
 
 The <iUPf?tlon remains', however, how 
 the iLcrave difficulty prest^^nted hy the 
 KChool questkm is to Ik? removed. We 
 all desire to avoid fedpral interference. 
 I'eacp can lie luid and JuhWcp can l)e 
 done, through the intervention of the 
 local iejfislature. How is that to he 
 brought about •.' Mr. I.,aurier Is not 
 in power, unfortunately, and we can- 
 not avail ourselves, ther«'fore, of his 
 kindly offices, to melt Mr. Greenway, 
 b.v "aiipealiTija: to his heart and soul." 
 Mr. Oreeaiway now knows, however, 
 how earm stly Mr. Laurier, if in po\\er, 
 would plead with him for tol(>ration 
 and for justice. Will he not then 
 Hfive the sanit' serlouw consideration to 
 his leader's (Jeclarathm as if the lat- 
 ter wan actually in office^, and will he 
 not tr.v to be, an Mr. Jjaurier pleads 
 that he ought to l)e, Just and f.air and 
 generous '! Or must Sir Mackenzie Bow- 
 ell fir.st make ain humble apology to 
 the government of INIanitoba, for al- 
 lowing the Catholic minorit.v to en- 
 
 ter the hails of parlia- 
 
 m it for reilnsHs, through the 
 door proviiled by the constitution, in 
 or.ler that tliey m;iy there pipad tlipir 
 c.iiisp iM'forp the reprr'senta tivp.s of the 
 n.ition'.' "W't must have peace" sa.VM 
 .Mr. liiiiiripr, and tens of thoiisfinds re- 
 edif the sentiment. But wlio is to 
 t.ake tin first step tow.'irds concilia- 
 tion.' i pon wlioiii at iirespiit is tiie 
 onus to move in tli.it dini-lion.' Tills 
 liiustiiu is indeed :\ serious one. .md 
 it ought to receive careful .-iiiil dis- 
 p.assionate consider;! lion. I'rin''ii)al 
 Crant apjiears to conclude tluit the 
 onuf; is on the provincl.il ;;overnment. 
 .\t tlie s.Miiir time lie is of tiie iijiiaion 
 thai the n-medlal lu-iler is thi' -rreat 
 stumbling block in the w.i.v. If that 
 b«' indeed triit . it ought to lie removed. 
 But let us nuike sure of our .;round .'luil 
 see that ftlie rpsponsibility Is put up- 
 on the shoulders th.it ought to 
 bear it. 
 
 How far the action of the Dominion 
 govertiinent, hitherto, has really b: en 
 of a high-handed character, and how 
 far the government of Manitolwi has 
 lust ground of complaint in this re- 
 gard, and can jilead that action as a 
 justification for refusing anv consid- 
 eration of a settlement, can not. of 
 coursp, Ix" fatL^factorily answere<l 
 without a review of th<» 
 
 events that j>rec<Mle(I the issiw of the 
 order. With your leave I will. In 
 another lett<'r, refer to some of these 
 events. .lAMKS FISHKR. 
 
 To the Kditor of tlu' I''ree Press. 
 
 Sir,— In a former letter I ventured 
 to express the opinion that the very 
 strong opposition offered by the ma- 
 jority in Manitoba, and by their sym- 
 pathisers in otiier provinces, to the 
 granting of concessions aceiptable to 
 the minority, artwe more from n repug- 
 nance to Its bi'ing done as a result of 
 federal Intervention, than from any 
 decided objection to making such con- 
 cessions on principle. .\nd I <pioted 
 the utterances of Mr. Laurier, Trin- 
 cipal Grant, Mr. .Joseph Martin and 
 others in support of that view. I 
 quoted especially the opinion of Mr. 
 Laurier, that tiie federjil government, 
 because It issued the rem dial order 
 without first appri aching the govern- 
 ment of the province, in a conciliat-i 
 ory spirit, with ''the sunny ways of 
 patriotism," and with "an appeal to 
 the hearts and souls" of the Manitoba 
 ministers, were nuUnl,v responsible for 
 the question l>eing still unsettled. 
 
 It cannot, I think, be de- 
 nied, that, ever since the 
 Issue of that order, the action of 
 
tln" I)()uii?iii>n fr»>v<Tinn«»iit In '.Honing 
 It, luiH hc^'i the sul>ject of murh ad- 
 »«Tst> critloiHiii. Till' federal iiilhiHt<M's 
 linv<' Im'cm reprewonted iih tnkiii« Miiii- 
 Itt.lia liy the tlirujit and tr.vliiK to to- 
 eree itn jjovertiment and leulslatiire 
 into siibinlsHldti tn tlie dtMiiands .)f tlio 
 Kouuii. Catliolic laiiinrlty. 
 
 On the utlier hand It tian hiM-a coii- 
 t4'iided wltli inucli fon-c. that Mie ac- 
 th)ti uf tlie federal >;overnnient was 
 iMttiiliiv iiiitn> tlian wan re(iuirf'd hy 
 the fuiiHtitutidii, ill order to jjive ef- 
 fe<«t to tlie JiidKiiu''iit of tlie privy 
 (•oaiicll. The only power tliat can 
 iiiiiioiity a-iy relief 
 
 if relief U' denied hy tli(! 
 
 \n the purllaiiiPiit of the 
 That parliament cannot 
 
 eun the minority enter its 
 till !:• petition, iinlesH ,ind 
 
 IJCive the 
 \vhatev«'r. 
 province, 
 IVMitinion. 
 siiiiik, nor 
 door.- with 
 
 iinf tin J)oniinion executive shall 
 ;i}i\c dedarcMl what modilications of 
 tlM- law. If any, l< in» it** judwrn'Mit 
 r.ndod to ix \v relief. The remedi.il 
 c'der wan simply an order in riouniil 
 n.aklnK mich a declaration, and of 
 conrse it in pi >perly m;Ml(> in the I'oriii 
 of ill order in council. Without such 
 an order, no relief could ite uiv «m un- 
 der the appeal. ■1)ecau!-e wltlioit it 
 pn.rllninHnt rcr.'d not ac(inire Jiiris- 
 diK-ti^vn. rnlei*.s, th«*n>fore, the I)o- 
 iniiMon ;j;(»veiiiment d«'ci(led (.as it 
 might have done) that it would re- 
 fuse rtMlre,ss of any kind, it had at 
 Houie time to pa.»i8 a rem<'dial ord«!r. 
 
 Granting all that, however, it by no 
 moauH foll(»W8 that the makinm: of tlie 
 order at the time it waK made was 
 a prudent act, l'rincii)al (Jraut is un- 
 douhtedly right in saying that the 
 decisive and BPrious step of pasning a 
 formal order, with a view to enabling 
 parliament to intervene, kIiouUI not Im> 
 taken until every means of securing 
 redress from the legislature had l)een 
 exhausted. At the same time, neith- 
 er Mr. Laurier nor he denies that the 
 time may come when a remedial or- 
 der must be iiassed. Indeed, they 
 leave little room to doubt that in 
 their view of it, remedial legislation 
 will Ik> necessary. In case of the con- 
 tinued failure of the provincial leg- 
 islature to modify the existing law. 
 But its failure to do so now, Ihey 
 think, is not to l)e taken as conclu- 
 sive evidence that it will not yet do 
 justice. The local ministers have not 
 hitherto, in Mr. L;uirier's judgment, 
 been approached in a spirit that 
 would justify an exi)ectation that 
 they would yield. 
 
 Without admitting that the pro- 
 vincial government is warranted in 
 refusing to do justice, simply l>ecauee 
 the Dominion government may have 
 
 summarily taken the fwruial step that 
 will give parllamiiit pov.er to 
 deal with the *|uestlou, it is at least 
 safe to H4iy that Mr. Laurii-r's jtollcy 
 of Conciliation is that most likely to 
 lea<l to a st-ttlement. Hecaus«> of the 
 delicatt> IswucH that are Involved-Is- 
 sues that touch the tcnderest feelingH 
 and the most deeply rooteil convic- 
 tions of (tiffcrent sections of the coin- 
 inunity, issues that are related to dif- 
 ferences of creed and race prudential 
 ct)nsiderations shoulil have iirompted 
 the federal powers to resort to Mr. 
 Laurler's policy, Ix-fore takimr a stej) 
 that Is Hable to Ic regarded as a 
 menace to the province. Wise coun- 
 sels at Ottawa would have suggested 
 the advLsabldty of making an app ai 
 in the nam? oT patriotism and justice, 
 to the hearts of ^fanitobans, before 
 Issuing an order that was almost the 
 final (*t 'p in tlu' assumjit'.on. by pap- 
 liament, tf! the jiower given it hy tho 
 constitution to intervene. 
 
 if the government at Ottawa really 
 failed to make such an appeal, and if 
 they neglected before issuing tlie or- 
 der, to bring the question before the 
 Manitoba government in a concilia- 
 tory spirit, they cannot, I think, l)o 
 held fr<*e from blame. Nor are they 
 less blamab'.o on thedr part, even 
 though the MaiUtoba government on 
 its part may lie without exiuise, in 
 that it has not, jn the spirit of pat- 
 riotism, and with a regard to the a<l- 
 mitted rights of the minority invited 
 our own legislature to »ettje the mat- 
 ter. 
 
 In other words, the conditions that 
 would justify tho issue of the remedial 
 order would not arise, until the gov- 
 ernment of the Dominion had firnt 
 approached that of the province with 
 a proposal that the latter sliouLd en- 
 deavor to settle the difficulty through 
 its own legislature. Had this been 
 done, and had the provincial gov- 
 ernment after a friendly advance,6tlU 
 failed or refused to take any step to- 
 ward a settlement, thfvn the '.•■rUn of 
 a remedial »)rder would liave liesn at 
 least timely. 
 
 Again, oveoi in the al)8ence of such 
 a proposal, if the provincial govern- 
 ment, without awaiting the issue of 
 an onler from Ottawa,, but in advance 
 of it, and in anticiiiation of its issue 
 had aln^ady ariuounc<Hl its determina- 
 tion to stand by its law, and to grant 
 no re ief to the appellants, in that cA«e 
 too, tlK're could be manifestly no fault 
 found with the is«ue of a remedial: 
 order. 
 
 If, I say, either of such events liad 
 happened tiefore the issue of tlie rem- 
 edial order— that is to say, had a 
 
 Irlendll 
 
 tiiwa,[ 
 or If ^^| 
 th" |'( 
 i\ ns w e 
 
 clear I: 
 
 vd thai 
 
 blaiiial 
 
 the ml 
 
 bflore 
 
 li rin> I 
 
 ailctpi^ 
 
 lib-ral 
 
 iipen n 
 
 ever, 
 
 the oil 
 
 niatui'l 
 
 uiade.r 
 
 UK it Kxi 
 
 tifs til 
 
 htitntf 
 
 ^ucll 
 
 jirovin 
 
 tl.'lilUP 
 
 Miovei 
 The 
 ease 
 I'rinci 
 that 
 gcst • 
 fore, 
 in the 
 fairly 
 the O 
 turely 
 any fi 
 tingui 
 would 
 I am 
 are s 
 siiipri 
 been 
 
 In ' 
 histo! 
 ernmi 
 the t 
 of tl 
 with 
 
 hCttll 
 
 that 
 
 tlu» 
 
 were 
 
 • piitc 
 
 Mr. 
 
 read 
 
 cil. ] 
 
 July 
 
 ial 1 
 
 Don 
 
 Cat! 
 
 plai 
 
 \ng 
 
 set 
 
 gri€ 
 
 orit 
 
 wit 
 
 by 
 
 tho 
 
riiial Mtcp that 
 ^ P'f.ver U) 
 It Is at lonHt 
 iinirli'r'H jtnllcv 
 most lik«'ly to 
 nt'CMiiw of' tliu 
 involved- li*- 
 lltTfst rcfilnuB 
 •"i»t«M| convlc- 
 
 IS of tlM" coin- 
 
 lolatiMl to (11 r- 
 «•«' pnultMitiai 
 ivc prf>iiij)tod 
 •'Moit to Mr. 
 tfikiii!; a Htoj) 
 i;ai-(lp(l ns a 
 ^Vis«• coiir)- 
 
 IVC Nll^rjrpHtOd 
 
 lie an ajip a) 
 » .iml justlpp, 
 f»l»anH, hi'fore 
 IH aliiiost tlit» 
 t'oti. i>y j)ar- 
 ven It by till) 
 
 ttaw.'i really 
 PPouI. and if 
 iiiriff tli<! or- 
 
 1 llffOff tlio 
 
 'I aconoilln- 
 I think, l)o 
 »r are tJicy 
 part, even 
 verninent on 
 it <'xruse, iji 
 I'irit of pat- 
 •I to the ad- 
 >rlty •nvlte<l 
 tje thp inat- 
 
 (litlons tliat 
 the roniedial 
 til the jj^ov- 
 
 had firHt 
 oviiice with 
 ' sliouLd en- 
 Ity throujEfh 
 
 this been 
 nt'ia.l ^ov- 
 i<lvaiice,Btlll 
 'ly step to- 
 lip ;-^:ue of 
 ke 1)6311 at 
 
 |Cf of KUOh 
 
 iai >?overn- 
 « issue of 
 in advance 
 f its issue, 
 deterniina- 
 <J to j^rant 
 1 that case 
 ly no fault 
 I remedial; 
 
 vents had 
 
 r the rem- 
 
 had a 
 
 Iriendly advance Un-n made Irom Ul- 
 tjiwa. mtkI r''J cti'il l>y tlu* province, 
 or if uitli or witliciit t^uch an a«lvanro, 
 til" province liad In fact given ItM 
 jin>wer U-lore hand, refiwliiK relief, 
 clearly it could no louder 1m« contend- 
 ed that the Ikiminion Koverumenv wan 
 lil.imaltl'.' in is,siiln« its ortler. st» tliat 
 till' minority could Urlnu their appeal 
 Ixfore jiariiament. Ui coiirs«> the 
 t>iiii> oi the order, whetlu'r ll afffifiled 
 ad('<iiiate relief, or was lumecessarlly 
 lih-ral ill tliat n^iwct, woiiitl remain 
 nlifii for crit iii-iii. Manife-^tly, how- 
 ever, it would nil lonjfer Ix? op 'U to 
 the <»lijK'ti(in that Its ismie was i)n- 
 iiiiitiuc. A eniiciliatory advance once 
 made, if jieremptorlly re] -cteil, need 
 iKit nurcly Im- renewed in order to Jus- 
 tif.s the next formal Mt<'p that the con- 
 ^titlltion conteiiiplat<'»'. Nor ws^l 
 Hiich advance W- made, at all, if tlio 
 jirovlncia! government jmbllcly pro- 
 elainiM l>elon» hand that it will not lie 
 moved, eveai 1>\ a lenKMliial order. 
 
 There bi not In the utatement of the 
 ease presented by Mr. Laiirler, or by 
 rrlnciiKil Uruut, anything to indicate' 
 tliat either of the events I have sug- 
 gest 'd has happened. Assuming, there- 
 fore, that the tacts fire fully dlsdnsed 
 in their statements, 1 think they were 
 fairly justified In severely critlclKlng 
 the Ottawa authorities for prema- 
 turely making the order. Are tiiere 
 any facts overlooked h.v those dis- 
 tinguished gentlemen, which, If stated 
 would point to a different concliiKion. 
 I am bound to say that I think there 
 are such facts, and 1 am somewliat 
 suiprlsed that more attention has not 
 lieen given tt) them. 
 
 In the first place It is an absolute 
 liistorical fact that the Dominion gov- 
 ernment did, long before the issue of 
 the order, approach the government 
 of the province and Its legislature, 
 with an appeal that the latter should 
 settle the (piesti»m. It is a fact, also, 
 that the communication containing 
 tlii« appeal was couclied in terms that 
 were altogether unobje'ctlonable and 
 ipiite conciliatory. 1 will submit it, 
 Mr. rditor, to the judgmi'nt of your 
 readers. 1 refer to an order-jn-coun- 
 cil. passed at Ottawa, on the 26th of 
 July, 1894, which recited the memor- 
 ial presented to the government of the 
 Dominion on behalf of l ' e Roman 
 ratlu)llc minority of ManitolKT. com- 
 plaining of the law of IS'.lO, and pray- 
 ing for relief, That order--in-counci'. 
 set out with consid.'rable lulness the 
 grievances complained of by the min- 
 ority, and it was cominiinuated along 
 with a copy of the m"morlal itself, 
 by the authorities at Ottawa, to 
 those of Manitolxi. From the con- 
 
 cluding pariigrai>li of that order I 
 take the following extract: 
 
 "The stateiiKiits eontaini'd in thb» 
 memorial are matters of the deepu^t 
 concern and solicitude in the inter- 
 ests of the Dominion ,it large, audit 
 is a mutter oT the utmost iiiiiiortancu 
 to till {leopte of ( anada that the 
 laws wiilch prevail In any portion of 
 til) Dominion should not In- .such >'ih 
 to (K'caslou complaint of oiiprcMslon 
 or injustict! t<» any class or pi»rlion of 
 the people, but should lie recogni/.tMl 
 as establlslilng perfect freedom and 
 ecpiality, especially in all matters re- 
 l.itlug to religion and to religioi..< be- 
 lief .iiid practice, and the committen 
 therefor(? humbly .idvise that Your 
 DxcelUncy may join ..itli them In ex- 
 pressing the most e.irnest hope that 
 the legislature of Manitoba ma.v 
 tiike into consideration at tin- ear- 
 liest possible moment, the uomplalnts 
 which are set forth in this iietition, 
 and which are said to create dls- 
 satisfjiction among the Koman < ath; 
 olics, not only in Manitoba, but 
 likewise throughout Canada, and may 
 take speedy measures to ijlve redress 
 in all the matters in relation to 
 which any well founded complaint or 
 grievance be ascertained to exist." 
 
 Can the most supersensitive critic 
 find fault with the language I have 
 just cpioted '.' 1 certainly believe 
 tliere is la Canada to-day no man 
 who Is more capable than Mr .Laur-i 
 ier of expressing, in fitting words, an 
 earnest and patriotic appeal to the 
 government of the province in the 
 spirit that lie himself approves. I 
 doubt, however, it even Mr. Laurler 
 could have greatly improved on the 
 language of that communication. 
 
 What words could more appropri- 
 ately or effectively liave lieen chosen 
 to convey the suggestion that, "the 
 jstateiu'uts cont.'iiaed in the memorial 
 are matters of deep concern in the 
 interests of the Dominion at large?" 
 How earnestly, and yet how respect- 
 fully, those words draw attention to 
 the gravity of the complaints ! Then, 
 mark Hir, the language in which that 
 is followed l)y an appeal to the pro- 
 vincial legislature, that it should 
 give redress If grievance's are found 
 to exist. This part of tlie message 
 begiius, you will see, Avith a most tem- 
 perate' statement in general terms, of 
 the great importance of seeing that 
 legislation Is never permitted to work 
 injustice. *'It Is a matter of the 
 utmost importance that the laws 
 should not be such as to occasion com- 
 plaint of oppression or injustlc? to any 
 clasf or portion of the p.'Ople." Then 
 
10 
 
 it proceetlH with au expression of "The 
 most eurncat hope that the legislature 
 of Manitoba nifiy take into considera- 
 tion the complaints whicli are set 
 forth in the petition, and whlcli are 
 said to create dissatisfaction among 
 Roman Catliolics." Not only is the 
 hope thus earnestly and appropriately 
 expressed, that the consideration of 
 the provincial autiiorities will l>e di- 
 rected to the matter, Init there is 
 added the lil;e earnest hope that the 
 legislature "may talic speedy meas- 
 ures to give redress, wherever any 
 well founded complaint or grievance 
 is ascertained to exist." 
 
 The government at Ottawt) did, 
 then, approach Mr. (Jrecnwiiy, and 
 did in conciliatory terms app.'al to 
 him to be "fair jvnd just," as Mr. 
 Laurier init it. In this niP'Ssage, at 
 '.east, there was no attempt to talie 
 Maiiitol)a l)y the tiiroat— no mandate 
 to the provincial legislature to re- 
 peal its school law — no order demand- 
 ing that it should restore ttie old 
 law; no coercion or suggestion of 
 coercion; no threat or intimation of 
 rem<Hllal l<>gislation : nothing but an 
 earne;:* appeal that the legislature of 
 tlie province, from motives r.f patriot- 
 Ism and toleration, Should give earn- 
 est thought to t)ie gravity of the 
 alleged grievance ■• and the expression 
 of an earnest liope that if grievances 
 were found to exist the legislature 
 would give appropriate redress. 
 
 There was not in this message even 
 a suggestion that the province had 
 actually done any injustice, no opin- 
 ion that the minority had a real 
 ground of complaint, no request that 
 the legislature should actually alter 
 or mcMlify its law in any particular, 
 or at all. If grievances were found 
 to exJ'jt; if the law did work 
 Injury to the minority: if it <lld take 
 away any rights they had legally on- 
 joyed, and in th" <^'^i 'vniont of which 
 the constitution Intended to protort 
 them, even then it was not proposed 
 that the federal authorities sliould 
 ascertain what the wrongs were, or 
 me.xsure the extent of the grievance, 
 llie government at Ottawa simply 
 asked the provincial k'gislature in 
 whom the exclusive right to legislate 
 on the sul>ject was primarily vested, 
 to investigate the complaints for Uself 
 and for itself to ascertain what griev- 
 ances, if any, really existed. And if 
 the complaints were ascertained to 
 be well-founded, them was no intima- 
 tion that the federal authorities 
 presumed to dictate, much less that 
 thev intended to ask parliaTuent to 
 enact, thp measu!r»> of relief. On the 
 contrary, tills message from Ottawa 
 
 ple.aded that the legislature itself 
 should unpiire into and settle the 
 whole matter, applying such legisla- 
 tive remedies for an> existing griev- 
 ances a,s its own ^^ isdom might sug- 
 gest. 
 
 I repeat, Mr. Editor, that it is dif- 
 ficult to imagine any objection l)eing 
 taken to the spirit or tone or lan- 
 guage of tills message. To me it 
 spcnis to be all that Mr. Laurier him- 
 self would have desired, as an appeal 
 to tlu^ "hearts and souls" of Mr. 
 Creenway and his colleagues that they 
 might be "fair and just" to the sec- 
 tion of the population complaining of 
 l)eing aggrieved. Ijooking at the 
 terul^ of this message, one would al- 
 most ini.iglne, indeed, that, during its 
 preparation there hovered over the 
 couneil chaml)er at Ottawa the spirit 
 of the great departed chieftjiin, ^ir 
 .Tohn :Macd<mald. the <mly public man 
 in Caimda. In our day. wlu) w;is tin 
 oeer of Mr. Laurier in sweetening hi- 
 utterfinces with courteous words an.l 
 •ittrartive ohrasps; and that the in- 
 fluence of the dead statesman was 
 there nresent inspiring his old collea- 
 -Mie'-^ r.nd successors in the preparation 
 Hf the address to ^fanitoba on this 
 delicate question, so that it might be 
 ("ouclied in the "sunny ways of patri- 
 otism." so happily descrilM'd by ^iim 
 who had been the ( hi( ftain's great 
 rival in his life time. 
 
 This message v»-f.s duly received by 
 the provincial government shortly af- 
 ter it.- date. The government at <")t- 
 tawa had requested that it should 
 also be laid before the provincial leir- 
 isi.;ture. Instead of awaiting the 
 nie.'tinf of thit bodv, however, the 
 ManitolMi ministeni by order-in-coun- 
 cii diited the 20th October. ISD I. 
 made their o»vn reply on liehalf f>f the 
 province. What answer ditl Air. Oreen- 
 w;iy and liis colleagues make to this 
 mo.^t conciliatory and patriotic com- 
 munication? Their answ r denied, in 
 effect, the correctness of all the 
 statements of fact, and of all the con- 
 clusions therefrom, that were set 
 forth in the Rcuiian Catholk' memo- 
 rial. The answer declared that the 
 m.isnorlty had no ground wMiatever for 
 dissatisfaction, unless it was one 
 which the ministers held not to be 
 reillv a grievance. .Vnd. "except that 
 
 l)e a grievance" "it has been 
 
 made clear that there is no grievance." 
 The formal repl.v therefore was, that 
 "the executive of the province see n<> 
 reason for recommending the legisla- 
 ture to alter the principle of the leg- 
 islation complained of." 
 
