IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /. {/ %is r % SSf / i/.A 1.0 I.I IIIM IIIIM Itt 1112.2 116 2.0 1.8 1-25 1.4 1.6 ■a 6" ► VQ <^ /a 'e% ^l c-m ■^2 W . <% 0? / 0*;^ '/ ///, Photographic Sciences Corporation €3 «^ \ \ ^<^ V W^^ ;\ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien 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 D D D D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul^e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encrc de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ n Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid 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 certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de fiimage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes □ Pagbs restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul6es r~~j/ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ LjlI Pages ddcolor^es, tacheties ou piqu^es I I Pages detached/ [Z( Pages d^tachdes Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ D Qualite inegale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du ma;6riel supplementaire 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 dt6 filmdes d nouveau de fagon d obtonir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document e<^t filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X / 12X 16X 20X 26X 30X 24X 28X n 32X i tails I du odifjer une mage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The ima^as 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 film6 fut reprodult grdce d la gindrositd de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Cannda 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. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the fiont 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. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commenqant 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 pEat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film^s en commengant 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. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol y (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols 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 ie document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film6 d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. rrata to pelure, n d □ 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]\ if SYXOPSIS OF THE MANITOBA SCHOOL CASE r SYNOPSIS OF THE MANITOBA SCHOOL CASE WITH APPENDIX OF EXPLANATORY DOCUMENTS OTTAWA GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU 1897 s. s^ A- B- C- D- E- Bl Bl CONTENTS SYNOPSIS AND NARRATIVE TO DECEMBER, 1896 7 APPENDICES A — Debate in the House of Commons (]May 10, 1870) on the Educntion Clause of the Manitoba Act of 1870 27 B — Petition of the Roman Cathohc Episcopate for disallowance of the ^Manitoba School Act 29 C — The Proposals of the Conservative Government in April, 1896, for a settlement of the question, with thn reply of the Manitoba Government and the rejoinder and tinal reply 31 D — Extracts froiv. the Catholic Press approving of the proposals made by the Conservative Govermnent 43 E — Memorandum of the terms of Settlement 47 NOTE TO REFERENCES Blue Book No. 1 is " Judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in the Manitoba School Case," with Factums and other Documents in connection therewith — Session 1893 — Printed by Order of Parliament, Sessional Papers Nos. 33a, 336. Blue Book No. 2 is Papers in reference to the Manitoba School Case, presented to Parliament during the Session of 1895, printed bv Order of Parliament, 1895. SYNOPSIS OF THE MANITOBA SCHOOL CASE. Maiiitobca became a province of Canada by virtue of an xVct passed l)y the Imperial Parliament of (rreat Britain in the year 1870, this Act havintr l)efn first considered, amended and approved by the Parliament of Canada. (See Debate on the educational clause, Appendix ^1.) Neither the Parliament of Canada nor the Leii;i8laturc of the province of Manitoba have the power to make any alterations or amendments in the Imperial Act referred to. As reference is sometimes made to the British North America Act under which the other provinces of the Dominion of Canada entered confederation, the educational clauses contained in section 98 of that Act and in section 22 of the Manitoba Act are printed in parallel columns : — Manitoba Act. " In and for the province tlie said legis- lature may e.trlu.nrc/y make laws in rela- tion to education, subject and according to the following provisions : — "(1) Nothing in any such law shall pre- judicially affect any light or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law or practice in the province at the union. " (2) An appeal shall lie to the Governoi' General in Council from any act or decision of ttie legitilatitr'' of the province, or of any provincial authority, affecting any right or privilege of thQ Pi'otestantor Roman Catho- lic minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to educa 4on. "(3) Incase i.ny such provincial law as from time to time seems to the (Governor General in Council retjuisite for the due execution of the provisions of this section is not made, or in case any decision of the Governor General in Council on any appeal under this section is not duly executed by the proper provincial authority in that be- half, then, and in every such case, and as far only as the circumstances of each ca«e may require, the parliament of Canada may make British North America Act. " In and for each province the legislature may e.rchisirefi/ make laws in I'clatiuii to education, subject and according to the fol- lowing pi'ovisions : — " (1) Nothing in any such law shall pre- judicially affect any right or privilege with j respect to denominational schools which any I class of persons have by law in the province at tlie union. ] " (2) All powers, privileges and duties at I the union, by law conferred and imposed j in Upper Canada on the separate schools and school trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic subjects, shall be and the same are hereby extended to the tlissentient schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Cath- olic subjects in Quebec. " (3) Where in any province a system of separate or flissentient schools exists by law at the union, or is hereafter established