 Ir other words, Manitoba's nnswer 
 
11 
 
 :islatiirp itself 
 
 1(1 SPttlP tlH' 
 
 C such leglsla- 
 pxistinp: Kripv- 
 oni might sug- 
 
 that it js «lif- 
 objcction bring 
 
 tonp or lan- 
 To me it 
 r. Lauripr hini- 
 , as an appp.il 
 ouls" of Mr. 
 gues that tlipy 
 t" to tllP spo- 
 
 coniplaining of 
 king Jit tliP 
 oni' would al- 
 liii.t, (luring its 
 ri'pd f>vpr tlic 
 awa the sj^irit 
 
 Phieftjiin, .Sir 
 nly pul)lip man 
 Avlio was tilt 
 iwpetening hi- 
 1US wor<ls ari'i 
 
 tliat tiie in- 
 itpsnian was 
 liis old coilpa- 
 lip preparation 
 litolia on this 
 at it miglit hp 
 ways of patri- 
 crilMMl by liiui 
 >f tain's great 
 
 ly rpopivpd l)y 
 nt sliortlv af- 
 •nuipnt at Ot- 
 at it sliould 
 provinoial iPtr- 
 waiting tlip 
 howpvpr, tlip 
 order-in-coun- 
 tobpr. 181)1, 
 1 bplialf of thp 
 did "Mr. Grpen- 
 inal<p to this 
 atriotic coni- 
 \\ iT <l(>nied, in 
 of all tlip 
 of ail thp pon- 
 t wpre set 
 
 itliolk' lUtMUO- 
 
 pd that tlic 
 whatever for 
 t was one 
 d not to l)p 
 , ''pxcppt tliat 
 t lias lieen 
 Qo gripvance." 
 )rp was, that 
 ovince sep ti<> 
 r thp legisla- 
 |p of the leg- 
 
 oba's answer 
 
 to Ottawa's earnpst and conciliatory 
 apppai, from wiiich Mr. Lnurier ex- 
 pected so much, was in effect this: "It 
 
 is ch.'ar that tiiere was no gripvance. 
 TliP ooinpiaints of tliP minority arc 
 icr<»indiess, and we wlli make no /•.!- 
 trration in thP law." 
 
 A fripnd of iidnp, who occupies ;i very 
 distinixnished place in < anada. .'ind 
 than whom there is no more fair-mind- 
 il man In it, when I pointed out som» 
 CI tin sp considerations to liim, made 
 tlip reply. "But that order was matle 
 in July, 1801, bpfore tlie Privy Coun- 
 cil delivered its judgment: before the 
 cnsf was ever heard in T./ondf)n." 
 •Show me," said he, "th.it such a coni- 
 luunication was sent to tlie Mani- 
 tobii legislature after the judgment of 
 tiip I'rivy ("oimcil, and tli.it such an 
 • nswer, or that no aiiswer at all. 
 w;is sent trom your housp, and I will 
 concfde tliat no coursp was Ipft for 
 the fpdpra! government but at once 
 to issue ji renipdi.al order." The 
 •voids were not put exactly in th.it 
 u;iv, but that was the effpct of tli(> 
 -tiitpiiient. 
 
 My friend bail forgotten the facts of 
 tlH> case, and little blame to him for 
 forgetting. Wlio can lieep in liis 
 iiiPiiiory all tliat has talcen place in 
 tlii^^ weary and man.v featured fight? 
 It is true that the Privy Council 
 had not given Judgment or heard ar- 
 gument until after the conciliatorv 
 in(>ssage of .Tuly had loft Ott.-iwa. Tlie 
 government of Manitoba had also re- 
 ceived it .'iikI Jiad s^Mit its own rejily 
 Itpftire judgnu-iit. Hut it is also true, 
 thougli my friend had quite forgot- 
 ten it, that the c;is.' had iK'eii argued 
 in IiOn<ion, and judgment pronounced 
 iM'fore that message of July could, or 
 ill fact, did reach its I'inal destinaition 
 —the iegifilature of :Manitoba. That 
 message along with the Kiuiiau '^'atho- 
 Mc iiiPiuorial w.mk tr.'itismitted by the 
 f<'deral government to the lieutenant- 
 u'overnor of Maiiitoba Cand that 
 means of course the Manltobji goverii- 
 nient.)"witli tlie rr>quest he will lay the 
 the same before his iidvisnrs and liefore 
 the legislature of that province. "That 
 legislature — my friend had foru:r)tten 
 th" fact— di<l not meet until the 1-lth 
 February, lS'.)r>, and Itefore that 
 time the privy coiUH-il !iad delivered 
 judtrment. 
 
 'I'hen, for th<> first time, the gov- 
 ernm<*iit of ^fanitoba wax in a posi- 
 tion to comply wltii the r«M]UPSt of 
 the fe<leral govornmenttliat the nies- 
 f*nge of July sJiould be '.ijiid bpfore the 
 Ipgislature. Is it poswiiblie to imagine 
 that its rpceipt by that Inidy could 
 '¥» more timely.' Tan one f.mcy that 
 an occashm more ftpportuiie could 
 
 arls»> for its presentation to, ;i.nd 
 considj'ratifm by the representatives 
 of th » p o I? of Minl.ol>a? Here wa< 
 
 the legislature just me<>ting, fresh for 
 the re-consideration of this import- 
 ant (piesti<m; liere was the judgment 
 of the privy council d«H?iding that the 
 rights of the minority had l)een :if- 
 i<'ct<'d; here was the message of c>(Ui- 
 ciliatioi. from Ottawa ready to Ix' 
 iaid iM'iore them: that message was as 
 solicitous for the "ixace amongst all 
 the creeds and races," that Mr. 
 l«auru'r so eloquently p'eaded for, a-s 
 it was the day it was writt^Mi in Ot- 
 tawa The message li.ad lost lothlng 
 of the earnestness with which, when 
 first transmittx'd, it "appe.aled to the 
 hearts and souls" of its recipients: the 
 "lin<\s of patriotism'' in which it ap- 
 proac'h?'d the legislature of the nrfu-- 
 ince and iM^gged that iKidy to consider 
 the compl.'iints and to provide ;i, rem- 
 edy in case of any well founded griev- 
 ances asc(>rt;uiied to exist, h.ad not 
 5n tlu^ meantine^ b(^>n obliter.'ited; tlu* 
 "sunny ways" in which negotiations 
 iiad beer entered upi>ii from Ottawa 
 had not iM'Come clouded during the 
 time the mes.>-age l.ay in the pigeon 
 holes of one of the dep.'irtments, 
 awaiting the meeting of the legisla- 
 ture to which Manitoba's minister Ii.a.fJ 
 Iwen solemnly cli.-irged to present it. 
 Was the legislature invited then to 
 say anyting on the suhjiK't? Yes — on 
 the subject gener.'iUy — it was and that 
 most promptly. The att<Mition of the 
 li()us<' wjis dr;i\Mi t) the question cm 
 tln' very opening day of the session, 
 and in tlie speech from the throne. Rut 
 —and my friend h;ul forgott<ni that 
 facl too — the niess.age of July— that 
 message of i>e<'ice with its spirit of 
 conciliation — was not pre^sf-nted to 
 tlH^ house on tiiat day, or om 'uiy <kiy 
 iK'forc' or since. The legislature of 
 Mai'.itoba, for which it was pjirticu- 
 larly inten<led— the body which al^one 
 could finally d<N<'il with it— the body he- 
 for<' which, as I liave said, ministers 
 were specially cliiirge(i to lay it, 
 has never to this ihiy, an far as I 
 itiiow, Ikhmi informed even of the ex- 
 ist<Mice of tiie message. But for the 
 enterprise of the newspapers tli.at 
 published it, the nieml«>rs of the leg- 
 islatun would never liave known that 
 such ,'1 iiHjfisage wa- sent. 
 
 As 1 have st!it4Ml, however, the 
 .school question was referred to in tiie 
 siMifh from tlie throne. It informed 
 th<> house of tine jiKlgment of their 
 lordships in l'-.iigland by which, to 
 (piot<' tiie words put in his honor's 
 mouth, "It lias Im'^mi held that an ap- 
 \HK\\ U<'s to the governor-geaeral in 
 council on U'half of the minority of 
 this lu'ovince, imosmuch tin certain 
 
 i 
 
rig^htK and ^^^ivilop•f>^; jrivem by prii)r 
 pr()^iIlcial legits'.ation to tlio minority, 
 in «Klucoti()n«.l matters, hfl<l been a'f- 
 N'Ctt'd by tlie I'ublic Sclu)ols act of 
 1890, and tlint tluTf^forf-.. tlie f^overn- 
 or-goneral in .'ouncil liad power to 
 made remedial orders in rplatiin t]i('re- 
 to." 
 
 And Ko tlw provinoial uov- 
 «'rnniont met the lej>:iKlatur(> witli 
 a frank avowal of tlio fact— it could 
 no longer b." concf^al d— that tlio riirht-j 
 and privile<j:eH of tin' minority, made 
 wuire to tlunn by law, made .suro to 
 thf?m, as David Mills put it, so tliat 
 tlif»y "could nover Ik' takon awav," 
 .lia<l be»^in af footed by tlie law of 1890. 
 And tlic government of Ottawa, it 
 was c^mceded and formally stated to 
 the lioutse, liad iM>wer to make remed- 
 ial orders. "Wlietlier or not," the 
 speech prf)ce<Hled to say, "a demand 
 will he made l)y the finleral govern- 
 ment that that act t^hall Ik? modified 
 m not yet knoAvii to my government." 
 Not yet, certainly not. Tlie c^ase had 
 not yet In^fMi heard iK'fore the gover- 
 nor-genera 1-iin-council. But you will 
 notice, Mr. Editor, that the i)'rovIncial 
 miniisters Imd no thought of anv com- 
 municatic.i from Ottawa exc(>pt a. 
 remfMlial order. Tliere i^ no siigge.s- 
 tiOTi of any middle course, no talk of 
 niegotiation o^r conciliation or recon- 
 sideration— nothing ])ut a remedial or- 
 der, a demand by the fr-deral govern- 
 ment that the law 1^ modified 
 
 The local mimisters knew that one 
 condition still remained unfulfille<l, 
 evein if a i-emedial order were made, 
 before parliament conld pass a re- 
 raed'al law. The governnmit of Mani- 
 tolwi muist first show, find that after 
 being fieTve<l with the remedial order, 
 that it doas not propo-e to prtjvide 
 a remedy through the legislature of 
 the province. Now .the provincial 
 mlmlsters had madfi up their minds 
 upon this point ; they did not pro- 
 jK>se tc» offer any settlement of the 
 question. Mr. Laurier says,-^and I 
 niortt thoroughly agree with him— that 
 there should have iKien "approtiches," 
 and ••negotiations" and conciliatorv 
 advances," and "ajvpeals to heart and 
 soul." and all that. But Manitoba 
 miiniwters wantetl none of these things. 
 At the very time they were penning 
 the speech from the throne witli tlie 
 one hand, they held im the other hand 
 that message of conciliation and of 
 negotiation, that contained in itself 
 every feature that would gladden Mr. 
 Laurier's heart, and which lie so earn- 
 etitly longed to Ik? able himself to send 
 to the local ministers. It was a 
 me»sage to the legislatuire, on a mis- 
 sion, to the success of which the pat- 
 riotic and gifted Liberal leader would 
 
 give liis i>olitical life. Of course the 
 ministers deiiAered that message to 
 the legislature very promptly as soon 
 as it met ? Not they, indetHl. They 
 luid a message of a different kind to 
 deliver to the house. For a spirit of 
 c(mcillation, for advances by way of 
 negotiation, for th<» "pf^ace amongst 
 creeds and races," that Mr. Lraurler 
 HO earnestly de-Jred, Manitoba's min- 
 iisters cared naught. To avoid the 
 "strife and discor«l for the future in 
 this land of ours," that their own fed- 
 eral leader so justly feared, was no 
 •p'oncern of theirs. It was tlie very 
 thing, inde.'d, that would surely secure 
 them a further lease of power. Ke- 
 medial orders ; tlir^at-* of remedial leg- 
 lislation ; tlie point of the federal Iwiy- 
 oiiet ; the throttling of Manitoba by 
 federal hands ; the policy ol' compul- 
 sion: the policy of co<'rcion and tlireat 
 and brag, all so eloquently jiortrayed 
 l>y Mr. Latirier, and, by his de.scrii>tioni 
 of which he so arou.se<l the iwople of 
 Ontario to hcmest indignation— all 
 tlies<? I say had no tt^rrors for thf? raiin- 
 Isters of Sir John .Schultz. Tliey ex- 
 pected nothing but a remedial order, 
 they ant:clpate<l it, they invited it. 
 Nay why slKmld they iK^at about the 
 l>us.h ? Their minds wer<' made up, 
 and they wislied to proclaim their pol- 
 icy right then. They knew that 
 when a remedial order came to lie 
 •served it ^vou.ld Ikj l)?coming in them to 
 give an answer. Why not give it 
 now even Ix'fore tlie order is made, 
 even lH»fore tin; case has been argued 
 before the governor-general-iin-council. 
 They did &o. I have said that while 
 they threw the mes-age of conciliallou 
 into the waste i)aper Imsket, they 
 had a mesisage of a different kind for 
 the house — a declaration of their own 
 policy. I quote again from the speech 
 from the throne : "It is not the intcn- 
 tioTi of my government in any way to 
 recede from its dt^termimation to iij)- 
 liold the present public school sys- 
 tem," 
 
 Surely, Mr. l-iditor, that was 
 a plain enough intimation 
 
 to the federal government that any 
 furtiier advances, or any renewed ef- 
 fort at nefe'otiations would b:^ fruit- 
 less.. Let us review the situation for 
 n moment so that we may do the 
 local ministers no injustice in stating 
 that conclusion. 
 
 A communication had come from Ot- 
 tawa some months b fore, reciting tlu; 
 complaints of the minority, and mak- 
 ing an earnest appeal to the jirovin- 
 cia; government and legislature tr; in- 
 quire into tliese complaints, and to 
 provide redress if the complaints were 
 well founded. The legi-lature not b:^- 
 ing in session, the ministers replied 
 
 he 
 
e. Of counse the 
 that niesHaue to 
 promptly as hooti 
 hoy, IntlefHl. Tlipy 
 different kind to 
 For a spirit of 
 ances by way «)f 
 "pfaw anion«Ht 
 tliat Mr. Laurlpr 
 Manitoba's niin- 
 To avolil t\w 
 for th«^ futuro in 
 lat tlieir own fed- 
 feared, was no 
 t was the very 
 xmld surely s!'Cure 
 of power. Re- 
 t-< of remedial leg- 
 tlie federal iKiy- 
 of Manitolm l)y 
 [M)licy of conipul- 
 H'rcion and threat 
 [uently portrayed 
 l»y his description 
 ed the iK-ople of 
 indignati(m— all 
 Trors for the miin- 
 Jcluiltz. They ex- 
 remedial order, 
 they invited it. 
 y l)eat about the 
 were mad«? up, 
 roclaim their pol- 
 liey knew that 
 ler oamp to l)e 
 Bomin;^: in them to 
 Hiy not give it 
 e order i>s made, 
 lias been argued 
 i^eneral-'iin-councll. 
 • i^aid that while 
 ge of conciiiaUon 
 r Iwisket, they 
 ilifferent kind for 
 :4on of their own 
 I from tlie speech 
 is not the intcn- 
 it in any way to 
 •miination to ^\!p- 
 lic school .sys- 
 
 or, that was 
 ;h intimation 
 iiraent that auy 
 any renewed ef- 
 would br> fruit- 
 the Kituation for 
 'p may do the 
 ifiticp in stating 
 
 d come from Ot- 
 ore, reciting th«; 
 ority, and mak- 
 to the provin- 
 ^gislature t ; In- 
 lain ts, and to 
 •omplaints were 
 :i-iature not bs- 
 nisterw replied 
 
 V\ 
 
 thai the whole matter had been fully 
 considered, and that tliere were no 
 grievances to l>e redressed. At that 
 time the court had not decided that 
 grievances /lid actually exist. In 
 l'el>ruary following, the legislature 
 met— the legislature Ao which the 
 communication from Ottawa was l>e'- 
 ing especially sent, l>efore which the 
 provincial governm nt had l>een par- 
 tite iilarly a.sked to have it laid; it was 
 meeting for the first time since the 
 receipt ot the message by the minis-? 
 ters. Meantime the judgment of the 
 court had come, dtciding that by the 
 law of 18i)0 the minority liad bjen ag- 
 grieved. The moment the legislature 
 met the government formally brought 
 down the information In the speech 
 from tlie throne, that judgment bad 
 been delivered ; that the 
 
 rights and privileges of the 
 minority had Imhmi affected; that the 
 right of appeal to the federal author- 
 iti«>K had lx>eii sustained, and that the 
 Dominion government had power to 
 make a remedial order. Then was 
 tli.> time to deliver the Ottawa mes- 
 sage to the house, and to consider it 
 in tlw light ot the judgment recently 
 pronounced. But tlie ministers de- 
 
 clined to deliver it, or even to refer to 
 its <'xistence. On the contrary they 
 atinourvced their "determination to 
 uphold the pn-sent .system." The leg- 
 Islatiin itself formally approved that 
 det<!rminati(mi. 
 
 What Jiction tlien would i)e expected 
 on the part of the Dominion ij;overii- 
 ment ff)liowing such an announce- 
 ment? The speech from the throne 
 makes it plain that the provincial 
 luiiiist^'rs expect nothing but a 
 remedial order, and that they invit- 
 ed it. They had nn their i)art deter- 
 mined to give no relief. The Dominion 
 goveriini(>nt must now decide on its 
 l>art either to grant relief or to deny 
 it. .\ remedial order n\ust 1h^ grfiiited 
 in favor ot the appellants or it must 
 lie refused; either the Dominion gf)v- 
 ernnumt will call tor the modification 
 of the law or it will not. That Is 
 practically what the provincial gov- 
 ernment said in the speech from the 
 tiirone. And they generously helped 
 to remove all dltflcu.ty out of the. way 
 nf tlie federal authorities in taking 
 decisive action. They did tills by de- 
 elarlng In the speech from the throne, 
 tiiat in no cas-> will the province give 
 relief. Here are tli,e apt words in 
 which tliey did s(i: " \\'lietli.:'r or not 
 a demand will Ih' made by tlie P'ed- 
 eral g()V«M'nment that that act sliould 
 1«> iiKxllfied is iKit yi't known to my 
 government," but "It Is not the Inten- 
 tion i>f my government in any .vay to 
 recf'de from its determination to un- 
 
 hold the jjresont public schoo". system." 
 Surely, I repeat, it is clear that the 
 provincial government thereby sum- 
 nmrily put an c:nd to all negotiations 
 and that it challenged the Dominion 
 gctveminent to an issue. 
 
 Let me now recall some of the pas- 
 sages from Mr. Laurier's eloquent and 
 patriotic utternrnces in Ontario, and 
 se(> how they apply to the actual 
 facts : "If they had commenced with 
 negotiations instead of threats, per- 
 hapvs the matter would have l>een set- 
 tled now." Certainly it would have 
 been wi^se on the part of the Dominion 
 government to commence with nego- 
 tiations, and mo-it carefully to avoid 
 all ajipenranc*' of threats. That, how- 
 ever, is 'ust exactly what was dom\ 
 The gove.nment at Ottawa practical- 
 ly invited negotiations by the mes- 
 .s.age ot July, l>ut the Manitoba gov- 
 ernment rejected aii the advances, and 
 declined even to deliver the federal 
 message to the legislature. 
 
 "I would ajiproach this man Green- 
 way with the sunny ways of patriot- 
 ism, a.sklng him ta be just and fair." 
 Assuredly that would l)e the most 
 reasonable way of approacli,lng the 
 government of Manitoba on such a 
 delicate question. But that is the 
 very way in w hlch the government at 
 Ottawa tried to approach Mr. Green- 
 way and his colleagues, and we have 
 seen with w hat result. The ap- 
 proaches were promptly repelled with 
 the answer that full consideration of 
 the (luestion had aln-ady Iwen given, 
 and tiiat there w<'re no grievances to 
 be redressed. 
 
 "There is more to Ik.' gained by ap- 
 pealing to the hearts and souls ot men 
 rather than to be trying to compel 
 them to do a thing." Beyond ques- 
 tion the Ottaw^•^ government would 
 have made a mistake if tliey had 
 oi>en(-d their proceedings by trying to 
 compel Manitoba to n^ver.se its law, 
 and Mr. Laiirier's s<'ntlment is a per- 
 fectl.N proper one. As a. matter of 
 fact, however, the Ottawa govern- 
 ment did comtiH^nce by ajipealing to 
 the "hearts and souls ^ ot Manilobans, 
 and did not set out with any effort to 
 compel them to reverse- the law. 
 
 "Do you expect that Manitoba was 
 to be induced to reverse her course 
 when slit was nijt approached in a 
 conciliatory manner: when she was 
 almost thnatejid at tlie point of tlie 
 bayonet to do v. liat s!i ■ did not want 
 to do ?" Witlioiit doubt the <'on- 
 clllatory course woird b.' the right 
 one In such a case, and it would 
 li.'ive been madness to commence by 
 thn'ats such as Mr. Ijauri.'r speaks of. 
 But then ^fanltoba was not In tact 
 approached by throats, but with a 
 
II 
 
 <!onc-iliatury message to ilic legisla- 
 ture wlilch the meralvers of tlu> lucal 
 government never delivered, wliie for 
 tlieraselves tliey pi'n'iiiptori y reject- 
 ed tlie proposals (»f HL^ttieni"nt. Where, 
 1 would like to ask, is the tlireat to 
 1)? found in tlie comniunieMtion of July, 
 189-4? 
 
 '■ Manitoba's answer was ' We will 
 not be compelled.' No, that v.as not 
 Manitol>a'H answer. Manitoha's an- 
 swer was 'Whether you issue a reme- 
 dial order or not we will do notliing." 
 
 " I did not think the government 
 could hcpe that Mr. (Ireenway would 
 give way under compulsion, hut he 
 might give way und;.»r coneiliation." 
 That would seem to have been the 
 view the government at Ottawa took 
 of it, for \hey did not attempt to in- 
 fluence Mr. Greenway by compulsion, 
 but made a strong njip-'al to him in 
 i\ mont conciliatory dispatch, and we 
 know the result. 
 
 "Il(» lielieved with all his heart as 
 soon as the government ahatidon- 
 ♦•d the policy of coercion, and threat 
 and hrag, and appealed to the people 
 of ^lanitoba on th«' broad grounds of 
 our common Christianity the peo- 
 ple of that province would be not only 
 just and fair, hut g«^norous to the min- 
 ority." In that e?intiment T would con- 
 cur with all my lieart if tho govern- 
 m*Mit at Ottaw,a had started on a 
 p )lir'y of CO rcion and threat and 1 rag, 
 hut manifesly they did not do so. If 
 threat and brag are to be found in 
 any of tho correspondence, I venture to 
 suggest that it is to he found not in 
 the communication fro, ^ Ottawa but 
 in tlu' reply of Manitoba. 
 
 Mr. Laurior, of course, had not all 
 the facts lx»fore liim when lie gave ex- 
 pressioe to these opinions, which in 
 themselves are perfectly sound and 
 good, had the state of facts been such 
 as he doubtless believed them to he. 
 But his remarks had no application to 
 tlu> actu.al facts as they existed. 
 
 What I liave written doe« not, by 
 any means, conclude the recital of the 
 replies given by Manitoba's ministers 
 to tlu' advances made from Ottawa. 
 What 1 liave stated, however, will 
 surely satisfy any re-aisonable man 
 that there was at all events, no fail- 
 ur<' on the part of the adminnisitra.tion 
 at Ottawa to approach Manitoba in 
 a conciliatory nKinner, with a, view to 
 settle this troublesome que.stion; and 
 that tlie failure to do anything to- 
 wards a settlement has arisen mainly 
 with the government in Winnipeg. The 
 <'vidence tlmt has yet to come, how- 
 ever, makes the case tenfold stronger 
 against Mr. Greenway and his col- 
 leagues; but as this letter is already 
 so long I will have to ask your indul- 
 
 geiue to enable mt- t) say somethinj; I inl 
 more about it in another comiiiunica letter 
 tion. .J.\MI::s FISIIICU. pieted 
 NViiinii»eg, Nov. liJJtli. . ceding 
 
 — — tt> est 
 
 To the Eiliior of the Free I' ment 
 
 .Sir,— In my former letters 1 
 
 '■"""state.P^^^J" 
 some of the considerations that seem- Ti-i.p 
 ed to uie to commend th(! federal 1'"' /jritv 
 icy advocated by Mr. Laurier on tht-^^^^pi 
 school question— thr; policy of 'WiOrp^^n 
 proachiug the government of the prrj^j,,,^ 
 vince, in the first instance, in acon^j.;ji 
 ciliatory manner, and ai»pealing ttpQ^y^r 
 the legislature, on grounds of tolera-vpiioH' 
 tif)n and iiatriotism, to inquire int(pi.;jcti 
 the comi)laints of the minority andtcottav 
 remedy any grievances found to exist jjn tin 
 1 submitted facts at the same timrber, 1 
 which I think conclusively establisicame 
 tliat this most admiral)l(> policy wasgover 
 the one actually pursued by the Doni GeniT 
 inion government. I showed that i. an int 
 most conciliatory mess.-ige, couched ii to an 
 the most respectful language, frauKi gover 
 to meet every requisite <jf Mr. Jjaii ment 
 rier's patriotic polic.v, was transmit^cy 
 t( d by the federal government to thai*'!^^ 1^ 
 of Mr. Greenway for submission to the P*>"^^'^^ 
 legislature. I showed that the first ^^'^.I'l 
 meeting of the legislature at whici P?^***' 
 
 tliat message could Ije delivered toot 
 
 We 
 
 1^^" oonsti 
 
 place just at a time when its di K*^^'^'" 
 livery would be tlie most opportune- ^ J^H 
 just a few weeks after the judgmen' 
 of the Privy Council had been 
 nounced finding that the minority hat --i^ij.ij 
 lx?eu deprived of rights and privilege^ ^^^^j 
 which had been their's by law, and ir ^u<y, j 
 the enjoyment of which the constitu oe^e< 
 tion contained provisions to p roteti g^ fj, 
 them. I showed that instead <i oeedii 
 promptly presenting that message <i tjip 
 peace on an occasion so timely, iti oounc 
 the body for which it was special amd h 
 ly meant never delivered it at all. . cAded 
 sliowed tliat at the same time tin acter 
 government of Mr. Greenway, on tin heigh 
 very opening day of the house, whil» Aga 
 at last fully admitting the authoritj that 
 and power of the federal government Judgu 
 and while anticipating the issue of .i holdij 
 remedial order demanding a modifier ity h 
 tion of the law, formally and official gener 
 ly announced that whether such at and f 
 order were made or not, it was tin elon 
 determination of the Manitoba gov Domi 
 ernment to make no concessions. : terfei 
 showed, in fact, that Mr. Greenway'' there 
 government adopted the most curi other 
 and offensive way that could possibly gener 
 be devised of repelling all advances tii a rej 
 wards a settlement in the form thai thus 
 Mr. Laurier would suggest, and tha; make 
 the government at OttaAva was prac ltol)a 
 tically challenged to issue a remedi.i er tli 
 order. Vegisl 
 
 ■i 
 
1.") 
 
 luc t.) nay bomt'thinj; i intimated at the close of my last 
 
 .•inotliiMcoiiiiiiunica letter that 1 had by no means com- 
 
 .JAMI::s FISIIICU. pieted the recital ol tiin events pre- 
 
 -•'tih. . ceuiniu: the issue of tlie order which go 
 
 tt> establish the truth of the state- 
 
 ihi> Free I'lcss ^^^^ ^"^* made. I now propose to 
 
 kner letters 1 'stute-f^^^^^,*^ few additional facUs l>eap- 
 
 ';:;;;i'i:;"%'^^v^""! wK's:^°^.^.nJ-app..i or the mm. 
 
 lueml the fuUer;,! pol ^^.j^,, fj^^^ came iWie tl.f Dominion 
 
 .Mr. i^aurlor on th.j^^^.ppnmj,,,!, f^^ consideration. Mr. 
 
 ilu; policy ot iiiiQ^p^,„^^,.,y j,n,l i,i,, colleaKuo.s insisted 
 yernuicnt ot the pro t,,,,^ ,iT„ie,. the constitution the Fed- 
 t mstjince, in acon^p.jl government was absolutely 
 and appealing tipo^^-prlej..^ to do anytliinu:— that it was 
 n grounds of tolera •„ri;oiiv Mithout jurisdiction. They 
 sni, to inquire int..pr;,cticallv defied tiio authorities at 
 
 the minority and ttQttawa to take anv action whatever 
 ances found to exist iji tlif matter. .\s r-arly as Novom- 
 
 at the same tiuirber, 1892, shortly after the app(^al 
 
 onclusively establisi came up for consideration iK'foro the 
 
 dmirable policy wasgovernor-general-in-council, Attornoy- 
 
 l»ursiied by the Doni GeniTai Slfton took occasion, through 
 
 1 showed that (.an intei-view in the Winnii)eg Tribune, 
 
 message, couched i; to ainnounc? the pi>»ition taien by tlie 
 ful language, framei govemment. I quot<^ from his state- 
 quisit(,' of Mr. I^aii na«nt on that oecasion the following 
 olicy, was transmit very jilain words: "It is said that 
 1 government tothni*he Dominion government assumes the 
 for submission to theP^'^^'er to act as some kind of a court 
 awed that the firsi ^^ appeal in thiss matter and to receive 
 'gisiature at wriij^.) petitionis and t<j hear arguments. . . 
 lid be delivered toot ^'^ *1<^'">' ^''^ right ol the Dominion 
 time when its j,. governinent to interfere in this matter 
 Aw most opportune-!^ «!?/ ^'«>' '^Miatever. . . Further 
 ^ after the judgmeni *^»^ Domiuion government has no h-gal 
 
 mcil had been pro P^^^'^T/ll^'-^^f^^^^*^!' ''^«*'""n- ^y, */,'*' 
 I...* +!,„ ..,; ^>i+„ 1 oonfttitution the po-SAier lies wholly 
 
 i Ihli ITZll ''^'itl""! ^'»« JurisiUction of the provln- 
 rights and privilege, ^^j^^, government - Gaining confid- 
 -neirs oy law, and u ^jjc^ j,^ ,,ij, ^wu judgment as he pro- 
 winch the constitu ©eedetl with his statement, he ventur- 
 •ovisions to protect e<j tjie further opinion that this pro- 
 • ., instead " oeeding was in realitv an appeal from 
 ing that message (. the judicial committet^ of the privy 
 asion so timely, iti eouncil to the Federal government, 
 lich it was special aavd having settled upon this as his de- 
 lelnered it at all. dded ctmviction, he proceeded to char- 
 the same time tht acterise the appeal as being "the 
 r. Greenway, on tin height of alieurdity." 
 
 of the house, whili Again when the cable announced 
 itting the authoritj that the privy council had given 
 federal government Judgment allowing the appeal and 
 ating the issue of ;. holding that the rights of the minor- 
 manding a modificn Lty had been affected, the attorney- 
 ormally and official general was once more Interviewed 
 it whether such ar and from his statement on that occa- 
 or not, it was tin Blon 1 quote the following : "If the 
 the Manitoba gov Dominion government undertake to in- 
 ! no concessions. terfere in any way, shape or form, 
 Lhat Mr. Greenway'- there will be a deadlock." In an- 
 ted the most curi other interview Avhich the attorney- 
 '• that could possiblj general was good enough to give to 
 lling all advances tu a reporter about the same time, he 
 nt in the form thai thus put the case : The decision 
 d suggest, and tha: makes no difference with us. The Man- 
 t Otta;wa was prac Itoba governmL'nt cared little whntii- 
 to issue a remedia 6r the Dominion proposed remedial 
 
 legislation or not, as they had taken 
 
 tlieir htand, and it wae a constitui- 
 tionai one and they would maintain 
 it." 
 
 A colleague of the attorney-general 
 was at the same time beguiled Into 
 disclosing the views of the provincial 
 government to a reporter, and this is 
 the way lie expre.swa himself : "The 
 decision does not affect us in the least; 
 the people of Manitoba know what 
 kind of a school system they want 
 and any attempt on behalf of the Do- 
 minion to overrld'^ their wishes in the 
 matter of remedial legislation would 
 be HO mucli tune thrown away." 
 
 Thf\sr statements tlwu rcjiresent the 
 mind of Mr. (Jn-einway and his col- 
 leagues down to the time they learned 
 of the adverse decision by tho privy 
 eouncil. I5ut when ^be text of that 
 judgment came to hand it appears to 
 have opened their eyes for they came 
 down to the legislature on its oiiening 
 day, two wet>ks later, with the aii- 
 nounccmont that "certain rights and 
 privilegfss" of the minority, "had been 
 affect«Kl by the I'ublic School -ict of 
 181»0," that "an appeal lies to tho 
 Governor-General in council on their 
 behalf," and that "the Goveimor-Gen- 
 eral in council luus power to make re- 
 me<lial orders in ref;pf>ct thereto." The 
 conciliatory mesisage from Ottawa as 
 I pf)iiit<'d cmt, was then in their hands; 
 It was the first f>ccasioti on ^^hlch 
 they could have presented it to the 
 house; it was abo^-e all, an opportune 
 time for doing so and for considering 
 it with the help of the recent judg- 
 ment. But the mes.sage remained un- 
 delivered, and the government at Ot- 
 ta\Aa wiiti challenged to Issue its or- 
 der. "Wliether or not," continued the 
 speech from the throne, "a demand 
 will be made by the federal govern- 
 ment that that act shall be modified, 
 • • • it is not the intention of my 
 government in any ^vay to recede 
 from its determination to uphold the 
 present system." 
 
 But this is not all. It will l)e Invme 
 In mind, Mr. Editor, that at this time 
 the federal government had not heard 
 arguments on the appea.l, and had 
 tlu>refore given no intimation what- 
 ever of an Intention to issue a remed- 
 ial order. To me a*s a luemlwr of the 
 house, it seemed such an extraordinary 
 step for the government, at that 
 stagt^ to anticlpatf* the is.sue of avn 
 order and to give Its answer in ad- 
 vance, that I felt it my duty to put 
 myself on record as .seeking to pro- 
 mot<' a reasonable settlement of the 
 (piestion. I confess to having had 
 grave doubts whether It \\ fus .vise at 
 that time to force a division on the 
 <lU(\stion. The only circumstance that 
 determined me to pri>ceed was the 
 
IH 
 
 fact that tlio govoriiiiu-nt liatl by the 
 uddrt'rt.s callod upon us ti> take a »tand 
 tliat would jir«>clud<> a «ett.«niLMit. I 
 thcn'fore introduced ji re«olutioii on 
 th«' subject for tlie e'oiuxideration of 
 th<' hou«e. rnfortunately, 1 could not 
 baw it on tlie niiissage from Jttawa 
 liecauw it had never l»een de'.iver(>d to 
 UH. IJut luii»pily t)u» judgment of tho 
 privy council niad<* a 8ug)L;<Hstion that 
 oiHMK'd the way to a proposal. My res- 
 olution accordingly Kot forth tlie ui>iii- 
 ion of tlio i)rivy council a*< 
 
 e«tablisliin^ that tlio educational 
 clauses of the constitution were a 
 "parliamentary compact," for tlie 
 protectloa, amongst otlier tilings of 
 the righti^ and privileges of tiie Ko- 
 uuin Catholic minority in relation tt) 
 educatioa; that tliese liad been af- 
 fected by the law of 18U0; that In 
 the event of a remedial order, which 
 the speech from the throne fore- 
 shadowed, being made in Ottawa, our 
 refusal to make a settlement would 
 give the parliament of Canada aw- 
 thorlty to legislate on the subject. I 
 asked the hoiuse to say that It "would 
 deplore the occurrence of anything 
 calilng for the exercise by 
 the parliament of Canada of its au- 
 thority to legislate." And referring 
 to tlie suggestions of tlie judges of the 
 privy council that "all legitimate 
 ground of complifint would be removed 
 If thi prct-ent systim were supplement- 
 ed l)y provLsions which would remove 
 the grievance upon which the appeal 
 La founded; and were modified so far 
 as might be necessary to give effect 
 to these provisions," my resolution 
 asked the liouse to declare that it 
 was "ready to con.«iider the grievances 
 referred to with a view to providing 
 reasonable relief, while maintaiulng as 
 far as possible, consistent with that 
 ol>ject, tlie principles of the present 
 act in their general application." 
 
 This moderate proposition the gov- 
 ernment refused to accept, and met 
 it by an amendment declaring : "That 
 any interference by the federal auth- 
 orities with the educational policy of 
 the province is contrary to the recog- 
 nized principles of provincial auton- 
 omy." . "That this house will 
 by all constitutional means and to the 
 utmost extent of its power resist any 
 steps which may be taken to attack 
 the present system." 
 
 One moro fact I wish to relate in 
 tills cnmnection. On the argument of 
 the appeal at Ottawa ]Mr. Daltnn Mc- 
 Carthy, wlio apiiearod as counsel for 
 Manitoba openly stated in the cnurso 
 of the argnnniit that l.o understood 
 the position ol tln' Manitoba govern- 
 ment to be that if a remedial order 
 
 was made "they will not ol»ey th 
 order. ' 
 
 What purpose could l)<> served b\ 
 attemj»ting furtlu>r negotiation oi 
 making fuitlier conciliatory ai> 
 proaclies, after the curt njcctioin o 
 the overture of July, isQl ; followi^: 
 by the i)ereniptory declaration at tht 
 oiK'niiig of tlu> legislature that wheth- 
 er a reiiKHliia! order was made or nf>t 
 tliere would Ix' no c<)nc<'ssion by th«' 
 province ; follow«.Hi too, a few day^ 
 later, by the decisive declaration oi 
 tlie legislature that any action on thi 
 part (')f Ottawa by way oi giving tlu- 
 relief that the constitution contem- 
 plated would 1h' "resist<'d," a.nd that 
 to the utmost ext<mt of all tlu» i>owers 
 that the legislature could command ; 
 followed again, a little latter on, by 
 the (fiiclal statement of Manitoba'.- 
 advocate Infoif the goxernor-general*- 
 in-couucil tliat if a remedial order 
 were mado It w onld bo met by deliano- 
 on tlie part of the province. 
 
 iSurely, i^^ir. ^^^^ time had now come, 
 if the Ottawa miuist.'rs are not per- 
 emptorily to refuse all relief to the 
 aggrieved minority— if the prtjvi.-ions 
 for appeal engrafted in the constitu- 
 tion were not to become a d«^ad let- 
 ter—when the federal government 
 must take the next step that the con- 
 stitution provided for. That stip. 
 mark you, is not in any w'ay to vary 
 or affect the law complained of; it is 
 not in the least degree to interfere 
 with the jurisdiction of the legisla- 
 ture or to confer authority on the 
 federal parliament. That step in- 
 volves no more than the making of a 
 statement by the federal government, 
 in accordance with a duty imposed on 
 it by the constitution, declaring in 
 what respect, in its judgment, the law- 
 ought to l>e modifitd, but leaving it 
 to the legislature to do .so. It is a 
 step, however, that the constitution 
 says must be taken netore parliament 
 can have junsdiciion. c^urely, I re- 
 peat, no one will dlspTite that the 
 time had now come when the govern * 
 ment at Ottawa was not only justi- 
 fied in taking that stvp, but bound to 
 take it, unless, indeed, it was prepared 
 to say definitely that no relief at all 
 should be given under the nppeal. 
 
 But, sir. It is a remarkable fact — a 
 fact that scms to have been lost i-irht 
 of in this discussion — a fact that Mr. 
 Laurier conld surelv not have been 
 cognizant of wlien h(^ arraigned the 
 govemni/ent at Ottawa for adopting 
 a policy of coercion and threat and 
 brag, iiiistead ni tlie mild ways of con- 
 Cionci nation. I sny it is a remarkable 
 fact that Sir Mtickenzie Bo well's gov- 
 ernment was eArn .still unwilling to 
 abnndon negoti;itions, still unwilling 
 
 to ct'i 
 ■withol 
 tlon. 
 eo eai 
 aJ»d s( 
 t&e V 
 <lrive(n| 
 their 
 «ddr( 
 Manit.| 
 adinit| 
 make 
 anid yl 
 wouUlI 
 lurthel 
 niiulsl 
 ture, 
 federal 
 met U 
 clarat 
 »ell. i! 
 goverl 
 denuii 
 with 
 all thi 
 ciiiont 
 Muckii 
 ciotnoill 
 .Vndf 
 one ni 
 tory 
 Ijauri(| 
 prove 
 h< artij 
 niightl 
 
 tin HI g 
 
 Of i 
 
 proc«M 
 
 iiulret' 
 
 might 
 
 the v^ 
 
 ccssi( 
 
 That 
 
 provi 
 
 vited 
 
 To e 
 
 cowa 
 
 the ] 
 
 The 
 
 an o 
 
 defin 
 
 unde 
 
 Uef ■ 
 
 .sioii 
 
 plat 
 
 islnl 
 
 the 
 
 d«>Ui 
 
 delM 
 
 thei 
 
 v( m 
 
 I'.nt 
 
 inir 
 
 the 
 
 CI 111 
 
 wil 
 tlu 
 (pn 
 spf 
 
 % 
 
17 
 
 Mill not oJ*e.v til. 
 
 uiild 1h' served h\ 
 
 LT iK'Kotiatian o'l 
 
 conoiiiHtorv an 
 
 ♦; curt r« jrctirm ,, 
 
 «l«'Claratiou at tlit 
 'latiiiv that whetli- 
 !• ^v.Ks made or not 
 c<tnc<'.s.sion l)y tli« 
 V'fJ. a Uiw (lav.. 
 ^Ivo d<^claration 'of 
 
 any action oa th. 
 
 «ay or iflvlng tiu- 
 Hiitutlon oonteni- 
 I^-'-'^^'J." aaid tlial 
 ^ t>i all tJu' j>owers 
 'Could comniand : 
 ttle latter on. bv 
 nt or Manitoba V 
 governor-general- 
 » rcniedlal order 
 i>'' met by defiant. 
 
 province, 
 le liad now come, 
 t rs are not per- 
 all relief to the 
 if tlie i)rovi>ion.s 
 
 111 the constitu- 
 'ome a doad let- 
 ral government 
 lep that the con- 
 '•• That stLp. 
 ny way to vary 
 iplaJned of; it is 
 ree to interfere 
 
 of the legisla- 
 
 liprity on the 
 That step in- 
 
 he making of a 
 ral government, 
 Iiity imposed on 
 1, declaring in 
 
 jment, the law 
 
 ')ut leaving it 
 lo so. It is a 
 ie constitution 
 ore pari Lament 
 Purely, r re- 
 PTite that the 
 en the govern- 
 lot only jufitl- 
 , l>iit bound to 
 
 Avas prepared 
 lo relief at all 
 the appeal, 
 rkable fact— a 
 i>r>en lost sl-ht 
 fact that Mr. 
 t have bren 
 
 naignod the 
 
 for adopting 
 n thrrat and 
 
 ways of con- 
 
 a remarkable 
 Bowel I's gov- 
 iinwilling to 
 '11 unwilling 
 
 to commit itself to a romodial order 
 without one xunro effort at concilia- 
 tion. From this policy of conciliation, 
 »o parn<>^stly approved l»y Mr. lianricr 
 aj>d Ko fajithfully followed at Ottawa, 
 tke FfHleral gov<'rnnient wa« not to be 
 ^rlvem by the peremptory njection of 
 their former advamce. Not even the 
 flddrcHs from tl'.o throne ^vlth whlcli 
 Manitoba ministers met their house, 
 admitting tno right of Ottawa to 
 make the order, anticiiiatiug its issue, 
 ami yet declaring in advance that it 
 woulil not lie regard. >d : not yet tl'.e 
 further declaration of tlH' provincial 
 ministers, confirmed by the legi-la- 
 ture, tliat a.ny stej) on the part of the 
 federal powers to give reli<!f %\ould Im; 
 met l>y resistance — nor even the de- 
 •cla.ratiou of IVilton McCartliy him- 
 SiPlf, flaunted in the very face of the 
 governor-goneral-in-councll, that any 
 demand from Ottawa, would 1k» m<»t 
 Avith a flat refusal in Winnipeg— not 
 all th&sj» rebuffs combiim'd were suffi- 
 ciipint to dri»(> the government of Sir 
 Miickenzie Bowel 1 from its policy of 
 cionoiliation. 
 
 .\iid .so it was detiTmlriied to make 
 oiu' more effort by anotlier concilia- 
 tory app^'al of the character that Mr. 
 I^aurier ko higlily and so justly ap- 
 prove**, in the liop;^ that even yet the 
 h< arts and souls of Maiuitolia. niiiii.-ters 
 might 1k' niov«'d, ais tlie Lil)eral leader 
 thought they could. 
 
 Of courw, the oiilclal step in the 
 proceduH' tluit the ('(UiKtitution re- 
 »luirod, in order that parliament 
 niiglit nltinmteiy have juriwdictioti in 
 th(> event of a contiiiaied refusal of con- 
 cessions at Wimiii»eg, must be rakeri. 
 That c(mld no longer l>e dejayod. The 
 prnviiicial government had plainly in- 
 vited it and practically chaMengod it. 
 To evnd<" the i.s.sue now would lio a 
 cowardly and contemptible thing on 
 the part of the Ottawa government. 
 The miiiif^tery at Ottawa must make 
 an order now, inihiss I say it lia.s J»een 
 defiiiite^ly and finally deterndtied that 
 niid<'r no circumfitfinccis would .any re- 
 lief whatever l)o given. The last ses- 
 .sioii of parliament, «is then :'ontpjn- 
 plated w.MJii abimt to convene; the leg- 
 islatnn was actually in se.<sion, and 
 the Hession drawing to n clo.**e, so that 
 delay at that time wonld liavo meant 
 delay for a yeiir at least, and for that 
 there wonld be no justification. A 
 n medial order must therefore le made. 
 But along with, an:l tak- 
 
 ing precedence over the order itself, 
 there was sent to Winnipeg .mother 
 cnnimuuication, phviding once more 
 with tlu' proAincial authorities that 
 they should themselves deal witli the 
 (piestion. Lrf^t this communication 
 speak for itself. It was in the shape 
 
 of a minute of council aiiproved l»y the 
 governor-general on the ll>th of March 
 IH'.K'i. Like the minute of July, 1N<»4,. 
 it set out very fully the complaints of 
 the minority; it tn^t out also the vari- 
 ous cont^'utions set up on both side** 
 iH'fore tlie courts and before his Ilxrel- 
 U'licy in council. In particu.Jir, refer- 
 ence was made to the contentioii of 
 Manitolia's advocat<' l)efore the gov- 
 «>ri;or-general in council, that egisla- 
 tion unce pas.se+1 at Ottawa could l>e 
 iieitlier repealed nor .modified liy any 
 power short of the imperial oarlia- 
 meiit— that the ascsumption by parlia- 
 ment of Its autliorlty to legislate 
 would in fact take aw.iy the exclusive 
 jurisdiction from Manitoba forevee, un- 
 less the Imperial authorities interven- 
 ed. The pr(jvincial government was 
 remindeu that while its failure to 
 deal with the question "might compel 
 parliament to give relief," yet, "the 
 provincial legislature Is tiie proper 
 and primary source" from which re- 
 lief should conn.'. And In language 
 that was as earnest as It was courte- 
 ous, this comnuinication proceeded to 
 urge upon the legislature that It 
 should not, by refusing to deal with 
 the (pieistlon run the risk of "perman- 
 ently divesting itself, in a very large 
 measiire of its authority, and so es- 
 tablish In the province an educational 
 system which can not be altered or 
 repealed l)y any legi.-^lative body In 
 Canada." 
 