by the legislature of the province, an appeal shall lie to the Governor (Jeneral in Council from any act or decision of any provincial authority affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to educa- tion. SYNOI'SIS or THE MAXITOliA SCHOOL CASE. remedial laws for tlir duf cxccutinn <>£ (ho pntvisions ot' this seetinn. and of any decision of the (Jovernor Ueneral in Couticil under this seetion." "(I) In case any swell iiidvini'i.'d l,i\v us from time to time seems \o the (iovernor (Jeneiiil in Council reijiiisite for the tine execution of the provisions of tiis section is not made, or in case any decision of the (loNcrnor (leneral in Council, oi- any a|>|>eal under this section, is not duly executed hy the pro])er jirovii'ci' 1 authority in that liehalf, tlien, anti in every such case, and as far only ;is till' circiiuistances of each "-ase retjuin', the ParlianuMit «)f Canathi may make remeilial laws for the due execution of the ]pro\ isions of this section imd o) uny tee of the Privy Council of England as well as by the Supreme Court of Canada that the educational clauses in the British North America Act do not apply to Manitoba, the Manitoba Act being the governijig Act. Separate or (Iciioiiiinatioiial schools had been in existence before 1870, and it was clearly understood \\hm\ Manitoba became a province of the Dominion of Canada, that tlie minority were guaranteed the privUege of separ- ate schools. In the year 1871 the Legislature of Manitoba passed an Act authorizing the establishment of separate schools, and. in accordance with that Act, the Catholics organized schools in those parts of the province wher^ their numbers justitied the establishment of a school. In the yetir 18i»0, the Legislature of Manitoba passed a\i Act repealing all former Acts relating to education and abolished separate oi denominational schools, and established in lieu thereof national schools, for the support and maintenance of which all ratepayers were taxed. The Federal Administration of Canada have the right under the consti- tution to disallow any provincial Act if the power is exercised within one year after the passage of that Act. Cardinal Taschereau and all the Archbishops and Jiishops of Canada, petitioned the Federal Administration to t * allow the Manitoba Act abolish- ing separate schools as being Mi^ra?;?TC5. {See Appendix 13.) Appeals were also made to the Federal Administration by the Catholic laity of the province praying tor the disallowance of the Act ; but the Administration declined to interfere, advising the netitioners that it was a legal question which must be settled in the courts of tlie country. The city of Winnipeg having passed a by-law compelling all ratepayers to pay their taxes to the public schools. Dr. Barrett, a Catholic ratepayer and supporter of separate schools, made an application to the court to quash the by-law as being founded on a statute which was beyond the powers of the Provincial Legislature to pass ; his object being to test the validity of the provincial statute abolishing separate schools. The judge before whom the application was made refused to quash the by-law, holding, in effect, that the Provincial Legislature had supreme power over the subject of education. Barrett appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench, the highest court in Manitoba, and that court dismissed the appeal. \ syyorsis of riiK ArAxrro/i.i scnooi, casl'. 9 > The cuH(! was tlifii cjirriod to tlie Suproiiu! Oourt of Catiadii and that court by a uiiaiiiinous doeisiioii reversed the .jiidyintMit of the Court of ijueeu's JieiK'h of Manitoba, in ell'ect deciding that tlie Aetof 189fi abolishin^i; separate schools was II (tm vires and therefore void. (Nw Commons lleturii, ITtli Mardi, lSd-2.) The city of Winnipcir appealed from the decision of the 8u[>reme Court of Canada to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of Knirlund, the liighest court in the Hritish 1^'mpire. Six ,)udi!:e9 of that court heard the api)cal ; they were:— The Kii^ht lion. Lord Watson, th,^ Right Hon. Lord liannen, the lli>,dit Hon Lord Macnndi all ratepayers were compelled to [lay taxes. {See Blue Book :\o. 1 of LS9:j, page L) The judgment of the I'riv^' Council I'ecitcs the facts — which wjre not dis|)Uted — and then deals with section -' f the Manitoba Act and its sub- sections 2 and 3. Reference was also n.i -.^ to the British North America Act of 1807, and the judgment concludes ii. the following words: — " Su(.'li being the iiriiii provision.' < t tlio I'liLlic "'..liuols Act, l^U'i, their lord ships have to detHnniiie whether tlwit act prejiKlic'. 11}' aH'ects jiiiy riifht or privilege ■vith res|)ect to (leiioiiiiiiatiniial sf'hools wiii'-li uiy class of j'ersoiis had by law or practice in the pro\ iiicc at the union. "Notwithstandinj; the Piil)lic ScliOvVis Act, 1890, I'oiiian (,'atholics and nieiiilxM's of every otiier religious body in ^tn-iitolja are free to estaltlisli sciiools throughout th" pr<90. ''That may be so. But whit iii,dit or privilege is violated or prejuditially affected b\ the law ? " It is not the law that is in fault. It is owing to religious convictions which everybody must respect, and to the teaching; of tiieir church, that Roman Catholics aiul mem lers of the Cuurcli of Enrjiand find themselves unable to p.utake of ad- vanta^'es svhich the law offers to all alike. " Their lordships are sensible of the weight which must attach to the unanimous decisicm of the Supreme Co"rt. "They have anxiously considered the able and elaborate judgments 1 ' which that decision has been sup[)orted. " But they are unable to agree with the opinion which the learned judges of the Supreme Court have e.xpressed as to the rights and privileges of Roman Catholics in Manitoba at the time of the union. "They doubt whether it is permissible to refer to the course of legislation between 1871 and 1890, as a means of throwing lidit on the previous practice, or 10 SYXOrSJS OF THE MANITOBA SCHOOL CASE. on the construction of the saving clause in the Manitoba Act. They cannot assent to the view which seems to be indicated by one of the members of the Supreme Coui't, that public schools under the Act of 1890 are in reality Protestant schools. " The legislature ha declared in so many words that ' the public schools shall "be entirely unsectarian' and that principle is