 To another most striking feature of 
 this communication I must now draw 
 attention You know. Sir, how con- 
 stantly, and how persistently, it lias 
 been declared from the day the reme- 
 dial order first .saw the light, that it 
 was a peremptory demand— a com- 
 nmnd— a decree, requiring that the old 
 system of schools that prevailed l>e- 
 fore 1890 should be restored in every 
 particular, and that it did not permit 
 of any modification or compromise. I 
 may discuss at another time how far 
 this conclu.'^ion was justified, looking 
 at the terms of the order itself. T 
 simply now refer to the fact. Well 
 it seems to have occurred to the Do- 
 minion government that <ik'Ii an in- 
 terpretation might be given to the, 
 order, and so care was taken to liavo 
 it dearly stated in this minute of 
 council that a re-enactment of the old 
 law was by no means necessary. 
 
 To mak" this clear the nilnnte of 
 council cit<'d and .adopt<>d, and drew 
 the attention of Manitoba ministers 
 and legislatur«' tfi, tlie 'angna'jre of 
 the lliiirlish judgeie to whic.li T have al- 
 ready refi>rr(Ml. The prnviiK-ial a.uth- 
 orities Avere reminded that these 
 jiidgf^ had declared that "it is cer- 
 tainly not essential that the statute.^ 
 
 :i 
 
IS 
 
 r«»i)eale<l by tlie uct« of 18(M> «hmil<l' he 
 ro-€.Miacted." They' were remluded of 
 the declaration of the BngliAli court 
 that th«" nyHtem of 1800 "adequately 
 supp'.iiHl the wants of the trren-t major- 
 ity of the iiihabitante of the province, 
 and that all legitimate ground of com- 
 plaint would bo removed," by a modifi- 
 cation and Bupplomonting of that law. 
 
 TliiH minute ot coum*ll, T say, ac- 
 companied the remedial order. It was 
 framed along with the order, issued 
 at tlie same time, and placed in the 
 v«vj.y front of tlie order itself for trans- 
 misvsion to Winnipeg, and waH along 
 witli the order laid before the legisla- 
 ture. 
 
 We have Been how the government 
 of M mtoba d alt witJi the ilme y an I 
 patriotic racsisagf^ of July. 18;>4. What 
 reply did the government and egie'.a- 
 tnrr- r)f tlio proTitice make to tlie 
 courtfX)ue and tx^mperate appeal of 
 March, .18!)i5, that accompanied the 
 n>medial order, and tliat so plainly in- 
 timatf<i' that a re-enactment of the 
 old law was nf>t at all necessary. I 
 have said that the message was laid 
 iK^fore the legislature. That could not 
 well liave been avoided because It liad 
 been transmitted along with the or- 
 der, and was attached to it. Strange 
 to say, however, the government of 
 Manitoba ajipcar never to have re- 
 allze<l that such a document had come 
 Into its hands. At all events the re- 
 ceipt of this moist important com- 
 munication n-as wholly and absolutely 
 Ignored. No reply to it was vouchsafe<l 
 — even the receipt of it was not 80 
 much as aclmowledged. A reply to 
 the order itself was in du.-» time 
 sent from the legislature upon the 
 motion of the government, but it made 
 no reference to the receipt of any 
 communication other than the formal 
 order. To avoid a.ny possibility of 
 the reply being interpreted as dealing 
 witli anything be.vond that formal 
 document, it was actually set out 
 verbatim in the reply, which then 
 proceeded to denl wi'Lli the document 
 as there set forth, and as if it h.id 
 been the only communication receiv- 
 e<l. A proposal actually came before 
 the House, by way of an amendment, 
 that this communication should he 
 acknowledged, and that consideration 
 should be given to it. But this was 
 resolutely opposed by the government 
 and promptly voted down. Of course 
 it followed ^that the suggestions 
 made, and the considerations pre- 
 feiented, in the accompanying me*s- 
 snge, were totally ignored. And the 
 remedial order was treated as being 
 a demand for the restoration of the 
 old law. "We are commanded to re- 
 store to the Roman Catholics," said 
 
 tlie reply of M;!nitol)a, 'Hubwtantlal and el 
 ly the same privileges wiilch tlu^y ci, t<.> dcfel 
 joyed previously to 18!M)" But tlu bo cm 
 communication from Ottawa that monx 
 was attached to tlie order plainly eltxpu 
 gjive the legislature to understaii: tlicolo 
 tliat the re-enactment of the old law gublim 
 was not at all called for— that a mod- have i 
 Iflcatlon of the present law, wltli to Ih^ 
 some sui)plemental provisions, woulii of tli» 
 servi! .'ill that .vas necessary without that n 
 re-(!nacting the old system. and p 
 
 That a couinuinlcatlou of so Ini- tlicm 
 portant a character, framed so can- Doiui 
 fully on the linos that the L»ll>era! 
 cliW'f recommends, with a view to 
 friendly neu:otiatlon and settlement 
 should never receive the courtesy <i( 
 an acknowledgt nient, would, undfi 
 ordinary circumstances, sfem exceed- 
 ingly str.'inge. But the acticm of tlu' 
 provincial government in ignoring it 
 was consistent with its ncvsition 
 tliroiighout. It had boon anticipating 
 a remedial order, almost impatient for 
 its comings so that the legislature 
 miglit ha«re tlie chance of putting it- 
 self on record as ready to resist. 
 
 But the .strangest tiling of all Is 
 tliiat, nft^r tlie sending of the court- 
 eous and conciliatory message of .July, 
 1894. and considering tlie manner in 
 Avhicli the i»rovincial authorltiets dis- 
 p(i.«<'(i of it— after tht> repeated and 
 most nnmi-:takal>l9 declaration^ of the 
 government and legislature of the 
 proA'incp, even Ix-fore the appeal was 
 heard, that all advances toward'^ a. 
 settlement would iK> dl-i regarded— 
 after the sending of the earnest ap- 
 peal of March, 1895, and cpn.siderlng 
 that its exiistence was ignored and 
 even its rt^ceipt unacknowledged, we 
 should fkid the land n^soundlng with 
 denunciations of the Dominion govern- 
 ment becauise, forsooth, it had not at- 
 tempted to conciliate the provincial 
 autlioritles or approached them in the 
 Bunny ways of patriotism, but had 
 killed all oliance of a frieindiy settle- 
 ment l>y summarily adopting a policy 
 of coercion and threat, .and taking 
 Manitoba by tlie throat. Such, how- 
 ever, strangely enough has been the 
 (Rase. The daily and weekly press 
 from the Atlantic to the Pacific ha.«t 
 been filled with protests against the 
 outrageous tyramny of the Ottawa 
 giant that would thus throttle the 
 poor pr vj/nce. Pulpits in every 
 part of tlie land have been ringing 
 with the same demimciations, and 
 tens m" thousands of earnest Chris- 
 tians have beem raising their voices to 
 Heaven pleading that the spirits of 
 Manitobans might be aroused to re- 
 sist the federal tyrant. Synods and 
 assemblies, conferences and Prcsbyter- 
 ies.of the Christian churches In Ontario 
 
 hated 
 
 these 
 
 would! 
 
 ince ii| 
 
 reasoii| 
 
 ity. 
 
 have 
 
 denum 
 
 amf>nf 
 
 l)ackei 
 
 Globe, 
 
 tario 
 
 the w 
 
 tinent 
 
 give 
 
 every 
 
 remov 
 
 tlon ( 
 
 along 
 
 partic 
 
 First.] 
 
 posHl' 
 
 systet 
 
 seconi 
 
 arWti 
 
 first 
 
 the F 
 
 patri 
 
 oppni 
 
 throi 
 
 Strai 
 
 s]iou 
 
 of tl 
 
 gain 
 
 this 
 
itol)a, 'HiibHtttnthil 
 
 f'Kf'H wlilch tln.yoi. 
 
 'O 18inr But tlu 
 
 'om Ottawa that 
 
 tlie onlfp idainh 
 
 ui'f to iinderstaii; 
 
 lont (.f tJio ,)i(i Ihm 
 
 •Hi f(.r-tlmt a inod- 
 
 imsj'iit la IV, with 
 
 provisionH, would 
 
 nccfssary without 
 
 1 system. 
 
 cation of no j,,,. 
 
 r, fraiiif'd so carc- 
 that tiie I>ll)f.ral 
 
 with a viow tn 
 1 and settlonient 
 f tlie courtesy (,f 
 nt, Avould, undfi 
 ices, sFf>m I'xccpd- 
 
 tlio action of th.. 
 ■nt in ignoring: it 
 itli its position 
 
 boon antlclpatlnK 
 nost impationt for 
 the Icffislaturc 
 nfo f>f puttiTiff it- 
 "ly to resist. 
 -it tliinp: of all Is 
 ins? of tlio coTirt- 
 ' me-ssage of July, 
 sr the manner in 
 1 authorities dls- 
 if> repeated aiul 
 rHJlaratlous of the- 
 slattire of the 
 
 the appeal was 
 ncew towards a 
 >*' (M'-Tep:arded— 
 the earnest ap- 
 
 and cpnsiderlns 
 i!^ lernorefl and 
 fnowleds:ed, we 
 nvsoundlui? with 
 'ominfon ffovern- 
 '. it had not at- 
 the provincial 
 !hed them In the 
 tlsm, but had 
 
 friendly settle- 
 loptinff a policy 
 >. and taking 
 at. Such, hoTT- 
 I has been the 
 
 we<>.kly press 
 she Pacific lias 
 ts against the 
 of the Ottawa 
 throttle the 
 >lts in every 
 
 been ringing 
 Jiations, and 
 arnest Cliris- 
 
 tlieir voices to 
 tlie spirits of 
 irooified to re- 
 Synods and 
 ind Prcsbyter- 
 hes in Ontario 
 
 l!i 
 
 and elwi'where, iiavc entered the ILsts 
 tt) defend this poor province about to 
 bo (Tushrd by tlie heel of the Ottawa 
 monster Learned and plouw, and 
 elo<|Ui'ut profesHors and principals of 
 tlu'ologlcal colleges liave rls«'n to the 
 Hublimest cffcrts of tlieir lives, as they 
 have i)l«tured tlie wrongs attenipt"d 
 to Ik* imposed on Ujs— unhappy people 
 of the NortlnvcHt. .\nd with appeals 
 tliat are. In tiu-mselvos, as truly noble 
 and patriotic, as the real facts mnke 
 them ridiculous, they plead with tlie 
 Dominion govemnu nt to remove the 
 }iated order. Not, Lndeed, that all 
 these good people jirc Intolerant, or 
 would find any fault with the prov- 
 ince if It wore voluntarily to make 
 reasonable concesKions to the minor- 
 ity. On the contrary n"arly all who 
 liavo been the most prominent in these 
 denunclntions and appeals are 
 amongst the warmest admirers and 
 backers of Sir Oliver Mowat ;ind the 
 Glol>e, who pin their faith to the On- 
 tario system of schools as beinir on 
 the whole the very V>est on the con- 
 tinent, and who would not to morrow 
 give up the separate schools even if 
 every cons'tJtutlonal restriction were 
 removed. The attacks upon the ae-i 
 tion of the Dominion governmont 
 along the whole line have lieen based 
 particularly upon these two Ideas- 
 First, that the remedial order Is a 
 positive command to r'^store the old 
 system n« it existed before 1890: and 
 second, that the Dominion government 
 arbitarily made this order without 
 first approaching the authorities of 
 the province in a conciliatory nnd 
 patriotic spirit and giving them an 
 opportunity of settling the oue^tion 
 through their ' own 1 gislature. 
 Strange it is, T say. that all this cry 
 should have been "raised ^n the face 
 of the facts— facts that cannot be 
 galnsayed— that I have stated in 
 this and In my second letter. 
 
 But perhaps it is not so «trange af- 
 tor all. It l8 impoeslble that people 
 car; keep in mind the various pha*ies 
 and Incidents of tliis vexed and 
 troublesome quostion in its kaleidos- 
 kopic preeeutatiomis. The view of it 
 that was presented yester(iay is for- 
 gotten to-day liecauHe of a new fea- 
 ture that comes to our view, to be in- 
 turn forgotten to-raorro^' aa hen some 
 other phase of It shall be presented. 
 And most unhappily it has liecome the 
 football of party politicians. It is a 
 useful question to keep Mr. Oreenway 
 and hie colleagues In office. Equally, 
 .and even more unfortunately, It is iw- 
 intr made a meaiue of promoting party 
 advantages In Dominion politics. Per- 
 liaps the circumstance that, above all. 
 
 mlwled the people of Ontario on the 
 facts was the visit of Mt. .Vttoriiiey- 
 (ietieral Sifton to Haldimand last 
 spring. Tlie perio<i of his visit there 
 was long aft<'r the receipt of the mes- 
 sage of July, 18'.>4, long after all the 
 . V nt.s fol OwiniX Itlhat I have in these 
 letters related, luui happened, doAvn to 
 aiul includiug the receiliit of the equal- 
 ly conciliatory message of March, 
 1ft. ". ^Ir. Sifton wont to Haldimand 
 to present the cause of Manitoba, to 
 app'al to the people of 'Jntarlo 
 aujilii.st the oppn'sshm of Ottawa. 
 Ho Went e.-pei inly t<i rou e the )range 
 111' n of ilaUllniauJ by the cry of "no 
 ^^urreiidcr." He pictured Manitoba as 
 !'i itiir throttled and coerced, and plead- 
 ed for '-iympatliy In that quarter, so 
 liki'ly to li" sympathetic to such an 
 .•lop'a!. " , Is .an ord^^r which requires 
 that ^Iniitoba should give the Rom- 
 arr Catholic people of that province, 
 not such a system ;is you have here, 
 but a S4'parate school system "xactly 
 thr« sam(> as we had prior t() 1890," 
 was Mr Sifton's language in ^laldl- 
 maiid. .Vn<l lu- added: "That Is an or- 
 der to restore those Catholic school.^ 
 atul nilu<l you, we cannot compromise 
 with it. There !« no Avay to com- 
 promlso wltli this order to restore the 
 sehoiils just as they were. In fact we 
 eaiiiiot do anything." Mr. Sifton had 
 jiust l«ft Wliiuiiu^g after perusing the 
 coniniunlcation from Ottawa inti- 
 mating that it wa.s not nece*>sjiry to 
 nvtore tlie old system, I nt he does not 
 tell them that. 
 
 "There is no way to cnjuiproniise," 
 said Mr. Sifton, but lie knew that 
 since July, 1^94, the government at 
 Ottawa had been appealing to him 
 and to his leade-r to have tlie matter 
 enquir<'d Into and settled amongst our- 
 solvex withf'Ut fed<'ral intervention. 
 •'In fact, Ave cannot do an.vthing," said 
 Mr. Sifton and yet he failed to t<'ll the 
 Orangemen of Haldimand hoAV the ap- 
 peal from OttaAva that they sliould 
 •'do every tiling'' In Manitoba, was 
 curtly repelled by his government; 
 that the nie«.<age to the legislature 
 pleading that Manitoba should "do it 
 all," was never presented to tlie Iiouse. 
 He did not tell them of the message 
 that accompaiMed the rem<'dial order 
 urging, once more, that Manitolva, and 
 not OttaAva, AAa« the j>roi)er source 
 from Avhich relief should come, and 
 that every con-ideration of patriotism 
 called om the legislature of the p^rov- 
 imco to deal with the question. He 
 did not tell theui that his gOAernment 
 had not the court. >sy eA'en to have the 
 legislature acknowUHige the receipt of 
 tills communication. Mr. Sifton's pur- 
 poses would not lie served by telling 
 of these things. A recital of these 
 
1>() 
 
 facts wcHihl not lir'' the liiNirts of tin* 
 Or.'inKcnxcn, \vli!cli wax tln'ii lil-* t'lji< f 
 niiii. 
 
 1 lul^lit K<» on to refiT to tli«» fart 
 tliat ev(vn jM't tlio vrovMnuu'nt at Ot- 
 tawa Im still piir.-ulnj; tlu' saiiii> i>olic,v 
 of c'ondlialloa an«l cntn'aty tliat Mr. 
 L#aur'.(>r so liiulil.v coniniands. 1 nii>rlit 
 hIiow tlwit <'v«vu .-iinC4> tlK' i<sn«' of the 
 rt'iiK'dial ortU'r nn<l tln" r.Cfipt of 
 Manitol>a\s rojily, Ij^noiinK -'i^ it <li<I 
 the iniiiortaiit uKv+.-aK'' that acconi- 
 pank'il the order, a tliird ooiuniiinica- 
 tion haw beon sent to Winnlitou' doclar- 
 IriK 'iH exiillcltiy as Ix-foro that a r*"- 
 Ktorntitm of tlu' old law is not n«'<'«'j<- 
 Karlly dciuandi'ii, and appcaluiK <>no»» 
 niorf to tlK' Alautoha Icyiislatur*' to 
 wottlc tlio (iiuisikm wltliont ft'deral in- 
 ttirvontion. I?ut tlils <'Vt>nt Is on*' <>f 
 Huch rewnt occurnMU'C" tluit it cannot 
 yt't 1h> forgotten, and I will not take 
 ni» si»aoL> im nHialiinK It. 
 
 An eaBtern paper has siitrK'^nted 
 that I practically accus<' Mr. Lanr- 
 ien; of wilfully niisle.idinK tlie peoi)le 
 of Ontario when he denounced the 
 uovvrnnient at Ottawa for failing to 
 nijike frlendlj' overtures to Manitol)a 
 in the spirit of ])atriotisni, in the 
 int<'rostH of peace and harinony and 
 unity: and for creating; the present 
 strained position hy suiiuuarily adopt- 
 ing a policy of c«)ercion and threat. 
 Far 1k' it from me to sufj:v;est that 
 the Liberal leader wilfidly misled an.v- 
 one. I have no reason to brine sucli 
 an accusation. 1 have simply sho^NTi 
 that Mr. Laurier's statements were 
 not at all justified by facts, ,l)nt I 
 am confident that, like the i)ublic 
 Avhom he ad<lressed, he had either 
 never known the re:il facts or had 
 quite forgotten them. 
 
 I must not omit to refer, however, 
 to another most important feature of 
 the attack of Mr. Tiaurier on tlie l^'d- 
 eral jyovernment. I refer to liis con- 
 tention that the Donnnion srovern- 
 ment should h.ive had a full investi- 
 gation of the facts iH'fnre proccn^dlnc 
 tf» issue an order. With your leave, 
 I will discuss that In another let- 
 ter .T.\MKS FTSnr.K. 
 
 Winnipeg, Nov. r,0, '0.'. 
 
 Tt tl*e EiHtor of the. Free PresB. 
 
 Sir, — It is becoming more and more 
 apparent to thoughtful oI)servers of 
 Canadian public af airs that the Mani- 
 toba school question has broujyht us 
 face to face ■with the most serious pro- 
 blem which han hitherto confronted 
 the public men of the Dominion. We 
 have, by allowing this question to 
 reach its present stage without brlng- 
 iug about a settlement, arrived at a 
 
 crisis In th? history of our confe<leif|iineiil| 
 tlon that threatens to involve us jj,. I'uctI 
 mtKst serious difficulti*-**; in th<' ii) deil'lT 
 surrrctlon — perhaps in a form nn vrhelhH 
 intcnsltlrd than ev<'i — oi tlie very ^ai.nce." 11 
 diflicnlties that the unhni was si)4H'i,,5,tl-(y 
 ly intended to settle, finally and I'l ,hey an| 
 ev<M'. The (vjMnlon t(M) is more ai,niy on 
 more gaining groun<l that the whi .yeVy ml 
 trouMo has rl eu tluongli a lash (llr.e(*t'a s 
 gard, !n tlilw jiarticular case, of tliii,i.>-e',t 
 compacts and scttl^'nient-i upon whii j^w coi 
 the union was bas«'d. 1U> tliat as uicstii'l 
 may the s^-rlouisness of the Hituatii..jp(it«'ii 
 is almost universally acknowledg iiiaiuentl 
 .Vnd bpcaus<- the n'siwinslbllity is, lieonceiN ij 
 the constitution, cast on the f(Hler;ipjir\ianil 
 government ot eventually providing hIuc" til 
 solution, in the event of a settlenienj^y ,,( hij 
 ■.lot being reaciusl in the i)rovince, i^vou'd hi 
 becomes the duty of .all good cltlzen.>,j„ti', w" 
 and es])eciially of all public men, hjy.il -wiuit 
 ly to as!-i-t that government to tlhwr^^ 'tl\ 
 utmo'^t of thiir power in reaching '•uc '^^^jt 
 a solution. At the same time i* "iu-'Ip.(,nd a' 
 be manift'st that the government i^„,„4.nt 
 ojien to ciiticism — unsparing criticlsn "MV^itv 
 it may be — If it falls to adopt 'i P»t iT"^,, j, 
 riotlc or wise course to that end. Mr V. ^j^,, 
 LaurifT wa> petfectly \\ithin his i ight ^pi,,,,,! 
 in his criticism of the government «W^,, 
 Ottawa: and his own declaration "i „,,,, 
 
 ft)' 
 
 . , , , Unman 
 
 policy was a most m ise one, in so far Li t' t 
 
 an the quotationis from lii-i utterance> 
 in my jireviouis letters represent hi> 
 views. But feeling as I did that, how- 
 ever honestly they may have lieen 
 made, his stat^'ment^ of fact npou 
 which he based the attacks I have re- 
 ferred to were alwolutxdy without 
 foundation, it seemed to me that it 
 was my duty to i)te.-<mt to the publi<' 
 the facts that I collated in my past 
 letters. Thi're iw, however, another 
 ground uj on Avhicli federal ministers 
 are denounced by Mr. Lauiler. He say.'- 
 it is clear that there is a right of aji- 
 peal. The quest iion that troubles him 
 is whether, granting the right, ther<' 
 be really si:ch a grievance .is wi'l war- 
 rant the government in furnishing 
 a remedy "This is uot a question nf 
 law,"' said he, 'it is a que.'^tion of fact; 
 find out wii.at the truth Is ; find out if 
 the grievance is such to w.arr.ant in- 
 terference^ witli the schi-ols of Manl- 
 toi>.a." The goverament of the Dom- 
 inion he says took no steps to enquin' 
 into the f.acts, but peremptorily ls,«ue<i 
 a remedial order, without having first 
 ascertained wlietl'er the facts war- 
 ranted interference or not. 
 
 Mr. Laurler is uridDubtodly right 
 when he «ays that thie government 
 .should not think of inviting parlia- 
 ment to exercise its power to pass 
 remedial legLsIatlon without ;in en- 
 quiry into the facts. There was clear- 
 ly a solemn responsibility on the gov- 
 
 mi'iMvit 
 
 that th' 
 
 therefoi 
 
 plncf t 
 
 Uef t'l 
 
 cniistit 
 
 Bloii oV 
 
 th'- i>" 
 
 this ai 
 
 Mr. wi 
 
 league 
 
 a*: <"ii 
 duty 1 
 nv'iit i 
 
 apP"''> 
 ni"'it 
 help t 
 that 
 re.st'M 
 niaU'^ 
 he fe 
 the \ 
 tat • 
 
 qiie.'^t 
 
 ened 
 
 he P 
 
 P"V<' 
 
 a" «' 
 th'- 
 the 
 \t is 
 
 by ( 
 exci 
 to c 
 nuei 
 f'err 
 
 - nA \;„ i irt;- u '-tj, T t uA t iM. -i.iu.jt»l il fl(»j <> W M I r*j »fr- ' 
 
'''t^f'ic: parlia 
 'ower to pns> 
 tlioufc an p„ 
 <^J*e AVcas clear 
 y on tlie jro^. 
 
 by (iTi »-!nU>rnn oroa.siotis, 
 exorci 
 
 to P(ll 
 
 forrfMl by the expcnth 
 
 Ti (-inU'mn oroa.siotis, toiuMiina: tli*' 
 ;ise of * * * tlip nnpollatf nower as 
 bicntiona! IrKif^lJ'^i"'!. important 
 tif'HP of \avr or of fact may bt^ ve- 
 il by the expcntivp to a lii<;h Jiuli- 
 
 lin trnniiial fur iMarnjr ami '•oii*<l(U>i- 
 atl III, III Mtich mo(l«. tliat tlu' uitliorl- 
 ti.vi aii4l iiarti«\s IntiTostcul may U' n>- 
 pnK,>iiti'<l, and that a rcaNoiuMl opinion 
 may In- obtaiiuMl for tlic itiformatlon 
 
 "f the I Xi'caH\«>." 
 