carried out throughout the Act. "With the policy of the Act of 1890 their lordships are not concerned. But they cannot help observing that, if the views of the respondents wei-e to prevail, it would be extremely dithcult for the provincial legislature, which has been entrusted with the exclusive power of making laws relating to education to provide for the educational wants of the more sparsely inhabited districts of a country almost as large as Great Britain and that the powers of the legislature, which on the face of the Act appear so large, would be limited to the useful but somewhat humble office of making regulations for the sanitary conditions of school houses, imposing i-ates for the support of denominational schools enforcing the compulsory attendance of scliolars, and matters of that sort. " In the result their lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty that these appeals ought to 1)" allowed with costs. " In the City of Winnipeg ^•s. Barrett it will be propet to reverse the order of the >Su])renie Court with costs, and to restore the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for Manitoba." {See Blue Book No. 1, page 1, 1893.) This judgment was delivered on the 30th day of July, 1892, and was accepted by many legal jurists as final and conclusive ; though in the opinion of those who were lamiliar with the clear understanding on which Manitoba became a province of Canada, the judgme»it was erroneous. {See Extract from debate in Parliament of Canada, Appendix A.) In the month of September, 1892, the Archbishop of St. Boniface and a number of the Catholic laity presented a petition to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, usually known as the Federal Administration or Cabinet, setting forth that, though the courts had upheld the validity of the Act of Manitoba, abolishing separate schools, yet they believed that redress could still be had for the restoration of those rights and privileges in relation to education which had been prejudicially affected by the Acts of the Provincial Legislature and asked for relief under subsections 2 and 3 of section 22 of the Manitoba Act. The members of the Canadian Administration, usually designated the Government, declined to hear the appeal ; presumably on the ground that, as the highest court of the Empire had, in a clear and positive judgment, decided that the Manitoba Legislature had not exceeded its powers in abolishing separate schools, no relief could be granted to the Catholic minority under the circumstances. The Government, however, in order to be fully advised of its powers under the constitution, undertook .to refer the following questions to the Supreme Court of Canada for its consideration and for the opinion of the judges of that court : — "(1) Is the appeal referred to in the said memorials and petitions and as- serted thereby, such an appeal as is admissible by subsection .'5 of section 93 of the British North America Act, 1867, or by subsection 2 of .section 22 of the Manitoba Act, 33 N'ictoria (1870), chapter 3, Canada? " (2) Are the grounds set forth in the petitions and memorials such as may be the subject of appeal under the authority of the subsections above referred to or either of them ? SYXOPSIS OF THE MANITOBA SCHOOL CASE. 11 and as- )n 93 of I «if the " (3) Does the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the cases of Barrett vs. The City of Winnipeg and Logan w. The City of Winnipeg dispose of or conclude the application for redress based on the contention that the rights of the Roman Catholic minority which accrued to them after the union under the statutes of the pruvinre have been interfered with by the two statutes of 1890 complained of in the said petitions and memorials'; " (-4) Does subsection 3 of sec* 'on 93 of the British North America Act, 1867, apply to ]Manitf)ba 1 " (5) Has His Excellency the Governor General in Council power to make the declaratio IS or i-emedial orders which are asked for in the said memorials and petitions assuming the material facts to be as stated therein, or lias His Excel- lency the C,)vernor General in Council any other jurisdiction in the premises? " (6) Did the Acts of ^Manitoba relating to education, passed prior to the ses'^ion of 1890, confer on, or continue to, the minority ' a right or privilege in re- lation to education ' within the meaning of subsection 2 of section 22 of the Mani- toba Act, or establish a system of separate or dissentient schools, within the meaning of subsection 3 of section 93 of the British North America Act, 1807, if said section 93 be found applicable to ^lanitoba ; and if so, did the two Acts cf 1890 complained of, or eithei- of them, affect any right or privilege of the minority in such a manner that an appeal will lie thereunder to the (iovernor (xeneral in Council ] " The case was argued by able counsel on each side, and that court, by a majority of its members, decided that, in view of the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of England in the case of Barrett vs. The City of Winnipeg, the constitution did not provide any redress for the Catholic minority, and that an appeal did not lie to the Privy Council of Canada. The judges gave reasons at length for the conclusions they had torraed, and answered the questions as follows : — The present Chief Justice of the court, Sir Henry Strong, who is now also a judge of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of England, answered all the questions in the negative. The Honourable Mr. Justice Taschereau, a learned and highly respected French Catholic judge, gave the following ansNvers : — Question No. 1, he answered " N'o." do 2 do "No." do 8 do do 4 do do 5 do do 6 do He evidently considered that the judgment of the Privy Council of England was a mistake, but it was irrevocable and could not be disturbed. Mr. J usticj Taschereau is giving his judgment, after reciting the facts of the case, contir ued as follows : — " Wit': all these, and kindred considerations, we, here, in answering this con- sultatiiHi, are not concerned. The law has authoritatively been declared to be so, and with its consequences, we have nothing to do. Darn lex, sed lex. ^ Judex non ro)ist)'fn/fitr ad h'ges nformandas. Xoii lief jud'u'lhnu d<' l''glhm< jiidirare, sed »i'CH.i)dum ifims. The 'Manitoba legishuion is constitutional, therefore it