 Mr. I'.lakr, in speaking on Ihr- amtlon, 
 frankly dicland that It was tlio Man- 
 tob.i ca-i', anil Jiis d '.sire to fafjlltate 
 tin- si'ttlemciit oi' it, tliat I«m1 iiim to 
 deal with the sabjcct. Spoakimr of 
 the pro\ i- 1 ms of tiic cniisLitutlo:! ron- 
 ct'ni'.njr, auionu-t otiiTw, educational 
 appiaJK, 111- .«aid: "My object is, wHli- 
 oiit di.-oiiHslim; liow far tiu-y ar- wise, 
 takinjr them as llicy are, to facilitate 
 the 111 ttor Working: of tliom." And 
 .i^.'iii' he ^aid : '■\Vh"n yoii art on 
 the appehute edii«',itioiiai clauseH. as, 
 for I'xamjiie in the case of M.-iiiitobji, 
 the very ca.sp wliU'h is now In a hoiiso 
 ""iidintr as to whether any relief Is 
 diK' and r tlie ai)pellat<' cl;in>e to 
 thor;e who claim it. you have a mix- 
 ed question of law .and of f.ict and it 
 se 'med tc ine tint in this pjirticnlav 
 instance I was conHtrain"d to pro- 
 vide for an emerfxency wliieli. may 
 ;lri^'e." How lie was to prtivide for 
 the emergency is plainly slio\vn. "TIm' 
 executive," said he. "should liavc 
 Iiower to call in aid the judicial de- 
 jiartment in ord r to jirrive /it ji cor- 
 rect solution." And airain : " I 
 Would rccdmmend sn<'h ;i reference In 
 all ca'-es of educatioujil fipiieal, to one 
 of whici) I am fr.ank to s;iy my pren- 
 ent motion is due". 
 
 Nfr Blake, I say. m.iii' his meaninir 
 perf'H'tly pl;iin. If ;in app'^al should 
 be jiresentod under tli*- educational 
 cl.'iuse it wfnild !>> the dnty of tlie 
 trovernm'nt and parliament to have 
 an en()uiry mad" in order to ascertain 
 "wliet'ier anv relief is duo to those 
 who claim it". Such an encpdry in- 
 \o|ved iiuest'ons of f;ict as well as of 
 !;iw. For the piirjiose of such an en- 
 quiry, "the executive shonUl have 
 power to call in aid the jutliri.il de- 
 partment iT) ord 'r to arrive ;it a cor- 
 rect solution." 
 
 Air. T.aurier. sp'akinir or the pres- 
 ent time, tells as that, "It is tlie 
 duty of the jrovernment to investigate 
 the subject and to ascertain what the 
 fn<-ts are in ord'^r to see whether or 
 not a case has b -en "made out for 
 i'e(h'ra! intervention. The question 
 cannot be settled until there has been 
 such fill investigation, to see what 
 are the riirhts iind nro^isions of the 
 case," But lu-re mc find Mr. Laurier'n 
 colieairne makinjr provision for such 
 an investi<jration nior • than five years 
 afro. "U'iiat Afr. T>anrier profesfi"s to 
 rtlin at to-day i.- just what Mr. Blake 
 provided for in .\pri1. 1800. Mr. I.<aur- 
 
1 \ 
 
 '22 
 
 l«'r KiiyH he propoHow "to I'nquln' Into 
 tli« fuftM Hod H.e \vln»tli«'r they jiiHtlfy 
 Intorference." Mr. IMjik«> in 1H<M> pro- 
 poMcd to cniiniri', not Hlniply wlu'tlM-r 
 there wa« n rlRlit of nppoul, Wut, 
 *' whether any relief Is (hu- under the 
 appellHtv' c!au«e to thoHc who ela.liii 
 !t," and for that purpose he propoHed 
 to refi'r the question to ,i hl>fli Judi- 
 cial trihuiuil for eon>lderatloa. 
 
 This ri'sr>lMtio'n wa-; of course ku]»- 
 ported by Mr. T>jiiir!er. Tl wan carried 
 «t all events by a ui,anlniou- vote. 
 In th" followini;' session, a hill fraia<Ml 
 on tlifn re-oliition wa-i Introdueed by 
 tlie Kovenunent anil jtas-ied itito law. 
 Mr. Laiiri'T now asks Mk" uoverniU'^'nt 
 to a|)i)0'hit "a eonind.s-lon of lnve>tl- 
 Kfition." fli-re wa > a eonimi--l'in — 
 and the Tunst c<)iiij».'l«'n' and 'irlepend- 
 ent that ooiihl Iw i.uiij;'e-<ti d -jM-ovld- 
 ed f!vi' years a>io for thh xi^ry i>ur- 
 pose, and that with Mr. T.aiirler's own 
 approval. Not indi'ed a eimuuis-lon 
 inHtruot"d or antlioriz'd to niaki' an 
 Jnvp'stliratlon at that time, Ix'eause 
 the ajiiK'al was then onlv "in a sen <• 
 pen!«n^^■' as Mr. Hlaki' put It. It had 
 not yet eoaie up for eon.s.lderatlon. 
 Hat the eoniTuis-lon was creat'd so 
 tluit If the ajipeiil dil «>v(>'ntna lly i)ro- 
 eeed it would Ik- tli" duty of the exeeu- 
 tive to make th<' refenMice. 
 
 1 pa.ss on to anotlK-r staj;e in tiu' 
 liiNtor.v of the cas<>. I'roni 1890 to 
 the fall of 181>12 the ai)iteal nMn.iiiied 
 in abeyance. In th." nieantiine an Is- 
 sue; was presented to the eourts, \n 
 the Barrett cas«' and in tlie Lo<:an 
 ca.so, to test the constitutionality of 
 the act of 1S9() under another elnu-e 
 of the constitution. Tiiat issue in 
 1892 was decided apralnst the con- 
 tention of the minority. Here I desire 
 to draw special attention to the fact 
 that ovhlence on the points on widch 
 Mr. LauriiT Is so earnestly se<'kin)j: 
 light was very fully snbinitti'd in t!ie-o 
 two cases. I have tiiinl to ascertain 
 from hi* speeches in what particuhir 
 line he jjrtiposes to jiursu" an investi- 
 gation of facts. 1 ijnot' frcun his I\Ior- 
 riKburg spe^'Ch the fnilowinj;: : "But 
 what art* .\ on to investij^ato ? TluTe 
 are many tliiings Ui invostijjj.ate. You 
 will have to .see what i> tlie i)osltion 
 of affairs, what Is the relative 
 strontjcth oi" the ])Oindati'on, how the 
 grou])s of population are cou^stitutiHl, 
 and how far the i)ret;'n.s!ions of tlie 
 minority can be met without en- 
 croaclilnf? upon the rights of the ma- 
 jority." 
 
 I grant that without an enquiry 
 into tlie.s<' facts it would have iM-en 
 madness, aye it wooild have iH-en gross 
 wickedni\s»<, on tlie part of the Dom- 
 inion government to issue a remedial 
 order. But let Mr. Lanrier peruse the 
 
 evidence |)ut iM'fore 
 Barrett «ind Ix>gan 
 sav whether there 
 
 th" eo»irt« in tl.R. U- *' 
 
 cases, and let hiii<ithi'r'*- 
 ha -I not lH'<>n, I w»** ^^*l 
 
 thesi' case^ at /ill events, a full di.- ol ^^• 
 <'lo*ture ()f all tlM» facts on tlM> suhj c I urn 
 that he HU^gested for enquiry In hi tl»<**'' '1 
 Morrlsburg sjM'ech at h'a-it. pn^Uioi 
 
 "\i*A will h.'i\(' to H<s> tlw» iiodtton <i etl'i^''^^1 
 affairs," t^nUl Mr. Laurl -r, aad, jier the P' 
 siimably h.' ri i rs to the position of ai afi*'''*'''| 
 fairs In Manitoba as toueldng, and rr ©f 1>^'''I 
 latin^; to, educational affairs. \Vi . t\i • "'' 
 III' will flad the "jKisltlon" veiy full.\ V.very 
 .iiiil Very el-arly set out in the afii ge>t d| 
 davits filed la thes<' two eases. U< ^M'tuni- 
 will find the iio.slt:(Mi shown not onl.v ottliel 
 as it was In 1870, when the union wa- ai>d d| 
 formed, btit as it w;is thereaiter do\Mi oe Ix' 
 to the i»as-age of t!ie law of 1890." ol aU.I 
 
 "Vou will have to see what Is the lt*» '>i| 
 relative strength of the iiopiiiatlon," niitt- 
 added Mr. Lauri<'r. And sure enougl; ^vas i 
 the whole matter Is most carefully. I "f*' 
 most fully and most minutely gom' faets 
 into; .-tatem nts iijioa oath were made ipiest 
 as to the total poi)ulation of the prov- hn'i»*' 
 inee at the union, and In ^S•<^^ and in cltlio 
 18'.tl.; statem; nts as to the relative w^^' 
 p()l)ulatIons in tlu' ("atholie, the Angli- 1 t> 
 
 can, the I're.^byterlan, the Mctliodlst 
 and the Bajjlist ehii;r<'h<'s: statements 
 also showing the population in clll s 
 and towns, 
 
 "Von will have to #tee how the 
 groups of population are constituted." 
 I am not sure that I understand <'X- 
 .ictly what this nie.ans, hut probabl.v 
 it refers to the distribntivn/ of the 
 Protestant and Boman f'atholic popu- 
 lations territorially. Well that Is a 
 (Question that n^eds im commission to 
 investigate it. livery one in, the 
 I)rov!uce knows that the Catholic 
 jiopnlatlon Is almost altogether set- 
 tk'd in groups in the old parishes and 
 in Winniiieg and the larger' townsj 
 As Principal King put it at 
 tlie recent nie<>tlng of the Pres- 
 byterian synod here : "A large por- 
 tion of tlie Catholie population is situ- 
 ated along the two rivers where tliere 
 are alm'et no Protestamts." Tliorei- 
 perf«»ct agreement lH>tween all parties 
 to th(» controversy as to this ques- 
 tion. 
 
 "You will have to see how far the 
 pretensions of the minority can he 
 met without encroaching upon the 
 riirhts cf the majority." Well if thor- 
 is any one matter that 
 
 w.is, more than any other, 
 fully gone into in tlie affi- 
 
 davits fpfd In th'^se two cases, it wns 
 this particular matter. The wliole 
 position was most thoroughly stated. 
 Amongst those who mnd-^ affidavits 
 on this oeestion were the BVuhop of 
 Rupert's Land, Dr. Bryce (two affi- 
 davits.) the late Mr. Alex. Tx)gan, Mr. 
 
 

 28 
 
 tt/Kj, j„>,. 
 
 ^*'*'''''K /;„;;':'' 
 
 '*" ^''<>\w, not , 
 
 • t7;;; ""^"'^ '^^ ti... 
 
 "1 )Nt <'n ret till y 
 "/"'til \^•^'ro rnV 
 
 I ..ml,.r«tanrl ox- 
 
 « toffetiirr Kpt. 
 
 ':f *,'•" Pro"! 
 
 P'"atioriis5 y. 
 
 P'-^ wherotl.Prp 
 i-ntfi." TLnrrM- 
 yr;n an parties 
 
 « *" this q„p,,. 
 
 e how far the 
 ""fcy c;in f>p 
 18- upon tlip 
 
 .5^^11 if thor.. 
 
 **^''' that 
 
 «".^- othnr. 
 1 thp ,^fy.: 
 
 ca«es, it was 
 
 7'io Whole 
 
 "ffhly statPfi 
 
 •^I" nffiflavits- 
 
 :^ R^hop of 
 
 p (two affi- 
 
 • Los:an, Mr. 
 
 R. II. Ilaywiird, Mr. .\lt>x. i'olsoti atul 
 •otiuTrt. On till' Hide of the niliiiorlty 
 WMM the nffUliivlt of the ArchblHhop 
 Of Ht. Boniface. 
 
 ! Hin niir«' that overy one who rea4l> 
 tlxHi- afllilavllH will adiiill that tiie 
 pii^ltloii ill thc> provltic<' If* .'ifft'etliin 
 e<liu'atlon, and that overy f«'Mtiin' of 
 tin p(Jt^itl()ii that could aff<'<'t ')r tH> 
 afi'f'ctcd l)y the oiwratioii nf the law 
 of 18".i(>, or liy till' Krantiii^r of r<'llef to 
 th ' Tiilno'ltv, wa < mot fully .shown. 
 Kvcry c(ia>ldcrntl(>n that could ln' .sur- 
 gestid n^ahiKt the ^rMntini;- of relief 
 iM'cauwc nf iritcrfr'roncr' with tln' rlaht^ 
 of the majorltj'.was c.Mrifiii.y dischised 
 niid dw«'lt apoii in the affldavlln filed 
 on iH'half of the majority. .\n(l l)i'**t 
 of all, tho factw Htatcd In the .ifihhiv- 
 it** on hoth hides wcri' prai-tically ;id- 
 mitt' (1 on all kI(Uis t<j l>o true. 'I'ln'rc 
 was no ohjectlon on either side, that 
 I now recall, to the ntntements of 
 fact** pnv.sentcd to .,tlu; courts. 'I'lic 
 (pu'stions of fact were fully and ex- 
 haustively di-scus.i^od by counsel on 
 either side, and considered and dealt 
 with hy tlu' court*!. 
 
 1 turn oiico more to the appeal cane. 
 .Tu.luiiK'tit liavlnt; lx!«n pronounced l»y 
 the privy coutici; lin tho Barrett and 
 Lip;a 1 cae- s, nliirmlnj? the coustitu- 
 tl liiallty of +,he law of IS'.tO, tho ap- 
 jM-al WMS then proceeded with. The 
 tini' had n^iw come> wlien It' 'loeame 
 the duty of the federal government.nn- 
 (1( r the terms of Mr. Blake's resolu- 
 tion, and the act of 1801, to submit a 
 casi' for the opinion of the Kui)reme 
 court upon quretions of law and fact. 
 Th'^ reference was in due course made 
 and practical effect was thus 
 iriviMi til Mr. Blake'w r&solution. TIow 
 w<«r( thf fact* to l)c aficertalnod so 
 that tho court might give them eon- 
 Siiderathm ? Was fresh evidence to bo 
 tak'Mi in tho appeal caee itself, or 
 wcr.' the facta disclosed in the other 
 cas \- to \ye takoii as siifflclent, ;<nd 
 W(>re they to ^ic submitted as they 
 st lod to the tribunal for consliler;i- 
 tion? The latter course was adopted by 
 the fjdvrrnmont In preparing; tin" di-aft 
 ca-s >, but of cour.so it was subject to 
 re\ iisi ii! by the authorities of Manito- 
 ba. Tho facts had been fully state;! 
 to the satisfaction of all parties in 
 tlu Barrett and Lnpraa cnfit's. Tlx' 
 whoh' of tlie proceediiijr-i in these eases 
 therefore. Includinir the nionmrial, pe- 
 titinii and affidavits, tho ,Mrg'um!>^nts of 
 coua.sel and tlie opinions of the judjcjes, 
 were mado part of the case snbniit- 
 t"d on tho reference. The whole of 
 tlu information that was supplied by 
 both sides in those cases was cons(>- 
 qufMitly furnifiluHl to the court in tho 
 appeal ease. Is it Mr. Laurier's opin- 
 ion that thore sliouid have lieen 
 
 further enquiry OM to fact«? If hucIi 
 fiirthei eiKiulry nlmuhl have Ix-eti made 
 certainly the nicml>«rH of the court 
 Were the prop<!r pei-BoiiH before whom 
 to have it made. At leant it was the 
 Itody to which parll.iment liad dlnn-t- 
 ed tlie government to tefer quewtlons 
 of fact UN well OM of law. If there 
 were not wufflcleut facts iHM'ore the 
 courts in th«> Barn'tt and Logan cjuseM 
 It ciuild easily have been arriuiged 
 tliat a fiirtlior enquiry nliould he had 
 In the appeal vimc. Parliament cou:<i 
 have so dlnK!ted had the necosslty for 
 It lM'<'>n suggested. Parliament was In 
 fact in s«.\sHion wlien the order-ln-coun- 
 cil of rebruary, IS'.i.'l, wa.- m.ide, dir- 
 ecting the reference. It was hr uiglit 
 duwi: to the hous4> and jirlnted, and 
 th< niatt<'^r was discus.sed in the coai- 
 imuis. No sugg«>Htlon was offered th.it 
 the tribunal shimhl make any further 
 enquiry. 
 
 Ti.e goveinmeui m.iUe a htaU'tnent 
 in tlie liouse in iei;iy to Mr. I.(aiirit'r 
 himself, and th ' trrder-ln-iounci. laid 
 before the hoii.se in Urniis declared, 
 tliat a .'peciai case, which, liowever, 
 was not iaid before the( house, was 
 to Ik' prepared for huhmlssioa to tho 
 court, and that the government of 
 .Manitoha. and ni.-o th' representative 
 of the majority, would be Invited to 
 confer with the federal authorities as 
 tt> the form of tlu- ease, and as to 
 the nature of the cpiestlons to U' sub- 
 mitted for the opinion of the judges. 
 
 Here surely was the opportunity for 
 any one desiring to suggest any par- 
 ticular matter for eniiujry. The evi- 
 dence In the Barrett and Logan eases 
 had just l>eeu laid before the house, so 
 that any member 1i:terest<'d could 
 ascertain how far the fa«'ts there dis- 
 closed covered the q;w'stions on which 
 he might desire to be informed. Tlie 
 government, jiavlng Invited sugges- 
 tions from the autlioritli's of Mani- 
 toba, a.s well as from conns '1 for the 
 Roman Catholics, as to the form and 
 extent of the eniiuirles to l)e made he- 
 fore the court, would surely have giv- 
 en consideration to any suggestions 
 offered in the commons. rartlcular- 
 ly might one expect th's seeing that 
 the suggestion to m.ake the reference 
 had come in the first Instance, not 
 from the government at aH, but from 
 the house It had come in fact from 
 Mr. Laurler's own predecessor In the 
 Liberal leadership. "Wlio can dmilit 
 that the government, which had so 
 readi'y and so thankfully adnptinl Mr. 
 Blakr'.s proposal for a reference and 
 his advice as to the s^opo of it, would 
 pay heed to any suggestions from Mr. 
 La'urior in the same direction ? At all 
 events no suggestions were made. 
 
 i 
 
>er referred to t e cS^n?' ^'- ^«"^' 
 P"j'l'c; schools of U?n?t /"" ^''''^ tl'e 
 
 redely Ueen con^'h, i^.'^l'^^J!-'^ ^'acl aT" 
 c.'isf;. One of n,r. • , '" t^'"' B^irrpft 
 «o«rt h,.S "dVc V !;f^.? r *'"^'^"i'r", e 
 
 Pp'^y counci; dPP r.?ft^?*- But the 
 
 complaint of tl,P "", '=""*^''"'.v The 
 n-Vfr resteS^H ':„"^^n"^it.y. however 
 school, under thp'!*:!-"""" t„,,t tl,. 
 
 ^Plf would not for .,,!.• ^""rior j,in,- 
 J" »« 8.-,id that tlwL """'"* -'fnoM-it 
 
 ." yn school. ^^Ve tnt>"'''^' ''^ *"^^r 
 
 Bui'' ^°* ^«^e «or;;^";': ^Y""^^--'"^ 
 
 But wp ;.rp told tin? t,^''' «3imcultv. 
 o^ Manitoba is . t.^ '.*'''■ «''^'V'^rn',.pn+ 
 ii;^ ■--ti.a."^. •''•^, the neeesJIt!;:; 
 !" *"P renr of tho Vr . '" '!•"'• tlr.it 
 
 geatea tlmt ",;,''"" "'-'I't It i, .t 
 
 & -^".? S° " W^^^^ 
 
 ^n<^ofnian]ri„di,ase;tair/t ,''^^'^- 
 
 f«'>ll-hed as- the 
 
 i.'4 
 
 J"•'fe'"^?nt*>'K^•i"^^^ the ";,^'^^;; But aj 
 
 »iateri,aj for r^n •', "" tliat t',e hp«t "^^^ '^ 
 'Jl>ta,:-ned." ^^"^'tleratlo-n ^vili i o' ^'^*' 
 Purely Ur Rim 
 
 tint fi '^«'«'>hitio,n if ^^. ^'t)iv 
 
 Aip njip-al caniu ,m J ^''' tJiev do so"' 
 
 V *'0'is. "^ '^*' t.) any clian-c^ 
 
 iuii and desiroiis ^/ u ,'^"' ^nvestip-i 
 
 '•" «on/j!re'i'„^^%P/-"Pt,y' taicS^^paT? 
 s'Ufffircfitf..^.. ^ ^'"i ease " and iiToF? * 
 
 ^'"ffgrestionp 
 
 as 
 
 '-*«»ww>:!fc««Si. 
 
;• «> tliat tho best 
 'titration nin i^ 
 
 <1 conn. iH^fore th e 
 
 ;J^nitoba ^J^Z 
 ^\ ''avo a f„i| 
 -nly tako advS: 
 
 ^> d tiloy do 8c> ? 
 
 ^.^°it wasdeter- 
 'T.'r«nc<; to the 
 
 ^<;;^nted on that 
 J^>ci,ued to at- 
 »face of the jiro- 
 
 1-in-coiincil, as T 
 ^'nedto ^.pfeia 
 n order in coun- 
 .2nd F,>bniarv 
 ■onco. The firit 
 
 ,*^iat .such a 
 "Pon. and the 
 ^^as invitfH] to 
 
 2.5 
 
 a.utlionties in 
 
 tJi 
 
 '«; case to ije 
 
 ;'ace in sf.nd. 
 
 I ^<'ll, two 
 ej^pons? came 
 
 on tlw. 22pd 
 ' govornnient 
 pase Avithout 
 A draft „/ 
 the form I 
 'i/'ct to re- 
 ^''oiiijrh Mr 
 F",^' ''ad so 
 
 the federa] 
 ""Mling t) 
 aiUtoha an- 
 i'o case was 
 o Winnii,t^ 
 ^y clianscs 
 
 fanitoba at 
 ^nvestiga- 
 g to make 
 If so we 
 aJfinir part 
 1" making 
 1^ enquiry 
 
 could, II need l)e, br made wider tlian 
 the Ottawa governiDient liad made it. 
 But again there was the same silence. 
 No response from Wianlpeg: and the 
 fedi'ral government had to put in the 
 case with no changes, except such as 
 may have been suggested on the part 
 of tlie minority. 
 
 Tlu" next step was the argument of 
 the case before tlie supreme court. 
 'Pliere at all events we are sure to 
 find the government of Mnnitol>a rep- 
 resented by the most able counsel 
 that could be procurpd. Mr. Green- 
 way and his colleagues, and especial- 
 ly the P.olloague wlio had so lionrtily 
 applauded Mr. Blake in his utterance 
 of 1800, could not fail to appreoiato 
 the nece.«sity of presenting "the oppc 
 sing arguments of the pa''ties l>efi)re 
 tJie tribunal," as Mr. Blake put it. 
 They fully agreed no doubt with Mr. 
 Binko tiiat "tlr^ opposin?!- views" 
 ought to "be stated, presented and 
 sifted, in public and in the presence of 
 the parties, so tliat the l>est material 
 for consideration will b? obtained." 
 And yet when the case came up for 
 argument in tin suprnnr^ cnu"t. Mar- 
 itoba was again tinrepresented. A 
 member of the bar did indeed appear 
 before the Judges, but only' to sny 
 that tlie province declined to take 
 part in the case. Having regard to 
 the importance of the question, how^- 
 ever, and to the iinipossibility of con- 
 sidorintr It satisfactorily without ar- 
 gum^'nt. th" court npp )int"d a most 
 dii-tinsruished member of the bar t> 
 plead Manitoba's cause at the ex- 
 pense of the Dominion. Thereupon, 
 according to my recollection— and as 
 to this T speak only fronii moniory — 
 the agent who appeared for the 7)rov- 
 ince raised an ol>.iecition even to this 
 means boilng adopted to have the case 
 argued At all ov-^nts Manitoba re- 
 mained outside of the bar. 
 