has not affected any of the rights and privileges of the minority, therefore the minority has no appeal to the federal authority. The Manitoba legislature iuid the right and power to pass that legislation ; therefoi'c, any interference with that legislation by the federal authority would be idtm vires and unconstitutional." " Yes." " No." " No." " No." I TT 12 SYNOPSIS OF THE MANITOBA SCHOOL VASE. In referring to section 22 of the Manitoba charter on the rights and privileges referred to, he states : — " However, from these reasijiis the petitioners are now precliuled. If any of their rights and privileges had been prejiKlieially affected this legi.shition would be ultra vires : and it is settled that it is not n/frd viren.'' " I take up now the fhst of these "|uestions : ' Does the right of appeal claimed by the petitioners exist under section '22 of the Manitoba Act ? ' And here again, in my opinion, the answer must be the negative, for the reason that it is conclu- sivelv determined, by the judgment of the Privy Council, that the .Manitoba legis- lation does not prejudicially allect any right or j)rivilege that the Catholics had by law or practice at the union, and, if their rights and privileges are not affected, there is no appeal." Mr. Justice Gwynne, after reciting the judgment of the Privy Council of England in the case of Barrett vs. Winnipeg, answers the quei.tions in the following manner : The 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th, he answered in the negative; the 3rd, in the affirmative, and the 6th, which he regarded as a complex one, he answers as follows : — "The Acts of 1890 do not, nor does either of them, affect any light or privi- lege of a minority in relation to education within the meaning of subsection '2 of section 22 of the Alanitoba Act in such mmner that an appeal will lie theivunder to the Governor (ienei-al in Council. The resitlue of the ipiestion is answei'ed by the answer to (piestion No. 4." The minority of the court — Judge King and Judge Fournier — took an opposite view and were of opinion that an appeal did lie to the Governor General in Council. From the above judgment the Catholic minority appealed to the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of England. The judges present on that occasion were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Watson, Lord Macnagbten and Lord Sband. The case was argued b}' counsel representing the ('atbolic minority and by counsel representing the Government of Mani- toba. The judgment was delivered on the 29th day of January, 1895, by the Lord Chancellor, who after reviewing all the facts and commenting on the Manitoba Act of 1870, concluded the judgment in the following language : — " 3!r. Justice Taschereau says that the legislation of 1890, having been irre- vocably held to be iiifra rires cannot have ' illegally ' affected any of the rights or })rivi oges of the Catholic minority. But the word 'illeually' has no place in the subsection in (juestion. The a})peal is given if the rights ai'e in fact affected. '' It is true that the religious exercises presc?'ibed for pul)lic sihools are not to ill' distinctively Protestant, for they are to be 'non-sectarian,' and any jiarent may withdiaw his child from them. There may be many too, who share the view expi-essed in one of the atlidavits in ISarretts case, that there should not be any conscientious oltjections on the j)art of Roman Catholics to attend such schools, if adeijuate nuvins be \ rovided elsewhere of giving such moral and religious training as may be desired. But all tiis is not to the purpose. As a matter of fact, the objection of Roman Catholics to schools such as alone receive 8tate aid under the Act of 1890 is conscientious and deeply rooted. If this had not been so. if there had bei-n a system of public education acceptable to Catholic and Protectants alike, the elaborate enactments which have been the subject of so miuh controversy and consideration would have been unnecessary. It is notorious t''at there were acute differences of opinion between Catholics and Protestants on the eflucation question prior to 1570. Tliis is recognized and empiuisized in srxorsis or the maxitoha school cask. 13 le again, j fonclu- in the he rights almost every line of those enuctinents. There is no donht either what the points of difference were, and it is in the light of these that the l'2nd section of the Manitoba Act of 1870, which was in trutli a parliamentary compact, must be read. " For the reasons which have been given, their Lordships are of opinion that the 2nd subsection of secilini Jl* of tht^ Manitoba Act is the governing enact- ment, and that the appeal tc» the Governor General in Council was admissible by virtue of that enactment on the grounds set forth in the memorials and petitions, inasmuch as the Acts of 1690 atii'cted rights or privileges of the Roman Catholic minority in relation to education within the meaning of that subsection. The furtlier question is submitted whether the Governor General in Council has power to make the declarations or remerlial orders asked for in the memorials or petitions, or has any other jurisdiction in the premises. Their Lordships have decidefl that the Governor General in Council has jurisdiction, and that the appeal is well founded, but the particular course to be pursued must be deter- mined by the authorities to whom it has been conmiitted by the statute. It is nut for this tribunal to intimate the precise steps to be taken. Their general cnaracter is suthciently defined by the 3rd subsection of section 22 of the Manitoba Act. "It is certainly not essential that the statutes repealed by the Act of 1890 should be re-enacted, or that the precise provisions of these statutes should again be made law. The system of education embodied in the Acts of 1890 no doubt counnends itself to, and adeijuately supplies, the wants of the great majority of the inhabitants of the province. All legitimate grounds of complaint would be removed if that system were supplemented by provisions which would remove the grievance upon which the appeal is founded, and were moditied so far as might be necessary to give efft^'ct to these pro\isions. "Their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty that the questions sub- mitted should be answered in the manner indicated by the views which