 The government of Manitoba hnving 
 thus persistently declined to assist in 
 tl:e consideration of the case present- 
 ed to the court, or to tiike part in 
 the argument of it at Ottawa, the 
 federal government appear to have 
 determined on one more effort to get 
 the provincial autliorities to enquire 
 into the matter. Accordingly the 
 message of July. 1894, to, Avliich I 
 have referred In previous letters, was 
 transmitted, urtring that tli" legisla.- 
 ture of "ManitolKi .>~hoiild its-'lf en- 
 quire into and consider the complaints, 
 and the question of redress; and a 
 memorial setting forth the complaint 
 was transmitted with th^^ message. 
 "What was the r.'ply of the ^fanitoba 
 government to tlins proposal ? The 
 legislature, as T liave shown, never 
 
 saw thiM message, but in Oct-«>ber, 
 1894, the government itself made a 
 reply, and 1 quote from it the follow- 
 ing : 
 
 "Tiie questions which are raised 
 have bfen tlie subject of most volu- 
 minous discussion in the legislature of 
 Manitoba during the past four years, 
 all of the statements made in the 
 memorial and many others liave been 
 repeatedly made to, and consddered by 
 the legislature.'' 
 
 In other words the reply says in 
 effect : "There iis no use in further 
 enquiry or consideration in the mat- 
 ter, it has been fully enquired into 
 and considered for four years 'and 
 thor" is notlnnir more to be said." And 
 this Ife the govctiinent that now calls 
 for an investigation, and protests 
 tiiat a full inquiry should be made 
 before invoking the pf)wers of parli- 
 ament. 
 
 Is not this whole suggestion of nn 
 enquiry, in so far at least as it conies 
 from Manitoba, a mere subterfuge? 
 Every opportunity for an enquiry in 
 a manner tliat commended itself, at 
 tlie time, to all parties, has lM^>n af- 
 forded. Every proposal that Manito- 
 ba should assist in that enquiry was 
 rejected; every obstacle was placed in 
 the way of its lieing made as full and 
 complete as possible A '"iendlv r''- 
 quest that the legislature of Manito- 
 ba should enquire inderiendentlv into 
 the whole nmtter was met with the 
 curt reply that it hiad already lieen 
 doing so for yenrs. And now, at the 
 last moment, after all the«e events 
 have happened, the idea of ^fanitoba 
 nosing as the party that is so anx- 
 ious for on enquiry, and sfi desiro-is 
 of nssisting in it. is most absurd. 
 
 Tjooklng ht these events, T am 
 equvllv unable to see anv justifica- 
 tion for Mr. li'iurier's charnre that en- 
 quirv into the frets ]\;\< hitlinr^-d lK>en 
 neglected nt Ottawa, Ar fi)r his eon- 
 tentinn th.-^t an investigatif>n is now 
 required. An'i T .'tm Tiot surorised 
 thn t, ^f^. niiitcn ^JX' Tarthv, at 
 Orantreville the otiier daA', felt called 
 on to dcl^re that thore was Tiot a 
 shred of Justificition for a commis- 
 sion oT enquiry. 
 
 JAAfT:« FTSTTER. 
 
 Winnipeg, Dec. 0, }Run. 
 
 To the Eilitor of the Free Press. 
 
 Sir,— There are some features of 
 the Manitoba .school question some- 
 vvhat distinct from th'ise which I dis- 
 cussed In my recent letters upon 
 which I now propose with your leave 
 to f.'ffer some observations. 
 
w 
 
 2H 
 
 The question is constantly being 
 aslted— and inucli (lifiCusBioin lias tak- 
 en place upon it— how far tlie judg- 
 ment of the privy council imposes a 
 duty on the federal government and 
 parlliinient to intervene, for the pur- 
 pose of giving reidresH to the minor- 
 ity. Admitting ail tliat, the decision 
 of the court iauplies— tliiat the minor- 
 ity are aggrieved by the present law; 
 that they liave been depiuved thereby 
 of rights which they fornieriy en- 
 joyed; that the C;»n-titutif)u coiit;iin> 
 provoKions whicli were emlxjdied in, it 
 for the express purp :>se of protecting 
 them in ' the enjoyment of tliose 
 rights; tliat thiw jipiieul is bung pro- 
 secuted under the terms of thos' pro- 
 visions; that tlie rights of the minor- 
 ity to mulje till' appeal thereunder lias 
 been upheld; that the court lias found 
 the facts ostulMfehed In this case to 
 t>e such as justify a claim for redress; 
 that the federal government liad au- 
 thority to pass a remedial order, mk 
 a formal and necessary process, lead- 
 ing to intervention by parliament, and 
 tiiat parliament is exi)ros8ly em- 
 powered to grant redress : Adimitting 
 all these prop isiLtians, tlie (luestiou is 
 asked whether, even then, tlie authori^ 
 ties at Ottawa are called uprin to in- 
 tervene, or would be ju-tiifl+'d in do- 
 ing so. Is it not after all a question 
 of public policy, to b? d cided by gov- 
 ernm"nt, whether or not it will ask 
 parliament to pass rMuedlal legisla- 
 tion ? Is it not still discretionary 
 with tlie government to advise for or 
 ngainst relief ? Is It not still open 
 to parliament to refuse redress ? 
 
 Then, If the answers to thcs(> ques- 
 tions ho in thr^ affirmative, ought not 
 the federal authorities it is urged to 
 refuse relief? Can there 1>r any jus- 
 tification indeed for interventi<m ? The 
 great majority in Manitnl)a prefer the 
 present law. Why then should the 
 Dominion powers intervene to ciiange 
 that law, against the wisliea of the 
 great majority Ln the province? Will 
 not such action on i.helr part be an 
 unwarranted invasion of provincial 
 rig!;ts? Does not the recognized 
 doctrine of provincial autonomy— the 
 central doctrine, it may be said, of 
 tlie union scheme— al>solutely forl)id 
 It? 
 
 These are considerations that are 
 seriously troubling a large section of 
 the Canadian poimlatlon. The Tor- 
 onto Globe has tak >n very hl'.rh srrounti 
 on this point, declaring in the most 
 emphatic terms that Domini 'u inter- 
 vention would "wantonly violate the 
 rlglits of the provlnc -s," and that 
 it is " preposterous " ' to 
 
 assume that the Dominion 
 
 government is at all "bound" by tlie 
 Judgment of the court to give relief. 
 A great many otlu?r influential papers 
 and man.v pulpit and platform speak- 
 ers tak!" til/' saiw position. Tiiey are 
 unable to understand how the Domin- 
 ion iiariiament, with a due regard to 
 provincial rights, can assume to im- 
 |)os/e a law on Manitoba airain-t the 
 will of its people, and tint upon a 
 subject mattf'r which Is ])rimarlly 
 within the excluisive juri-dictiim of its 
 ovm legi-^latTire. T.iey fini it di ficult 
 to square federal intervention, in such 
 a matter and in such a manner, with 
 the <'S entlTil doctrine of provincia! au- 
 tonomy. 
 
 To su-tain thi-; po i'.if)n extracts are 
 quoted from remarks made by tlu' 
 judges of till' English court in th*" 
 coiir.-e oi' till- argument o' th ' app al— 
 remarks wlnicli suggest in rffcct that 
 whateve^r the judgnwut of the court 
 might b'^, it mu t stil remal.i op i)nal 
 with the Dominion government «'itlier 
 to grant or refuse relief. 
 
 1 admit at once, without any qual- 
 ification, that i-.arlianient is not {ii>- 
 solutely "bound"' to give relief, or to 
 give an.v effect whatever, to the de- 
 cision of tliiO court. Tiie reniaik of 
 Lord Watson that his opinion can- 
 not "reliev«! the governor-general in 
 council of the duty of con>ideiing how 
 far he ought to int^riere." The sugges- 
 tion of the same judge that 'what is 
 given to tlw governor is a discretion 
 to do what he thinks fit on appeal," 
 and the statement of Lord MacN.iugh- 
 ton that th.' 'Dominion jia: liaiuen'., 1 
 sui po e, are no' bnu d t ) iuie fe e,may 
 all be acceptt>d aw good law, though 
 the.v formed no part of the judgment 
 of the court. Nor can Mr. Blake's 
 statement that according to the 
 Stat it • cr.ati/ng th.^ tribu a"., 'i i th i • 
 [lolitical capacity the DoininicHi gov- 
 ernment are not bound by th:> advice" 
 of t!:at tribiina; b' di putel, a-; lu> wa 
 simply stating a fact that any one 
 can verify on reference to the stat- 
 ute. 
 
 These proiiositions l)eyond question 
 are all trut-. But then nobody, so far 
 as I know, ever sacd to tlu^ contrary. 
 When Mr. Blake Introduced his reso- 
 lution of 1890 in i>arlianient Sir John 
 MaiCdonald took pjiiiis to have It ex- 
 pres ly declared that i i n > way shoiil i 
 the Ojilnion of the judges rc^lieve the 
 mini^sters of the crown of their duty 
 to dici<le tlij' (iU'-stion on th 1. 
 own reel on:i; i i.y as mini ters 
 Under our 6yst4Mn of gcjvernment it 
 vould l)t> a fatal mistake to permit 
 niinistf:>rs to be reiieved of the duty 
 and reepousibility of settling import- 
 and (pustiont? of policy by taking the 
 opinion' of a cour'.. Sir John Thomp- 
 
 fioii tool 
 
 from it| 
 
 Bo^\eU 
 
 tiling. 
 
 deed >re| 
 
 ineut, 
 
 cannot 
 
 ely "I'J 
 m'Mit iH 
 bu;,al 
 the ref| 
 uiiiii«t<. 
 event cl 
 In tlK' 
 ^^h^tll^ 
 what 
 If tho 
 gponsil 
 It'giK'.al 
 
 prcpiif 
 grouiK 
 
 D) 
 
 in thii 
 light 
 mand 
 In esee 
 tloti. 
 tor, t 
 led tu 
 clautft 
 clreur 
 ref^MT 
 thr('<' 
 think 
 ten o 
 Bef' 
 Ippe 
 Komi 
 Ciiicb 
 teste 
 arat 
 <scho 
 Scot 
 ed V 
 for 
 a' in 
 iti(;i 
 wer 
 
 «ys' 
 
 hai 
 
 su.' 
 
 t«»r 
 
 in 
 
 de< 
 
 fill 
 
 sa 
 
 liii 
 
 th 
 
 at 
 \\ 
 ti 
 \\ 
 
"bound" by tlio 
 ■' to give relief, 
 ntliientlal papt^re 
 platform speak- 
 mlon. Thev aro 
 how t'le DomJn- 
 " tluo regard to 
 
 n.sfiiime to ini- 
 >>a aL-ain^t tk,. 
 Ki tirit upon a 
 '" 1^ priniarliT 
 ui;i-dicti„n of it. 
 finl it di ficnit 
 •ventioii, in sucii 
 «i manner, witli 
 " Proviacia! au- 
 
 ion extracts are 
 made by tHo 
 court in the 
 o- til- ajip ai— 
 t in effoci tliat 
 ^t of tlie court 
 lenmin op i')nal 
 einnzent either 
 
 iiout anv qual- 
 I'-nt is not al> 
 \t' i-elief, or to 
 ^•er, to tlie tle- 
 "'K' remark of 
 "Pitiion can- 
 lor-general in 
 f)n>ideiin:;- liow 
 '."' Tlie.sugges- 
 that 'wliat is 
 l\ ^1 tli^cretion 
 lit on ai)peal," 
 >id MacN,iuj;i'i- 
 pa.iiaiuenr, j 
 iiue fe e,may 
 i law, tliougii 
 the judgment 
 ,.AIi-. Blake's 
 "Jug' to the 
 u a;, 'i 1 th i • 
 dominion gov- 
 y til;:' advice" 
 tel, as lu) wa 
 that any one 
 w the Mtat- 
 
 oiid questiou 
 
 ')l>ody, HO f.ir 
 
 ;1k' contrary. 
 
 -od ids reso- 
 
 ''nt Sir John 
 Imve it ex- 
 
 ' \\"ay slioul I 
 relieve tlie 
 
 f tlieir dutv 
 
 I on til l' 
 mini ters 
 
 oriuuent it 
 
 (^ to perndt 
 
 >/ the duty 
 
 •'!«• import- 
 taking tlie 
 
 oliii Tliomp. 
 
 aoii took exactly tlie name ground 
 from ,tho Jt>L'gLiiiiMUg. Sir Mackenzie 
 Boweli has p.uliily ;said ^tlie &ame 
 tiling. Tlie responsibility does in- 
 deed xesst on the Dominion govern- 
 ment, and from that re«i>oiisibiiity it 
 cannot Ik> relieved. It 1*5 not absolut- 
 ely "licund'' any more than pa.rlln- 
 niMit i.s, tj take the advice of the tri- 
 bui.a; to which the law authorizee 
 the reference; on the contrary, the 
 mliii*ste^rs land parliament (in the 
 event of its reaching that body, mast 
 In tlK' end decide for theinselveSi first 
 whether «aiiy relief at all, (and next 
 what relief, if any, shall be given. And 
 If the government shall take the re- 
 epon>;ibility of introducing remedial 
 legislation into par lament it nmst be 
 prepared to justify its action on 
 grouiKls of public policy. 
 
 D ) the factvS and clrcum.stance.s then 
 in thiws particular ca«e, viewed in the 
 light of the judgment of tlie court, de- 
 mand or justify federal intervention? 
 In tiei>kiiig for an answer to this (lues- 
 tion, it may be idustructive, Mr. Edi- 
 tor, to HH-'all tlie circumstances w liich 
 led to til-' engrafting oT the appeal 
 c!au.ses up )ii the constitution. The.se 
 circumstances have occasionally been 
 referred to w ithlii the past two or 
 three years, but I am inclined to 
 think they havi- been larsjcoly forgot- 
 te^i! or overlooked. 
 
 Before confederation Oiit;iri(j (then 
 tpper Canada) had a system of 
 Iloman Catholic separate schools; in 
 (2a<4>ec (tlien Low«u' Canaih' the Pro- 
 testants had also a syst<Mn of sep- 
 arate — lusually called , disseiitient — 
 schools. In Ni'W Brunswick and Nova 
 Scotia public scliools system,s obtain- 
 ed which in terms made no provision 
 for separate schools, though in the 
 administrati<m of th<^ law tlu^ author- 
 ities gave public aid to schools tliat 
 wer.' pi'aetically Konia:i C.itiio'.ic. 'I'lie 
 system of .separate .schools in Ontario 
 had IxKMi estal>lished as the re- 
 sult of a l)itter agitation, and coun- 
 t<-r agitation, that h.ld the proviuce 
 in a flani'' of paw-ion for a w hol(> 
 decade. But w lien the act of ]8G;{, 
 filially conceding a system that gave 
 satLfaction to Roman Catholics, cam(> 
 Into operation, it was accepted by 
 the I'roteetant majority and found to 
 w (jrk so wil! in practice that to-day, 
 after an experience of thirty years, 
 w<' Jiave the strongest assurance 
 that the I'rotcstaMt jieop'e of Ontari<i 
 would not change it if tlu'y could. 
 
 That was the position In Ontario 
 when the representatives of all the 
 prr>vitices met In conference, in 1864, 
 to formulate a sclieme of union, and 
 to frani' the draft of a constitutiou 
 for jt. Alt parties wer^ then satis- 
 
 fied with tlie poaitlon of the law iu 
 tliat pr ivi:ice respecting schools, and 
 as we will preseditly see provb.iou w:ia 
 made for perpetuating It. 
 
 In (Quebec, th.' situation was some- 
 what dif/ereiit. W lii e th<! I'roteslaat 
 minority of that provi;;c;' liad their 
 separate schools, the existing law was 
 far from satii-factory to tliem. But 
 a great r difficulty presented itself to 
 tlie I'rotestants of (2uebec when the 
 .scheme 01 union was mooted. Edu- 
 cation was one of the sul>jects pro- 
 posed to b:." relegated to the jurisdic- 
 tion ot th." provincial Icyll ituro's. The 
 system of the nmjority in Lower 
 Canada wa.s a denominational one— 
 a Catholic system pun' and simple. If 
 the union wa.s to bj created, with the 
 educational laws und t the control of 
 the local legislatures, tlie I'rotestants 
 of QuelH'C would be at the mercy of 
 the French Catholic majority, while 
 the official provincial school system 
 \v(nik'. be— not, as in Ontario, a pub- 
 lic one, l>ut— wholly Roman Catholic. 
 To tlie I'rotestant minority the situa- 
 ti<jn was most alarming, and from 
 every section of Jhe province, cou- 
 taiiiinj; a rrot:.'stant population, a 
 cry arose against cons;'nting to the 
 proposed union, unless satisfactory 
 tjuarantees were giv<'n for tlie pro- 
 tection of tlrdr rights. 
 
 It will be npparrni; from what I 
 liave said that there were two phases 
 of the question that affected tliem. 
 IMrst ther;' was the preservation of 
 the rights they enjoyed under the 
 law then in force. Those rights. It 
 wa.s felt, would not b> safe in the 
 hands of the legislature of Quel)ec. 
 Phi.- point was settl-d vvithout dif- 
 ficulty. The delegates from all the 
 l)rovinces at once agreed to in.sert a 
 clause in the constitution, limiting 
 tlie power of the provincial legisla- 
 tures, so that th'>y cou'd not pass any 
 law prejudicially affecting rights In 
 resp"ct of denomnnationai schools ex- 
 i.'-tina,- at the union. This wou'd pro- 
 tect thi' I'rote-tant minority of Que- 
 Ih>c, and the Cath'oMc minority of Ont- 
 ario in the privileges they then en- 
 joyed. 
 
 Here was indeed a st;irtling de- 
 parture from the doctrine of provin- 
 cial autonomy that wa~ to ]»e such a 
 marked characteristic of the union 
 hChem'^. In local matters 
 
 generally the legislatures of pro- 
 vinces were to have absolute jurisdic- 
 tion. But in education, thougli it 
 was treated as a local matter, the 
 jurisdiction wliih' primarily exclusive, 
 was In fact limited, so that th > legis- 
 lature ccmid pass no law whileji dis- 
 regard d tlie right- of the Pr itestant 
 
•28 
 
 or Kuniau CatlioLic imiiority iu any 
 province where denominational HChoole 
 then exiHted. l^roviacial autonomy, 
 In the senjse in which it,' was recog- 
 nized in regard to other local ques- 
 tiouiJ, certainly was not regarded at 
 all In resp'ct 'to education. There 
 was no difficulty, I say, inl settling 
 the question as to the protection of 
 rights then enjoyed. The resolutions 
 adopted by the Intercolonial confer- 
 enci'K included the restrictive clause I 
 have m-^ntioned. and the parliament of 
 Canada promptly ratified it, notwith- 
 standing that it involved so great a 
 wiiTond r of the tlieory of provincial 
 autonomy. 
 
 The otlivr question, liow- 
 
 ever— one tliat was of interest to 
 the I'rotetitaiits of Quebec alcme — wati 
 destiiieil t<j he attended with no 
 littlc^ difficulty before it reached a 
 solution. The .safeguarding of tJie 
 existitig rights of Quert>ec I'rotestantst 
 ^^a<s a boon so far as it wont, but 
 it by no mcaiiK met the demands. The 
 privileges they enjoyed in respect of 
 their Keparats *«c.hools under the ex- 
 i«tiug laws were, asj I have said, 
 w holly un*;atisfactory. Such aM they 
 were thew privileges had l)een grant- 
 ed by a parliament in ■^^ hich I'rotes- 
 tant.s \\('re in a large majority; and 
 even from such a parliament they had 
 been I'or yoars demanding, and de- 
 manding in vain, a iK^tter law that 
 would plape the i'rotestant separate 
 schools on a proiXM' footing. Bu«. 
 now their etlucational intere*»t6 were 
 to l>i> placed under tlie control of a 
 French Catholic legislature. How Avere 
 thoy to secure from s^icii a legisla* 
 tur<» the larger rightK that they had 
 BO long demanded in vain, even from 
 a parliament controlled l)y Trotost- 
 ants? And if once obtained how 
 wore th(KS3 rights to Ix? protected 
 from violation by that legi« ature in 
 the future ? The position, as J have 
 said, was a critical one., and the 
 cry that res )UiKleti throughout Que- 
 i)ec found voice in the old Canadian 
 parliament, when the confederation 
 scheiae came to l)e discussed in ISOo. 
 The Protestant;^ of Quet)ec were at 
 that timo r<''pr?fiented l>y men of 
 greab distinction in public life. Sir 
 jolm RcKse, Sir Alexander Gait, L. H. 
 Holtoii, Chriistopher Diinkln and Sena- 
 tor 8atd)orn were amongst the num- 
 ber. Sir Alex. Gait was a memljer of 
 tlie government that introduced tlie 
 scheme. In ISOi at a public meetinp; 
 ill Oils provinc:', he liad aniioainced 
 that the government would, l)efore 
 the union took place, introduce and 
 pass through the old parliament, aii 
 act granting to tlie I'rotestants of 
 the province tlie reforms tliey de- 
 
 manded. Tlie oliject in having the 
 law perfected bf?fore the union was 
 as Mr. Laurlcr well expressed it, "be- 
 fore tlie scheme of confederation came 
 into oiieration to perfect the laws 
 w itli regard to s<>parate schools so 
 that the I'r.jtcstant majority would 
 be lieyond the caprice or ill will of the 
 local legislature." Beciiuse of the 
 limitation of its powers the legisla- 
 ture would never deprive them of 
 the powers them to lx> secured. 
 
 When parliament met in 18(li5 the 
 government was called upon tt> nmke 
 good tlie promise. Delay taking place 
 ill doing so, fe<'ling waxed hot on 
 tlie question. Mr. Holt(m, one of 
 tlie Lilx'ral leaders of Quel)ec, speak- 
 ing of tlie changes in .the system of 
 government, that were contemplated 
 in the union, said that "amongst the 
 I'rotestant population of Lower 
 Canada there was no feature of the 
 proposed changes which excited so 
 much alarm as tliis (lU'-stion.'' The 
 government was repeatedly pressed 
 to introduce the promised legislation 
 and repeatedly gave the assurance 
 that it would. Owing to oc- 
 currences that need not lie 
 now explakieil, it was found impos- 
 sible to do so, and the session closed 
 with the gnvernm;'nts und<'rtaking un- 
 fulfilled. Another session was to l>o 
 held, however, before the union would 
 be consumated; and (mce more tlie 
 government undertoolj that the pro- 
 niiwed amendments would, during the 
 following session. 1m> ])laced on the 
 statnt" book. The session of 1866 
 cam? and the law was introduced. B>- 
 fjius'S of occurrences agairu, th<at I 
 need not detail, the measure had to he 
 withdrawn, and the last opportunity 
 to grant the increased privilege- de- 
 mandel by tlie T'rote-t.int minority, 
 before entering tlie union, had gone. 
 
 The situation had now ix^come so 
 critical that Sir -Mex. Gait, having 
 failed to get juistice for tho I'rotes- 
 tants of mIk jn'ovince, and to place 
 their rights iH'Vfmd the pow<'r of the 
 provincial legislature to Jake away, 
 sent in his re.'^ignation as a minister. 
 Sir John Macdonald, fearful lest thp 
 agitation would block the scheme of 
 union, pleaded with the Protestants 
 of Quel>ec to tru<t to the fair minded- 
 ness of the Fii-encli Catholic majority 
 in their own legisiatiire to do them 
 justice. "The niinority in each sec- 
 tion," said he, "would have to tlirow 
 themselves on tin' justice and genero-;- 
 ity of the majority.'* But Sir John's 
 assurances failed to assure. TlieQuo- 
 l>ec Protestants were not satisfied to 
 trust tli,eir privileges to the protec- 
 tion of a Catholic legislature. As Mr. 
 Laurier again stated it; "The Pro- 
 
 Ci 
 
 di, 
 
 av 
 
 mi 
 ab 
 
20 
 
 te.stant niliiority of Quolx^c would not 
 be Kativfied witli that, but con- 
 tinued tlio agitation, In order to ol>- 
 tain somothing more sul>stantlal than 
 the g< ni rc'siity of ih; Ir lellow-country- 
 uien in th4- legislature." Sir Geo. Car- 
 tii>r, tlie FrencJi Conservative ehi< f, 
 cams tO' the n'.scuc^ witli a positive 
 pledge in tho name of his party, then 
 in the ascendant in tlie province, that 
 tlie l<'g:slature of (^uclx'c would it.s« It' 
 pass tlie law that tlie Protestants de- 
 manded. This pledge, .-^o far as it went, 
 was accepted by the I'rotastants. 
 The solemn pledi^e of a political Iviul- 
 er, g'iven in tlw? name of his party, 
 and acceiited in g( od faith by theieo- 
 ple to whom it was made, was in 
 thos* days considered l>inding, n:d it 
 was not doi'')tLHl that it would be 
 honorably fulfilled. 
 
 But, whien fulfilled, the I'rotestants 
 would be no «afer tlian before. Tlie 
 legislature that would pass tlie law 
 tliey demanded, could at any time 
 repeal or aiter tliat law, and take 
 awaj' thie riglits that were now to be 
 conferred. How were tlie Protestants 
 of Quebec to )k> protected in the en- 
 joym^'nt of tlx-we riglits for the fu- 
 ture? How could it l)e made sure 
 tliat they could never be taken away 
 \>y tlio legislature tiiat was to grant 
 them? Tlie difliculty, indeed, seemed 
 as far from esolution a.s ever. 
 
 Manifestly fclit^re wa.s no way of 
 satisfying the objections of tlie Pro- 
 testants of Quelxjc except by a furth- 
 er limJtatloin of tho jKiwer of the 
 [irovincial legislature. But could a 
 further violation of tlie great doc- 
 triine of jiroviucinl autonomy 1k' per- 
 mitted? By limiting the jw^ver of a 
 legislatui'e so that it could never 
 pa.s« a law prejudicially aff<H!ting sep- 
 arate schools existing at the union, 
 this central doctrine of provincial 
 rights lad, as regaids eilu- 
 cation at least, l)eeii alnady 
 disfigured almost lK\vond recog- 
 nition. If tlie power of the legisla- 
 tures was to be furtlier degraded by 
 limiting tlieir authority to r-peal, or 
 even to amenxl tlieir own laws in re- 
 spect to oducataiiin, then indeed that 
 dioctriae would !>■ muii'ated. so tliat 
 even the "fathers of couf('dr>ratlon'* 
 would not know it. All tliat ■•iiid 
 notlung short of it must bv< done, how- 
 ever, In order to satisfy tlie Protest- 
 ants of Queb;c. I'rovLacial autfuio- 
 my must never be allowed to stand as 
 against the maintenance of their 
 rlglits and privileges. .\nd wlio will 
 aver that the position tjiken by the 
 miinority of Quebec wa.s not a reason- 
 able one? 
 
 But how was it to be brought 
 about? Was it really possible, at this 
 
 stage, to HI cure the further limita- 
 tion of provinciai powers tliat the 
 ProtestaintK of Quebec demanded? If 
 anytlicng was to be done It must be 
 done (piickly. The delegO/tes of the 
 provinces were ev<»n then about to pro- 
 ceed to Kng'and to confer with the 
 innp:^'rial government to procure its 
 approval of the sc-h"nie, and to liave 
 an imperial act jiassMl creating the 
 union and defining its constitution, 
 in accordance with th- terms i.f the 
 resolutions. This would Indeed be 
 the last opportundty for .srcuring fur- 
 tlier limitation of provincial powers. 
 
 Tlie Quebec mdmorlty determined not 
 to lose the opportiuiiity and promptly 
 took action. A petition of the ".\s- 
 soccatlon of Protestant Teachers" in 
 tlie province wan forwarded to Tng- 
 land, nddre-fied 1 1 'Tier M st Fxee - 
 lent Maesty," settling forth In strong 
 teriius tlii' defects oi the then school 
 laws and the gii^vances that the Pr'^- 
 testant minority endured thereunder. 
 The petition .set forth that "Her Ma- 
 jesty's subjicts professLnu: the Protes- 
 tant faith" in tli" province were •'suh- 
 jected to serious disadvantages."' 
 Amongst tliese was "tlieir ii;il>i ity t. i 
 be taxed for the supp'irt of Ilonmn Pa- 
 tlinlic schoo's," a.nd "the dirficiilties 
 they experienced in establishinc: sep- 
 arate schools for thenifie'ves." It 
 statrd tliat the iaijury complained of 
 "hnd l>een the subject of frerpient com- 
 plaiint on tlie pnrt of the Protestant 
 p<^.pulatinn;" that it "had t"nd d to 
 discf)uragr the settlement '>f Protes- 
 tants in tlie province." that it " Ind 
 causrd many fami'lf'R to 'eave the 
 country." and yet that "no r^ni'^dr 
 'tan li-th"vto been cran^eil bv the !ir>cr- 
 ii^'ature" itli" od pnrMnm"n+). 
 
 The petitioners went on to rifer to 
 tlio proposed union of the provinces, 
 and declared that "under tlie i-on-^ti- 
 tutiron ... by which it was pro- 
 posed tliat cducatiion shou'd b-^ under 
 the control of the 'ocal legiwlri tares, 
 the Protestants of Lower Can-ida 
 became alarmed." They further re- 
 jiresented tli.it in order "to allay the 
 feeling thus genevaiiv rxi- ting, solemn 
 jiledges wvre ni;id' by members of *lie 
 trovfrnment ti at the pri'vanceg • ho Id 
 be redressed b<>fore confederation."' 
 Solemn plednes were tlioiigiit to mean 
 sonrethiimr in those days). Tlie p^'ti- 
 tioners drew ITer 'Maje>ty's attention 
 to tlie fnct tiiat a measure int!-oduce«l 
 into iiarlifimont to j.ive them redress 
 had been withdrawn, ''and unless pro- 
 visions to till- end can be introduced 
 into the Imperial .\ct of Confedera- 
 t'on, your menioi."U t- fear thatthe'r 
 eduicational rights will 1k' left to the 
 control rif the majority in the local 
 
30 
 
 legislatures, without uny guarantee 
 whatever." They therefore prayed 
 the Queen of England to make "pro- 
 vlision for tlie jirot^'Ctlon of tlie educa- 
 tional iTitprewts of l'rote«ta,nts," and 
 for "tlie introduction of proper and 
 just snfeKunrds i;nto tlie Imperial Act 
 of ConfedoraUion." 
 
 TiLiiS i)etition was for^ arded to Bri- 
 tiiin tlirougli the governor-general, 
 witli a rcquepit to tlie colonial secre- 
 tary that it "be laid at tlie foot of 
 tlie" tlirone." Tromptly a leply came 
 ♦stating tjiat it had been so ^lid, and 
 would "receii^e full consideration." A 
 copy of tlic petition was at the same 
 time semt to Kir Geo. Cartler, tlie 
 French CathoUc chief, accompanied by 
 a letter from the secretary of the 
 Protestant Teacliers' a.ssociation, af- 
 firming tliat tlie (jbjects sought by 
 them were "regarded as of the most 
 vital imr.ortan03 by the Protestaoit 
 population of Lower Canada," and 
 cravimg Sir George's su])port. 
 
 The delegates met in London short- 
 ly after tliii« petition wa.s for^v arded. 
 Amongst others Sir Alex. Gait, who 
 had left the mimstry becau«e he fail- 
 ed to get juistice for his co-religion- 
 ists, wa.s asked to be one of tliem. 
 Without an assurance, however, that 
 liis deamnds would be met, and the 
 Protestants of Queliec protected for 
 the future, he d('Cj;iined to go. The .'le- 
 surance jiromptly came. A meeting of 
 tlie cabiriet wa.s held, and it was de- 
 ciided to give Sir Alexander a pledge 
 tliat the imterests of his p< ople would 
 be amply protected. The chief polit- 
 ical organ of the Protestants of Que- 
 bec triuniplia.ntly announced the 
 pledge, and Sir Alexander's acceptance 
 of the position. "We feel," said that 
 organ, "that our Protestant friends 
 may rest assured that the man who 
 resigned the honors and emoluments 
 of office will not bo wanting in his 
 trust as their representative, and 
 we hail with great satl-^fuctlon the 
 ajiproaching settlement of a (luestion 
 which might have been fraught with 
 so much danger to the cordial rela- 
 tions so happily subsisting between 
 peoples of uilfeTent races and creeds 
 in Canada." 
 
 In London the aelegates proceeded 
 to imsis on the draft constitution em- 
 bodied in the rewolutions of the Que- 
 bec conference. In the clauses deal- 
 ing with educatioin a remarkable 
 eliango was now made. It was an 
 aiiienjdment introduced by Sir AIix. 
 Gait for the protection of the Pro- 
 testants of Quebec. I quote tlie 
 nniendment: 
 
 "And in any province where a sys- 
 tem of separate school by -law ob- 
 tained, or where tlie local legisla- 
 
 ture may hereafter atlopt a. systenx 
 of separate schools, an appeal sihall 
 lie to tlie govfriior-general-lu-couiicil 
 from the acts of the local authori- 
 ties which may affect the riglits or 
 privilege« of the I'rotestaut or the 
 Uomaii Catholic minority 'n the mat- 
 ter of education. And tme general 
 parliament Bhall have pow ©r in the 
 last resort to legislate on the sub- 
 ject." 
 
 Among the interesting mementoes 
 of the dtecussloiiis of that day that 
 havo been publiished by Mr. Joseph 
 I'ope, the biographer of Sir John A. 
 Macdonald, is a facsiniilie of the draft 
 of this ameiidmeut, in the handwrit- 
 ing of Sir Alexander, w itli a nienior- 
 atidum. In the handwriting of Sir 
 John Macdonald, that, It received the 
 supp>irt of all the delegates — Upper 
 and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and 
 New Brunswick. 
 
 This is the clause that was after- 
 wards incorporated in diff<'i-ent lang- 
 uage, but to the same effect In the 
 Imperial act of union. it is true 
 tliat the act itself did not go quite 
 as far as the resolutioiis of the i'ro- 
 testant champion did. Sir Alexander 
 pr( /posed in general terms ^that the 
 federal parliament shou.d in the last 
 resort liave power to legislate on the 
 matter of education. That power 
 wa.s cut down In the imperial act so 
 tliac parliament could on.y pass legis- 
 lation of a remedial character, pur- 
 suant to a declaration of the federal 
 executive definimg wherein if at all 
 the rights of tue minority were in 
 the judgmejit of such executive affect- 
 ed, and also what measure of redress 
 seemed requisite, aed then only after 
 opportunity was given to the legis- 
 lature Itself to remedy the grievance. 
 And that Is how the i>rovislon came 
 to be put In the conetltutLon for an 
 appeal to the federal powers. The 
 only class amongst all the peoples 
 that were going into the proposed 
 union that demanded such a provis- 
 ion was the I'rotestant population of 
 Quebec. It was to procure such a 
 provision tliat theiir distinguished 
 champion, after resigning office as a 
 sacrifice to their cause, had gone to 
 England. This same provision is In 
 the Manitoba act, and it 
 is the provision under which 
 the present appeal is being pros- 
 ecu trd. Wab this provision of the 
 con.-titutJon intended to be an effec- 
 tive one for tlie protection of minor- 
 ities In respect to education?' It was 
 evidently Intended to bn effective for 
 the protection of the Protestants of 
 Quebec ait least. Illiiey did not go to 
 all that trouble to secure a provision 
 for an appeal to the federal powersd 
 
HI 
 
 egaintit a provincial majority, if tlio 
 will of tbe provlaelal ma- 
 jority must not, after all, 
 be oppoBcd. The particular .art 
 oi' the new CDnstitution tliat koi great- 
 ly "a'.armed" tlie I'rotestants of Que- 
 bec was that "by which it waw pro- 
 po.sfd that iducatLon should be under 
 the control of the local legl-laturos.'^ 
 So at loa*<t the provincial Associaiioix 
 of I'rote.stant Teachers earn( stly de- 
 clared in th ir memorial to the queen< 
 So f-aid also tbe rrpresentatlvcs o^ 
 the Protf.-tants in piuiiiiniPnt. The 
 alarm created by th* propysal to 
 place education uuder tlie entire con- 
 trol of tiif I'gL-liitiire sprend ovrr the 
 Protestant communities of the pro- 
 vince in a seething agitation, that re- 
 sulted in tho pledge of a politicaj lead- 
 er, in the name of his party, that the 
 French Catholdc legi^^lature of Que- 
 bec would conc'de what the Protes- 
 tants demand d, and in the placing in 
 the constitution of a clause mnkinj? 
 It sure that the pledge l>f>ing fu'filled 
 the larger rights granted by tlie leg- 
 islature could "never be talienaway." 
 Tliio po^ver of the legiislatum was cut 
 down 6o that its action was to b" no 
 longer final. It wa« left for parlia- 
 ment to see that justice w'as d' no. Tlie 
 rights of the Protestants of Quebec 
 were committed to parliament for 
 protection against th"> legislative acts 
 of their own Irgl^slatures— againat the 
 will of the majority in tlr ir own pro- 
 vince. Provincial autonomy, we are 
 told in these days, must be respected, 
 and parliament must not intervene in 
 a matter of ( dnoatl' nal 'aw to tinva't 
 the will of a provincial majority. But 
 when tlie rights of the Protestants 
 of Quebec were at stake the will of 
 the provincial majority was not to 
 prevail against tliem. Nay, the rea- 
 son for committing!: tli" eaiise of that 
 minority to the protection of the Fed- 
 eral po\vor was because protection 
 was needed against the privileges of 
 the Protestant m.lnorIty. 
 
 Such was the spiirtt and letter of the 
 constitution when It was framed for 
 the purpose of protecting the Protes- 
 tants of Quebec. Foe the protecfon of; 
 the minority in Manitoba there Is the 
 like provision — no more, no less. The 
 federal authorities must not coerce 
 Manitoba, we are told. And the prop- 
 osition is a good one, in which I heart- 
 ily concur. In the case of Manitoba 
 It is "coercion"— Is it? for the feder- 
 al authorities to entertain an appeal 
 specially provided for by the consti- 
 tution for the protection of a section 
 of Tier Majesty's subjects. But in the 
 case of Quebec, under a like measure, 
 it Is otherwise. The Inviolable doc- 
 
 trine of provincial autonomy munt 
 never l>e sacrificed In order to main- 
 tain the rights of the Manitoba mi- 
 nority, even by the exercise of a pow- 
 er expressly conferred on parlia-ment 
 for that purpose. But in the care of 
 Qucb'c that sacred doctrine must he 
 scattered to the four winds of heavon 
 rather tiinn that the minority should 
 have to submit to the will of the pro- 
 vincial majority. 
 
 Of course the federal power is not 
 to b(» exercised In any case unles-s 
 there are cogent reasons why It 
 should be Invoked. Upon the Domin- 
 ion executive the ponatltutlon cast 
 the responsibility of Inquiring into 
 and considering complaints undf^r this 
 clause, and of determining not (mly 
 wlirther an appeal is allowable, but 
 also whether under ^the particular 
 facts "any roliof Is due" to the 
 complainants. TJiifi Involves an Inquiry 
 into qiKstions of fact as well fus ques- 
 tions of law. Parliamont yoaTS ago, 
 in its wisdom, on the proposal of I\Ir. 
 Blake, d<'terrained that for such in- 
 quiry and consideration it was im- 
 portant to call In the aid of tho 
 judicial department of the govern- 
 ment. Parliament desired that no in- 
 justice bo done to a majority, but it 
 proposed at the same time that there 
 should be no failure to do full justice 
 to a complaining minority. To de- 
 termine whether relief ie really due 
 and ought to be given to the com- 
 plainants 'It was held that the whole 
 matt<^r — facts as well as law — should 
 be inquired Into and discussed, before 
 a judicial tribunal. In the presence of 
 the parties interested, and that the 
 rc^asoned opinion of the tribunali,after 
 full argument on all sides, should hs 
 submitted to the executive. In order 
 to aid them In determining not simply 
 whether there was a right of appeal, 
 but whether any rel|lef was properly 
 due. 
 
 In the ManHtoba case this reference 
 has been made. The oi)5nlon of the 
 judges has bcien given. Not only is 
 there a right of appeal, but the facts 
 show that the minority have been 
 aggrieved by the law of 1890 In that 
 they have been deprived of valuable 
 privileges that they enjoyed by law 
 for nearly twenty years — privileges 
 In tho enjoyment of which the con- 
 stitution was intended to protect 
 them. 
 
 But parliament In directing this in- 
 quiry [by the pourts distinctly de- 
 clared that the opinion was to he 
 only "advisory." It was to be an 
 assistance to the federal government 
 and parliament In coming to a con- 
 clusion for themselves. The govern- 
 ment, liowever, Ie not bound by it. 
 
32 
 
 I'arHampTit, as well as tlip govorn- 
 mfiit, must on Its own rfspon^iWlity 
 and on gronnds that can be justified 
 to tlu> public, docide av hethor any rp- 
 ilef and what rellpf If any, is to be 
 given. But is not tlie govoTnmetit, 
 an<l IkS not parliament, to linve any 
 regard to tlie opinion of the eourt ? 
 Surely tliey are. It l« one tiling to 
 nay tliat parliament is not "l>ound" 
 by tlio opinion of tlie ^ court. It is 
 quite a different thing ^to say that 
 there iH no mora obligation to 
 give relief, in a pase in wliich the 
 court lias found that tliere is a grlea'- 
 ance, and that tlie cor.etitutionail act 
 is ^ a "parliamentary compact" liy 
 whlcli the crowii was pledge*! to pro- 
 tect tlie jminority against mich a 
 gri<'vance. Wiien the Imi)erial par- 
 liament on the petition of the Pro- 
 testants of Quebec to Her Majesty 
 put the provisions in the constitution 
 for their protection, it was 
 not intended as a mere form of 
 words. It was intended to lie a real 
 protection to them. And it must he 
 equally efficacious to protect a Cath- 
 olic minority. Of what u«e is the ap- 
 peal clause in tlue constitution f the 
 applicants who invoke its protection 
 are to 1m> met; with the ansA\er that 
 federal interference with the will of 
 the iiroA'incinl majority is inconsist- 
 ent with provincial autonomy, and 
 that relief m\ist therefore be denied? 
 The will of the majority was the very 
 thing that wan feared, as' lial)le to 
 do injustice. The Prote-tant'i nf Qur- 
 bec were unwjlling to trust them- 
 selves to tlie generosity of the major- 
 ity, and hience tlie federal protection 
 was extended to them against that 
 majority. Of what Uuse, I repeat, is 
 the pTot<Mition if it is not to be in- 
 voiced—if the will of the majority 
 must *;till prevail a,s an inviolable 
 riglit that muist not be orDo.sed? 
 
 rirarly Sir Alexander's nmindment 
 was niieant to l>e a real nroteetioo 
 against a real grievance. Tlije powers 
 conferred on the federal government 
 and parliamient w^ere useless unless 
 they were to lie acted upon. Tlie 
 Queen and her parliament did not 
 niean to put tlie QuelK'C menioila lists 
 off with an empty form of words, giv- 
 ing them a,n appearance ot a right 
 of a] peal while the reality was want- 
 ing. A clause granting in words a 
 right of appeal, and giving parlia- 
 ment power to re<lress, can Ih> of no 
 value unlevss the minority, when ag- 
 grieved, may invoke tlv^ie powers, and 
 imless tlie appellate body can exercise 
 them. Good words and kind wishes 
 are very nice, but in themselves they 
 sv.ll not support life. Tlie Protest- 
 ante of Quebec a>iked tlie Queen for 
 
 bread— slw; did not give tiiem a stone. 
 If .vou >ay to a destitute brother or 
 sister, "Be y^ warmed and filled; not- 
 witlLhtandlng if ye give them not 
 those things whicli are nernlful to the 
 body, what doth it profit/" So it 
 was writtcjn long ^ince for our ediiica- 
 tion. Tli2 lesson is as valuable to- 
 day as it was eiglit^HMi hundred years 
 ago. 
 
 Are we to apply one rule to the 
 caaiQ of the I'rotestaints in Quebec 
 and a different and contrary rule to 
 tlie Catholics of Manitoba? Tlie con- 
 stitutional provision is tlie same in 
 l>otli cases. Is there a rewson for in- 
 sisting tliaii in tlie one c;i.se the 
 lirovi-ion j-hnli be (fj^ciive, and In 
 the other non-effective — a dead letter? 
 
 I liave indicated tliat there is a ma- 
 terial difference in tlie character of 
 tiie scliools of the majority in the 
 two iirovinces. The .schooLs of the 
 majority in QuelxK? are avowedly 
 Roiuian Catholic .schools. Tho e of 
 tine majority in Manitoba profess to 
 l)e eutir. ly nndrnominational— abso- 
 lutely noiii-sectiiruan. Is this a cir- 
 cumstance that afftjcts the rights in 
 either case, or that siiould w\ igli with 
 the federal authorilies in ueciding 
 wiietlu'r or not rellnl is under all the 
 (tiirouiiKstances due to the Catholics 
 of tl.ii- irovlnci'? I siiali follow out 
 tlids enquiry in anotluT letter. 
 
 JAMES FISHER. 
 
 To tlie Etliior of the Fieo Press. 
 
 Sir,— in mj letter 1 think I made 
 it clear that the proviHliJU for an ap- 
 peal to parliament against provincial 
 educational laws was placed in the 
 coastitution so that it might be an 
 effective guarantee to the I'rotestants 
 of Quebi'C tliat privileges ouce granted 
 to tlieiu bj tlu' provincial legi>lature 
 in rcsptct to their separate scliools 
 would l>e protected against future at- 
 tacks by the 1< yislature. I showed 
 that exactly the same provisions were 
 eml)odi> d in the Manitoba con-titution 
 for the ^irotcction of tlie minority in 
 thi* province whether it might be 
 Protestant or Catholic. It is clear 
 as I have shown, that this provision 
 was to l>e effective for the protection 
 of Protestants. I now come to the 
 consideration of tho question wlietli- 
 er there Ls anything in the conditions 
 affecting the Manitoba minority which 
 would justify the application of a dif- 
 ferent rule Is it right under existing 
 circumstances that the protection of 
 parliament should be extended to the 
 one minority and refused in the case 
 of the other? At the first blush the 
 mere statement of the question would 
 appear to furnish its bwn answer. 
 
,s:? 
 
 i 
 
 Wlien we conwider tlie fuct tliat the 
 ame.dmont prepared by Sir A. Gait, 
 
 and luiaiiiiinously t'l'Dcucr -d in by lils 
 co-delct^ates made no dlHtlnetlon be- 
 twei'u Protestant and (*atli'illo min- 
 orities, but extended tlw protection of 
 tiic con<lItutiiin to tin- minorities of 
 Ivitli classes in precisely the same 
 terms It Is difflcnlt on llu- jfirst state- 
 ment of tlii> question, to conceive liow 
 a remedy that tmirht in justice to be 
 t'xt nded to fine class caii wltli justice 
 be withheld from the other. 
 