they have expressed." " There will be no costs of this appeal.'' In their report their Lordships answer the questions that were submitted to them in the following manner : — " The Lords of the Committee in obedience to Your Majesty's said general order of reference, have taken the said hundile petition and appeal into consideration, and having \ieard counsel for the parties on l)oth sides, their Lordships do this day agree humbly to report to Your Majesty as their opinion that the said questions hereinbefore set forth ought to be answered as follows : — "(1.) In answei- to the first question : — That the appeal referred to in the said memorials and petitions, and asserted thei-eby is such an appeal as is ad- missible undei subsection 2 of section 22 of the ilanitoba Act, 3."] Vict. (1870), c. 3, Canada.'' "(2.) Ill answer to the second (juestion : — That grounds ai'e set forth in the petitions and memorials, such as may be the subject of appeal undei- the authority of the subse'tion of the Mivnitoba Act immediately above refei'i'ed to."' "(3.) Ill answer to the third (piestion : — That the decision of the Judicial Committee )i the Privy Council in the cases of Barrett cs. The City of Winnipeg, and Logan rs. The City oi Winnipeg rlonf< not dhpnse of, oi' condude. (/<>' applirution for redrexs ba.sed on the contention that the rights of the Roman Catholic min- ority, whicli accrued to them after the union under the statutes of the province, have been interfered with by the two statutes of 1890 complained of in the said petitions and memorials." "(4.) In answer to the foui'th (juestion :— That subsection 3 of .section 93 of the British North Anieiica Act, 1867, does not apply to Manitoba.'' " (5.) In answer to the fifth question : — That the Governor-General in Council has jurisdiction and tlo' opp''al /..■ irAl fonnded, but that the {^articular coui'se to be pursued must bt; deteimined by the authorities to whom it has been committed by 11 SYXOFSIS OF THE MANITOBA SCHOOL CASE. the statutes ; that t!ie general character of the steps to be taken is sufficiently defined by subsection 3, of section 22 of the Manitolm Act, 1870." " (6.) in answer to the sixth question : — That the Acts of Manitoba relating to education passed prior to the session of 1890 did confer on the minority a right or prirnlege in vflation to education ivithin the meaning of subsection 2 of section 22 of the Manitoba Act, which alone applies ; that the two Acts of 1890 complained of did affect a right or privilege of the minority : in such a manner tliat an appeal iviU lie thereunder to the Governor Genei'al in Council. " And in case Your Majesty should be pleased to approve of this report, then their Lordships do direct that th'! parties do bear their own costs of this appeal, and that the sum of £300 sterling so deposited by the appellants a-! aforesaid, be repaid to them." (See page 1, Blue Book No. 2.) It may here be observed that the first judgment of the Privy Council of England declared in positive language that the Manitoba Act of 1890 abolish- ing separate schools was intra vires and, consequently, that the Legislature had the power to tax all ratepayers for the support of the public schools, and the judgment in effect states that " no right or privilege of the minority is violated or prejudicially affected by the law." The second judgment upholds the first one in admitting that the Mani- toba Legislature had the power to pass the Act of 1890 abolishing separate schools and, while conceding that the Catholics had grievances which the Can- adian Cabinet might hear, the judgment fails to deal with the constitutional difliculty that presents itself in considering how those grievances are to be remedied. The Canadian Cabinet is of course powerless to act or to do more than to hear the appeal, to make a decision and to communicate the decision to the pro- vincial authorities ; the enforcement rests with the Parliament of Canada which is free to exercise any action it may think proper, or it may decide to take no action, and the judgment does not even define the jurisdiction that the Federal Parliament might possess, but in a vague way refers to the 3rd subsection of section 22 of the Manitoba Act. Having in view the clear and positive principles laid down in the first judgment it must be conceded that the second judgment is somewhat involved ; but the concluding paragraph indicates that the Separate School Acts need not be re-enacted but states that " All legitimate grounds of complaint would be removed if that system were supplemented by provisions which would remove the grievance upon which the appeal is founded, and were modified so far as might be necessary to give effect to these provisions." In considering this question it must be remembered that the Federal Parliament — even if willing to do so — has not the power to restore to the Catholic minority all the " rights and privileges " they formerly enjoyed. It is universally admitted that the Federal Parliament could not force the Provincial Legislature to give to Catholic schools any share in the grants antiually voted by that Legislature for education — without which aid many of the schools could not be sustained. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council having thus decided that the Governor General in Council (the Canadian Cabinet) had the power to hear the appeal, the petition of the Catholic minority was taken into consideration and an order was made declaring that the Act passed by the Legislature of Manitoba on the 1st May, 1890, respecting education, affected the rights and privileges of the Catholic minority in the following particulars, namely : — SYXOPSIS OF THE MANITOBA SCHOOL CASE. 15 "(«) The right to build, maintain, e^uip. manage, conduct and suppmt Konian Catholic schools in the manner pio\ided tor by the e ijuite impossible. We contemjilate the inauguration of such a state of affairs with very grave apjirehension. Wc have no hesitation in saying that there cannot l)e suggested any me.isure which, to our minds, would more seriously imperil the development of our province. " W^e believe that when the Remedial ( )rder was made, there was not available then to Your Excellency in Council full and accurate information as to the working of our former system of schools. 16 syyopsis of the Manitoba school case. " We also bt'lieve that there was lacking' tlie means of forming a correct jud;,' ment as to the efl'ect upon the province of changes in the direction indicated in the Older. " Being imjiressed witli this view, we respectfully submit that it is not yet too late to make a full and deliberate investigation of the whole subject. Should such a course be adopted, we shall cheerfully assist in all'urding the most complete information available. An investigation of such a kind would furnish a substan- tial Ijasis of fact ui>on which cunclusions could be formed with a reasonable degree of certainty. "It is urged most strongly that upon so important a matter, involving, as it doe.s, the religious feelings and convictions of ditlerent clas>es of the people of Canada, and the educational interests of a j)rovince which is expected to become one of the most important in the Dominion, no hasty action should be taken, but that, on the contrary, the greatest care and deliberation should be exercised and a full and thorough investigation made. " While we do not think it proper to enter upon a legal argument in this memorial, we deem it our tluty to Ijriefly call attention to some of the legal and constitutional dithculties which surround tiie case. It is held by some autiiorities that any action taken by the Parliament of Canada upon the subject will be irre- vocable. While this opinion may or may not be held to be sound, it is in our judgment only necessary to point out that there are substantial grounds for enter- taining such an opinion, in order to emphasize the necessity for accjuiring a more ample knowledge of the ficts before any suggestion of parliamentary action is made. " It will be admitted that the two essentials of any effective and substantial restoration of Roman Catholic privileges are :— " 1. The right to levy school taxes. " 2. The right to participate in the legislative school grant ; without these pri- vileges the sejiaiate schools cannot be properlj' carried on, and without them, therefore, any pi'ofessed restoration of privileges would be illusory. " It may be held that the power to collect taxes for school purposes conferred upon school boards by our former educational statutes was conferred by virtue of the provisions of subsection (2) of section 92 of the British North America Act, and not by virtue of the i)rovisions of section 22 of the Manitoba Act. If this view be well founded, then that portion of the Act of 1890 which abolished the said right to collect taxes is not subject to apjjeal to Your Excellency in Council, and the Remedial Order and any subsequent legislative act of the Parliament of Canada (in so far as they may purport to I'estore the said right) will be nltni vires. " As to the legislative grant we hold that it is entirely within the control of the legislature of the province that no part of the public funds of the province could be made availal)le for the support of separate schools v/ithout the voluntary action of tlie legislature. It woulil appear therefore that any action of the Parlia- ment of Canada looking to the restoration of Roman Catholic privileges must, to be of real and substantial benefit, be supplemented by the voluntary action of the provincial legislature. " If this be the case, iiothing could be more unfortunate from the standpoint of the Roman Catholic people themselves, than any hasty or peremptor}' action on the part of the Parliament of Canada, because such action would probably produce strained relations and tend to prevent the pos.>iljility of restoring harmony. "We respectfully suggest to Your Excellency in Coun-?!! that all of the above considerations call most strongly for full and careful deliberation, and for such a course of action as will avoid irritating complications. {See Blue Book No. 2 of 1S95, page 353.) The foregoing communication was received at Ottawa before the end of June, 1895. Parliament was then in session and did not rise till the 22nd July. Pressure was brought to bear on the Government to introduce Remedial SYXOPSIS OF THE MASITOHA SCHOOL CASK. 17 •ect judg ed in the I not vet Should complete . subst.an- ilc dejrree 'ing, as it people of become aken, but led and a it in this legal and utliorities II be irre- is in our for enter- ig a more action is ibstantial the-ie pri- lut them, conferred virtue of rica Act, If this shed the Council, ament of Ura vires. eonti'ol of province voluntary le Parlia- inust, to ion of the tandpoint action on f produce the above or such a e end of le 22nd Remedial Legislation, but the Cabinet was unwilling to coerce Manitoba. Three Cabinet Ministers resigned, giving as a reason the insincerity of other members of tlie Cabinet on this question. Two of the ministers withdrew their resignations on an assurance that Remedial Legislation would be introduced at a special session to be called in the following January. Parliament accordingly met on the ■2nd January, 1896, but, a few days after a crisis occurred when seven Protestant members of the Cabinet who were known to be opposed to Remedial Legislation resigned office. The crisis continued for several days when they withdrew their resignations. A Remedial Bill was announted, but not presented for some time later — it being the '2nd March before the Bill was brought before the House for a second reading. The Bill contained 112 clauses and it was evident that, as the life of Parliament terminated on the 24th of April, 1896, it was impossible to pass such a measure. Only about 15 sections were considered and al)out 40 amend- ments were made and carried : showing how imperfect the Bill was and illu- strating the difficulties in making the Bill workable. Among the reasons that actuated the opponents of the measure, tlie following may 1)0 referred to : That it was an interference with provincial rights and therefore unconsti- tutional ; That the Catholics being only one- seventh of the population the law could not be enforced against the will of the provincial and municipal authorities ; That the province would contest the validity of the Act in the courts, and the agitation and bitter feeling that had arisen would thus be continued for many years longer. It was well understood that many members who voted for the second reading of the Bill were anxious to see the Bill defeated in. Committee. By some members it was regarded as a scheme to secure