 Furtlicr consideration of tli«> ques- 
 tioTi, however, shous that it 1« not 
 »(> en.sy after all of solution. There 
 is no doubt that many of the most 
 earnest .■.nd niiost a^Kresivo oim^onents 
 of federal intervention in favor of tlu- 
 Roman Catholics of Manitoba would 
 justify— aye would demand prompt in- 
 tervention on iKihalf of the Protest- 
 ants of QnelM'C under I'ke circum- 
 stfinces. I d«'sire to lw> distinctly un- 
 derstood that T am not lH>re referring 
 to the iirot'<'ction of tin* Protest- 
 ants of (^ueV^'C in the ri^ht*^ they en- 
 joyed at the union. T am n'ferrlmr to 
 the case, tliat is quite possible of the 
 Quebec l<>Kisiature [lassinp; a law tak- 
 inir away i-ijfiit-; granted by that leg- 
 Isla.ture itself slncf^ the union. I re- 
 peat that the most prominent oppon- 
 ents of federal intervention in the pres- 
 ent issue would 1h^ t!ie first to demand 
 intervention under exactly the likecir- 
 IRum.stance-^ for the protection of the 
 I'rotcstants of QuelKHJ. And for their 
 justificatifvn in taking: these two ap- 
 parently irreconcilable po.^itiou-: they 
 give rea,8on« wliich are not only satis- 
 factory to themselves but are exceed- 
 incly jtlausiible. 
 
 I have already hinted at tlu- distinc- 
 tion tiny draw Iw^tweiMi the ca.se of 
 the on<- nuiiority and that of the 
 other. Tin system of the majority 
 in Manltol a, as stated by the law 
 that cr;'ate<-- it, Is a purely non-d«> 
 nominational one, and for the purpo.se 
 of thiiK di.-cusi<lfm I will concede that 
 it is so. The system of the majority 
 in Queitec oti the contrary is avowedly 
 one of Roman Catholic schools. To 
 compel tlw Roman Catholics of Mani- 
 tol>a to submit to a. system that is 
 in no sense denominational. l> one 
 tiring. To force upon the Prot- 
 estant mamorit^' of Quebec a 
 purely Roman Catholic system to com- 
 pel tiiem to ediicate their children in 
 and to pay their taxes to schools that 
 an' urul<T the control of a Roman Ca- 
 tholic iKxly i8 altogether another 
 thing. So argue the opponents of in- 
 tervention In Manitoba, who would 
 Justify remedial legislation in the pro- 
 vinc<» of Quebec. To them It seems 
 plAin that the abolition of separate 
 
 schooi.s in Manitoba, \a here the min- 
 ority can send their chihlren to an un- 
 dent minatlonai «chool with the pro- 
 t<'<'tinn of a conscience clause cannot 
 he reg{vr(h'd as a grle\ .nice comparable 
 with the wrong inlli<'te(l on the Pro- 
 t<>j^tants of Quebi'C, if forced to sub- 
 mit to i> system that would l)e prac- 
 tically under CatluMlc contril. Look- 
 ing at th<' queeth'U from a i'rotewt- 
 atit etandp lint it se'Mus impossible to 
 deny that there is re;il distinction l)e- 
 t\\«M'n the two cjus^-s lu tin* extent at 
 all events of the grievance. For my- 
 self I quite concede tlie distinction. 
 
 D'fv^ it follow, liowev.'r that the 
 constitution wliich was created for 
 the protectif>n of the Cathollesjequal- 
 !y with rrotrfitant>-, shall ix' matle ef- 
 !e<'tiv<' fi;r the protection of tlie latter 
 while It shall 1k' a dead letter In safe- 
 guarding the riulits of the former? Tf) 
 me it WMMUs that the conditions af- 
 t(>cting the Protestants of Qiieliec 
 rendering their dep<>ndence upon the 
 Frc'iich Catholic legi«:ature of the 
 provinc e so peculiarly irksome and 
 alarming a« to (kMuand prot<H'tIon by 
 the federal powers, are in themselves 
 th<' very circumstances that demand 
 the mi St faithful extensiim to Roman 
 Catholics of the same protection, 
 
 Wliat were the circumstances under 
 which the I'roti^tants of Quel)t>c .se- 
 cured the Intw-rtion of the provision 
 for appeal in the constitution? 
 In the old parliamc^ut of 
 
 Canada, though they were 
 
 a provincial minority they iiad a Pro- 
 testant majority to seeiirc them 
 against greivous wrongs. i:\(mi from 
 that parliament they could not ob- 
 tain full justice. Now their educa- 
 tion,! 1 interests were to be in the 
 liancL-i of a legislature eontroll(>d by 
 Frencii ('ath(!lics. "DviMi in the iiast 
 their tnilure t(» secure jiroper i»rovi- 
 sions for theii seiinr.ate seiiool.^ -had 
 tended to disco'irage the settlement of 
 Protestants in the province," and liad 
 actually "caused many families to 
 leave the country." resides that the.v 
 were "liable to be tax«'d for the suti- 
 port of R()!>Kin Catholic scliools; and 
 tliey had diffu-ulties in "est;ib!isliing 
 separate sch'>f>Is for tiienisc4ves." Fail- 
 ing to get redness from thr- Protest- 
 .•int parliament of Canada tliey had 
 accepted the (ironiise oT Sir George 
 Cartier that the legislature of Que- 
 bec would c<mcede all their demands 
 after the nnif)n. They willingl.v put 
 faith in the pledge rtf thr French lead- 
 er, but they were not willing to trust 
 to the generosity of the French legis- 
 lature in the future. And so they de- 
 manded and received tlie prritectlon of 
 the federal powers. To the Protes- 
 
34 
 
 tnnt!< (if c^iieVK'c, tliis was a (.'riielal 
 point. Tho protcctlcn tlu'y nMnilrrd 
 was (ibtainet) thrmi^li what tlio judffoM 
 of the priv.v council cail a "I'arllatiicn- 
 tary Compact;" tliat in to say, tlioy 
 seciirod tliat i)r<>tpcti()n for tiu'tnsolvcs 
 by conceding a lik<' nrotoction to Ko- 
 iiian ( atliolicH. It may l)f triio, and 
 In your Judgment and iiiino, ^Ir. Edi- 
 tor, it port.Minlv is tru<>. tli;it tiif ^i"- 
 <Mirinp of tills protection was more es- 
 sential for I'rotiMtnnts than for llo- 
 mnn Catliolics. But tlie very fact 
 tlint it wai- «o essentia 1 for tlio Pro- 
 testants of one province, was the mov- 
 ing c.'ivc^- for their MPrslstoncy 
 In securiiicr it, and fir 
 
 »"heir niiiklner the 1il;o con- 
 cessions tn Roman Catholics In order 
 to ,-('p)iri' It They sernr.Ml f(>r tliem- 
 wlvop the protection of privllecres that 
 wor'> most essential l)y cnncedinier to 
 Roman Catholics thp lik^ protrr ;loii 
 in prlvlIepTCP that were by so/me at 
 lea^^t doomed less essential. Are we 
 as Protostants to say that th" ricrhts 
 ■io csspntini to us shall be protected 
 to the full extent -that the onn'^tVtn- 
 tion provides and that such protection 
 shall bo denied In respect of the rij^hts 
 less oBsentlnl as we may deem them; 
 that wero secured for the Roman 
 Catholic minorities ? It was n hnr- 
 iraiin between Protestants and Catho- 
 Uos at tho timio of the union. "U'e 
 thl':k that It was far more esh -ntlal 
 to VIS that the bargrnli:' should be mad- 
 tha:: for them. If it to ho he la 
 sacred o- ly for our prot-^ction ? By 
 what code of political ethics ca"" we 
 refuse the Ronrn^^ CatholL'cs the snme 
 protectlo'' tliat wo demand for our- 
 selves nr.der the circumstances stated^ 
 
 So much as to our duty u dor thn 
 law aa It appeared li the statute 
 books. It is II terestinc: to go beyond 
 this a.^d to look at the Intentions of 
 the framerp of the co stitution in pro- 
 vidl g- the right of appeal. I will 
 show clearly that It was i"tended 
 from the b<^g1' ning to make the posi- 
 tion of Catholics and Protestants 
 We.- tlcal T have said that Sir Alex 
 Gait, the Protesta: :t champion of the 
 day, had been a member of the cab- 
 t'let which Introduced the union 
 arhom" T quoted from a speech of 
 his 1.1 1864 T quot'^ ncraln from the 
 'nm" address : "It w.as clear that 
 1" confldlntr th*^ genera' subject '^f edu- 
 catior to the local legislatures, it waa 
 Dece.s'sary It should be accompanied 
 with such restrictions as ■would pre- 
 vent Injustice in any respr>ct from Ix?- 
 ine: done to the mlnoiritv." 
 
 I call part'cular attention to tliefoi- 
 lowimr -words nttere<l in the same ad- 
 adrass : "Now this applied to 
 
 Liower ( anadn, but it u\»o 
 .'ilipLled and with, iMpial force 
 to Upper Canada and tiie other 
 provlutoB. For in Lower Canada 
 as tlieri' was a I*rote;ta.nt min- 
 ority and in the other provinrew thiTe 
 wa.H a Roman Catholic minority. The 
 8ame privileges belong to tin; one of 
 right here a.s l)olong«Ml to tiie other 
 of riglit Use whore." 
 
 Tlu'sp, Ih> it reniemlx?r<>d, are the 
 word> of tlif I'rotestant champion, 
 sj»okon officially as a memlM^r of tho 
 governnwut, speaking aliki- for the 
 government and for the I'rote-tantn 
 of Quel)ec .oh w^ell an of the w holt; of 
 Canad.'i, he dcH^'lariHl that the name 
 privileges tluat Ix'longed of right to 
 Protestants of (^ueU-c belonged equal- 
 ly of right to R(jman Cathoiic.s wliere 
 they Were in a minority ia other prov- 
 inces. Mr. Laurler speaking upon tliis 
 I)oiut in tin- Commons said: 'Mr. 
 Gait was one of th,- most r<Mnark.il>le 
 and broad minded men of his gentra- 
 tlon. Mr. Gait was too great a man 
 to introduce tlmt provision Into the 
 law simply foi- the .-^^K-urity oi' his own 
 people, ftiic I'rotestant minority of 
 (juel)L'C without at the same time .se- 
 curing like privilege.s to all the other 
 minorities of the other provinces." Ab- 
 solutely true, Mr. Laurier, and magni- 
 ficently spoken. Let it not 1m> forgot- 
 ten that Mr. Laurier said this in tlie 
 discussion of the Manitol>a scliool que-s- 
 tion. He piocetHlcd in tliii> same ad- 
 dress : "The intention of the delega- 
 tion to London wa.-. tJiat tlle^e guaran- 
 tees devised by Mr. Gait, it is true, 
 for tlie Proti-etant minority of Que- 
 bec Khould lx» extended to all mluori- 
 tieti a« well. • • Tlie iaw ha.s to 
 be construed in .a generous and lib- 
 eral spirit, and whattner i)rivileges 
 are guaraiite^ed to one minority iji a. 
 province, I claim iin the name oi jus- 
 tice and fairnf«.s for a.ll minorities in 
 all of the proviiicee. • * Manifest- 
 ly the intention wae that whenever a 
 law relating to education was passed 
 in a province wliich had enjoyed sep- 
 arate BCliools, ^^hich law the minority 
 deem oppreesiA-e, that mi lority sliould 
 have the right to come before the 
 Dominion gove^rnment — nay, l)efore the 
 Dominion parliament, aiul claim jus- 
 tice — claim to be protected from that 
 opprc^s.sion." So Mr. Lanrier argued, 
 and made it clear tliat the i)rotectioin 
 meant to be extended to the I'rotest- 
 ante of Quebec, must equally \ye ex- 
 tended to the Roman Catholics of 
 Mrnltoba. He went on to refer to tlie 
 larger rights respecting their separ- 
 ate Rchoo4s given to the l^rotestante 
 by the Quebec legislature. He sug- 
 gested the pofisiblilty of that legisla- 
 ture some day in the future passing a 
 
 r 
 
3o 
 
 the 
 plon, 
 the 
 tlie 
 ;ants 
 of 
 
 ^ 
 
 law taking' away soim* of th« rights 
 mj graiitcil. "If euch K'giHlutlori," 
 fcaitl Air. LaiiruT, "w«'rL> to Ik- <'iiact<,'il 
 by tho ligiwlatiire of QucUh;, i« there 
 a man to *say that it w uuUl not 1k> aa 
 liitajuou.s act oi tyrauny." SixNikliiig 
 of this iiowwlhllltj of an appeal l>y the 
 l'rott*itaiit ^niiiority to iiarlaincut, 
 Ik' ^ai'l■. "II luid r the circumHtaucea 
 a.i app»aJ were brought to thU) gov- 
 «'riiin<-iit 1.- thero a man la ths liuime 
 whu wou.d not eay at oacr> to the 
 govcrnmrut, it in your btjunden duty 
 at once to interlere and make away 
 ^^ith tlib< obnoxious and tyrauiii(*ai 
 W'^u-ljition." 
 
 it i*- true that Mr. l^aiiricr re- 
 («rrcil t) the . jcontentlou raised 
 i >om' <iuart Tfi tluit tho pul>lic 
 scliodlf oi Ma.-itolMV are roally I'rotes- 
 ta-t xchoolH He said that if this 
 were true It l.-ten«ifioJ tlin wrong, 
 ad lu' called upon the government to 
 i-qulre intt) the fact. I have shown 
 Jiowever tliat tlie que-tio.. whether 
 the .<cliool.« of Ma.-itoba were I'rotes- 
 ta..t or uot was not the real isBue. 
 Tlio prlviieges that tlie l'rot*'sta..t 
 a.-d Catholic mitutrities ruKpectively 
 were e -titled of right to preserve, as 
 Sir Alex. (Jalt put it, wire the privi- 
 leges' eceseary for maintaining their 
 tuvru separate schools. And wlii e tt is 
 trno that i-i the Barrett case the Eng- 
 lish judges Kald that the echools creat- 
 ed by the Ma..itoba law were not 
 Prote.«ta.-tt the same judges, in the 
 appeal case, held that by tlie act of 
 i8<»0 the CathoUcs of Ma. itoba are 
 ot only d..'Priv'.d or their own sehoi'B, 
 l)ut are compelled to mal-italn schools 
 "which they regard a.s 1:0 more suit- 
 able for the education of Catholic 
 children than if they were distinctly 
 Protesta_t In tlieir character." This 
 is to say, whether the public schools 
 of Ma-itoba can properly bi^ called 
 Protesta.-t or not Koman CathoMcs at 
 all events regard them quite as un- 
 suitable for the educatioi of their 
 childre.1 as Lf they were distinctly 
 Protestant It was because of this 
 fact that the Judges came to the cn-i- 
 clusioa that, "It does not eoem poss- 
 ible to .«ay that the rights a;:d privi- 
 leges of the Roma'i Chtholic minority 
 which exist'd prior to 1890 have not 
 been affected." 
 
 Apart from the fact that the pro- 
 visio:\ for appeal to Ottawa was put 
 Ij. the constitution at the instance, 
 a::d for the protection, of the Protes- 
 tants of Quebec, there is another m^ost 
 i'-terf^sting fact which should not be 
 lost sig^ht of. The Proteata.. t minority 
 of Quebec were the first to avail them- 
 selves of that provision and to appeal 
 to federal powers against provincial 
 
 legiNlatlon. About 1888 an act was 
 pas.-ed L»y the l<'gislature of Quelioe 
 agaln«t which the I'rotewtant minor- 
 ity proteati'd, iHH'-ause, a.s they con- 
 tended, it aff<'CU'd rLglit.s which they 
 enjoyed under the law.s piuswed by the 
 proNiiK'e since the union. A p<'titlon 
 aj)i)ealiuw lo <Jttawa wiih -ent In 
 signed by about 1,500 l'rote*itants of 
 the prnvlTH'i , ,'nul it wa.s nupported 
 strongly l>y tlw Protectants if On- 
 tario. Tilt iKiKitloiii then taken by 
 the suppirterj- of the petition, in Ixjth 
 provinces, was that tlu- right of aj)- 
 peal to ()ttu\\'a fo ■ reuK-illal 1 gisla- 
 tion nuKst be uph.'hl .'it all hazards. 
 The Kev. rrLncii>al Caven, of Toronto, 
 n(iw so lu'oniiiunt in condemning fed- 
 eral int4'rl'«M-«>i>ee in Manitoba, civcul- 
 atcd an aiUlnss (,ver hi- own signa- 
 ture containing the following langu- 
 age: 
 
 "The riglit of .'iijpeal to tlie gov- 
 ernor-general which niin(jrltl 's at 
 present have nnist remain. Nay the 
 ontirfr Dominion is the projjer guaran- 
 tee for equality 01' dealinj'- on tlu'part 
 of provinces with the adheri>nt.s of the 
 var;ou.s churches." 
 
 ICven Mr. Dalton McCarthy at that 
 time uj^ed tin.-' language in tli<> Hou-e 
 of Commons : "TJ'.e duty and power 
 — becau.-e where there is a po\Aer 
 there Is a corre8po,_diag duty— are 
 cast upo^ the Governor-In-Council to 
 revise a:-d review the acts of the legis- 
 lative bodies." 
 
 Mr. Sifto-i once stated in the local 
 legislature that the gover.nieut at 
 Ottawa bad refused to e-tertain this 
 aijpeai of the Quel>ec mi-ority, and he 
 co.-tra.sted that action with the 
 co_duct of the same government In 
 e^-tertalning the Manitoba appeal. 
 Mr. Slfto-i wa.s under a strange mis- 
 apprehcslon as to the facte. The 
 truth Ls that the government of Sir 
 Joh-: Macdonald received and dealt 
 with the Quebec appeal just as it did 
 with the appeal froim Ma.-itoba. A 
 day was appoLited for the appeal bc- 
 lig heard^ and notice thereof was 
 transmitted to the Quebec government 
 a:.d to the council for the Quel>ec min- 
 ority. That wai^ exactly the course 
 take-' in the case of Manitoba. Tlie 
 atte tion of the Quebec government 
 was drawn to the complaints of the 
 mL-ority I do not now recall the 
 exact t(.'rm^ in wliich this was done, 
 but I U-derstand the hope was ex 
 pressed that the Queb«>c legis'aturp 
 would itself e.qulre into tlie alleged 
 grieva':ce and furni«li a remedy for 
 a':y wrongs. That was exactly the 
 course takeu in the case of Manitoba^ 
 Here, however, the parallel hetweei 
 the two cases e::d8. The reply of the 
 Mn.':ltoba government was that the 
 
:{i) 
 
 rf>tui)Uil-t-( had buiii fu.ly Cin^ldercd 
 for -everal yvarH, that tlierf u'ln .un 
 lfrleva_ce, und that there would l>o no 
 rt'drcsw Th« roi»l,v of thr Quoltec iif iv- 
 er mcnt wa*! that they would tliem- 
 l^elve^' fur Isli a renu'dy. Upon ro- 
 celvl jr notice of tlilw, the counsel for 
 the rrotettta t mJnorlty UMked that 
 the ttrae fixed for hearl. >? th<' /ippeiil 
 should \ie poHtpo (d. In the 
 
 mea. time the Quetwc jrovernraont 
 CO ceded to the I'rotestant minor- 
 ity \^llat th«> lattor iiwke.l. The diffi- 
 culty waw wtthsl niid the nppea!. of 
 course, Man jiover iK'iini. Tlius th«' 
 .T*riit(>!taiits of (^iiobM' inadr tho first 
 apiM'.il to Ott;L\\<'i mill' r the iipiwai 
 claiiM ' In tlu' ron.«titutlon. ami thoro- 
 hy th( y ohtainod from QuelK'e the 
 iniai-^uro of ro'lof tiiry rlr'nianded . 
 
 I'noii tho M hoW' ciitif* l.'Uhmlt, Mr. 
 I^flltur, tiiat rrotr^tiint- eaniiot jnst- 
 ly ciii'itiMid that tho provision for ap- 
 IH'al ti Ottawa, no «is>-(Mitlal to thr 
 minority of Qui'hK', iHhall l>e a dead 
 lettK'r when Invoked l)y the minority 
 in onotli/T province. Ti> me the con- 
 clusld': is irresistible that we cannot 
 allow tlu' rlirht of apix^a! tf) be lefw 
 effective for Jloman Catholics than 
 f(U* <mr own co-rellffioniets l:i t2i»'''>^' 
 Th(> framers of confedf^ratlon clearly 
 lnt4'ndo(l that the federal powers 
 Hhoi'.ld r>xt<'nd protection alike to both; 
 the coiiStitutlon itself made it so, and 
 wo of the I'rotestant faith cannot In 
 justice claim for oursolves an odvaiit- 
 ap- that we deny to the other party 
 ti. the compact. 
 
 L'loklng at tli<> means taken l»y par 
 Uam.-nt, on Mr. Blake's .^ucpestlon In 
 18D0, to have all t/e questions oi 
 fact and of law that vi-^ro involved In 
 the controversy fully considered be- 
 fore an independent tribunal, in order 
 ti> assist the government and parlia- 
 ment in determining, not only whether 
 there was aright of appeal in this 
 particular ca*<e, but whether upon 
 all the facte a:ny relief Ls due t(» the 
 minority; lookinjr at the most 
 thorough investigatioin Into all tlie 
 facts made in the Barrett and Logan 
 cases; looking at the full and careful 
 enquiry into tlie ^^hole question liy 
 that tribunal in those cases and in 
 the appeal case; and looking at the 
 judgment of the privy council upon the 
 appeal, I do not see ho-w It Ls pof5sible 
 ff)T the federal government to 
 
 Ignore the grievance. Nor do 
 I s<H> how It will Im' possible for parllii- 
 ment to H'fnse redress If In the end 
 this jvrovlno- Itself will not settle the 
 (picstlon. 
 
 And yet I would depUrre any mHJes- 
 slty for fed*»ral lnt«'rventlan. Admit- 
 ting the jKiwier of parliament to in- 
 tciveiie; admitting Indeed that under 
 possible clrcnnistanc<»s the duty may 
 be cast upon it of lnt«Tvenlng, It will 
 be a mo«t unforttinat<> thing for Mnn!- 
 tol>a if parliament sluill have to pass 
 laws affecting rnir scluHil syst<Mu. The 
 true pine*' to get the matt<>r settled 
 is In our own legislature. 
 
 We are on the «'ve of a general elec- 
 ti(Mi in the jvrovlnce. Tlie provincial 
 mlnL-tcrs make their appeal to th.e 
 electors as the champions of provincial 
 rights, and a-; oppo:-ed to federal In- 
 tervention ; they mak<' their api>eal 
 also a« tlK' uj»h<>l<l«''rs of the pres- 
 ent system a.nd a,s opjK>se(l to makimg 
 a.ny c(mcossl(>ns. No one, I sujipose, 
 doubts— I certiiiiuly do not— That they 
 will be r(t;irn<'d to iM>wer with a very 
 large majority of their backs. The new 
 legi-diitiire is co nw-^'t within a month. 
 At that time It Is .scarcely to l^' ex- 
 Itect^-d that any remedial legislation 
 will have IwM'n finally passe<l at Ot- 
 tawa. I venture still to hope that one 
 of the first acts of the local ad- 
 miln^it^ati(>n, In the new house, will 
 be to bring down a nuiasure nuiking 
 reasonable concessions to the minor- 
 ity—Concessions which may ix* found 
 accejitable as affording reasonuble re- 
 dress, while leaving tlM» present law to 
 its general opi-ratlon. 
 
 I siincerely trust it may be so. If 
 r mistake not. the signs of the times 
 point to the probability that a new 
 leas<> of power bedng thus .secured, 
 some .such measure will ere long l)e 
 brought down by ministers to the now 
 legislature; should such exnectaticmH 
 be realized the future only can tell 
 whether the measure to l)e brought 
 down w ill furnisli a final solution for 
 this vexed and difficult piroblem now 
 confronting, not Manitoba alone, l)ut 
 thiL' Dominion at large. For myself 
 I clin;^ to the hoiK' that the question 
 jis shiortly to \u' settled so that the 
 federal parliament will never t>e called 
 ui>on to put the proposed remedial leg- 
 islation on tire statute book. 
 
 JAMES FISHER. 
 
 I