Catholic votes at the general election then approaching. By many jurists the Bill was considered unworkable, and it was felt that, if the then existing stronij feeling was allowed to subside, the Manitoba Leo-is- lature when appealed to in a conciliatory spirit, would from time to time so far modify its school laws as to restore to the Catholics many of the privileges they claimed. As an evidence of the determination of the Manitoba Leifislature to con- test the validit}' of the Remedial Bill, that body on the 26th February, 1896, while Parliament was considering the measure, adopted a resolution by a vote of 31 to 7, most solemnly protesting against the passage of the Remedial Act which had been introduced into the House of Commons of Canada and giving many reasons for the expression of that opinion, concluding the reso- lution in the foil >^^ulg words : — "Tliat tl e saiil Act is an uiini' ■e'^sary uiul unjustifiable attack upon the c in- stitutional rights of the Legislature, and people of Manitoba, ami indirectly upon th'^ constitutional rights of the Legislature and peofile of every province of the Dominion, and a violation of the principle of pri>\incial autonomy, which is with- out precedent in the history of the Dominion." The hostile attitude assumed by Manitoba had the sympathy of a large majority of the Protestant element of the Dominion of Canada who were opposed to the coercion of that province, and especially so because a majority of the Protestants of Canada are by principle in favour of public schools. The Federal Cabinet, linding the opposition to the Bill so strong, with- drew the measure, confessing their inability to carry it. 2 T 18 SYNOPSIS OF THE MANITOBA SCHOOL CASE. While the Bill was being considered by Parliament the Federal Adminis- tration, recognizing the constitutional difficulties in the way of Federal Legislation, sent a deputation of its members to Manitoba to confer with the Government of that province and ascertain what concessions would be granted. A reference to the proposals in Appendix C attached will show the limited privileges the Federal ministers were willing to accept for the sake of a peaceful settlement. The offer then made met with the approval of the Catholic press and, presumably, of the Catholic prelates and laity, as no dissent was expressed at the time ; and, if the terms proposed had been accepted, this burning question would havu been removed from further controversy. A com- parison is particularly requested of the terms then proposed as set forth in Appendix C and those now agreed upon between the present Liberal Adminis- tration and Manitoba as set forth in Appendix E. Parliament was dissolved on the 24th April. A new election followed in which the C'Onservative govern- ment, that had held office for nearly 18 years, was defeated. Notwithstanding the active opposition of many of the prelates of their church, a large majority of the Catholic electors voted for the Liberal can- didates : a proof of that fact is given by the returns. The Federal Parliament consists of 213 members, only 65 being Catholics — 45 of that number being Liberals and 20 Conservatives. It will therefore be apparent that a large majority of the Catholic laity support the conciliatory policy of the present Liberal Administration in mak- ing terms with Manitoba ; assured, as they believe, that these conv.^,::sion8 will be extended and enlarged in the future, until all grievances shall have been forgotten. The Catli >lic laity are confirmed in this belief from a knowledge of what has occurred in the other Protestant provinces — Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, where concessions have from time to time been extended through the goodwill of the Protestant majority. In considering this question it must be borne in mind that while in the year 1870 the Catholic and Protestant population of Manitoba w^ere equal ; yet the last census taken in 1891 showed that out of a total population of 152,606 there were only 20,511 Catholics distributed through ninety large municipalities, and this disproportion has been yearly increasing. And when it is remembered that Manitoba is twice as large as Portugal, six times larger than Belgium, and larger than England and Wales, it must be conceded that Catholics can only hope to maintain schools in those centres of population where their numbers justify it ; and that necessarily in such a sparsely settled country a considerable number of Catholic children must attend mixed schools or be deprived of all education. According to the last official returns issued by the Superintendent of Catholic schools (before their abolition), from August to December, 1889, the total number of Catholic schools was distributed as follows : — City of Winnipeg 11 Towi\.of St. Boniface, including 1 each in the North, South and West of St. Bonifiace 10 St. Norbert 7 Total 28 In all other parts of the province only 69 97 1. 2_ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. ] 13. 14. 15. SYXOI'SIS Ot THI-: MAXITOJIA SCHOOL CASK 19 The total number of children on the rolls as attending those schools was 3,316, but the average attendance was only 2,267. Taking the whole school population at the official figures as given in the Government Statistical Year Book for 1894, namely 36,459, it will be observed that with a (-atholic popu- lation of one-seventh, the Catholic children should numl>er 5,208. while onlv 3,316 were on the rolls ; it must therefore be evident that nearly 2,000 Catholic children either did not attend any school or attended the public schools. The returns show tliat Catholic schools were formed chiefly in those districts that were either exclusively Catholic or where the^' formed the majority. The public schools of Manitoba are under the local control of three trustees elected l)y the ratepayers. The only qualifications required for a trustee are that he must be a ratepayer over 21 years, and l)e able to read and write. In Catholic settlements where they are m the majority they can elect their own trustees, who will of course appoint a Catholic teacher. The Government does not interfere in the selection of the teacher, provided he holds a certificate of qualification. The schools are periodically — perhaps once a month or not as often — visited by an inspector whose duty is to see that the school has the average attendance to entitle it to Government aid and that the teacher is attending to his duties, and to hear complaints if any. The books in use are such as the Department of Education approve of ; but the Government of Manitoba agree that the books shall be unolyection- able to Catholics. It must be obvious that a scliool consisting exclusively of Catholic chil- dren controlled by three Catholic trustees with a Catholic teacher, visited only at long periods by an inspector who has no motive for interference with its internal management — that such a scliool cannot be under any very serious disadvantage simply because it is called a public school and, even if there is a rule that religious instruction is not to commence earlier than half past three o'clock, there is no rule limiting the period to four o'clock if the people desire an extension of the time. It cannot be denied that many schools existed in Manitoba under just those conditions receiving a per cajiita share of the annual grant for education. By reference to the papers in the Manitoba school case presented to Par- liament in the session of 1895, Blue-book No. 2, at page 175, tlie tollowing list of French Catholic schools which had then accepted the public school system appears : — List of French schools in the Province of Manitoba which have accepted the public school system : — 1. St. Jean Baptiste, North St. J ean-Baptiste Post Otfice. 2. Deux Pet'tes Pointes Letellier " 3. St. Charl. s St. Charles 4. St. Francois Xavier, East St. Francois Xavier " 5. St. Eustache St. Eustiche «• 6. Fairbanks Bale St. Paul « 7. St. Leon Village St. Leon « 8. St. Leon, East Manitou " 9. Theobald Somerset " 10. Decorby Fort Ellice " * 11. St. Alphonse, South St. Alphonse " 12. St. Laurent No. 1 St. Laurent « 13. St. Laurent No. 2 " " 14. St. Boniface, West St. Vital " 15. Kinlough Starbuck « 2i 20 syyoi'sis or nil-: maxh'oha school cask. List i)t' Ficacli sclionls wliieh adopted tlic piildic m-ImoI system. — ( 'oiihinin/. Mi. Maitiiieau Water Jlc!ii Jiivcr, Jiuliaii Keserve. 17. St. Jlayiiioiid (iifuux Post Otliee. 18. St. Vital St. I'.oiiifate I'ost ( )|liee. 19. tilengai'fy In.i,'leside (Seoteli C atliolies). 20. Fatiiiystelle Fatunslello. 21. BeniiVr St. Mark-'s. 22. Calliper Mimieuakaii (.Mixed), 2.!. St. Aiitwiiie Ste. A.uatlio. 24. St. ilyaciiitlic I.a Sade, " 2o. Arseiiault ( »ak Lake, " 26. Deleau Deleaii, 27. MaHaiii l)<'le,u, 28. iioutled^'e Koiitledge " 29. St. l.'rliain St. Alj)h()n.se (schoiil not \'et l)uilt). 30. Canadavilie Daniihin Road, " '' .'U. Haiiieliu '. Ste. IJose du Lae. .■|2. St. Felix Deloraine. 33. St. Fraiii;ois Xa\ier, AVest St. Franrois Xavier. 34. Muns Valley ?Iims Valley (school building). 3."). ( lascou Clarkleigh. 36. ('ourclirne Oak Lake (organization not complete). It would thus appear that in the year 1894, about one-half of all the separate schools outside of Winnipeg, St. Boniface and St. Norbert had adopted the public school system. The Public t^chool Law of ^[anitoba declares that all clergymen are ex officio school visitors within the districts in which they have pastoral charge. The priest may therefore visit the school as often as he pleases. lie may attend the quarterly examinations and at the time of such visit may examine the progress of the pupils and the state and management of the schools and give such advice to the teacher and pupils and any others present as he thinks advisable. {Sec section 201, 202, 203 — Pubhc Schools Act of Manitoba.) And under the proposed amendments, as set forth in Appendix E, the priest, or any one whom he appoints, may give religious instruction half after past three o'clock ; not only in schools where all the children are Catholics but in all schools in rural districts where there are ten Catholic children, and in cities, towns and villages where there are twenty-live Catholic children. The only exception being that in case there is not a second room in the school-house and that there are Protestant children in the school whose parents desire religious instruction to be given their children, the Catholics are then limited to the half hour instruction on one half of the teaching days in each week. The proposals made in April, 1896, by the late Conservative Cabinet for the settlement of this question will be found attached to this paper marked Appendix C and were communicated to Parliament in the shape of a Message. Those proposals received the approval of the Catholic minority — all the Catholic Conservative organs had favourable notices of the offer. {See appendix marked D.) A comparison of the terms then proposed and the terms now agreed td by the province of Manitoba at the instance of the present Liberal Cabinet is particularly requested. The late Government proposed that in towns and villages where there were twenty -five Catholic children of school age and in cities fifty such children, they were to be entitled to a separate school-house or separate room and tc be taught by a Catholic teacher. No provision whatever is made for religious SYXO/'SIS or THE MAXITOHA SCHOOL CASE. 81 tcfifliin<2:, and — in •itios where tlio number of children was less tlian lit'ty and in towns and villages where the nundjer was less than twenty-live — there eould not he religious teaching of any kind — and no provision whatever is made for tlie schools in the rural districts. By the terms now agreed ujnni wherever in cities, towns and villages twenty-five Catholic children, and in rural districts where ten such ( hildren, attend a school, they are entitled to the half hour religious instruction. In cities and towns wliere there is an average attendance of forty children, and in villages aiul rural districts where tiun-e is an average atteiul'ance of twenty- five children, they are eniitled to a Catholic teacher. The i)re8ent terms provide for the teaching of the French language where the pupils are French, whereas in the [troposal made by the late Government no provision was contained tor the teaching of French children in theii luitive language. The terms agreed upon provide that Catholic children shall not be pre- sent at Protestant religious teaching uidess the parents desin^ it, thus protect- ing Catholic children attending I'rotestant sehooLs from the danger of (irose- lytisra [Sej' paragraph 11) whereas the proposals of the late Government nuide no provision for exempting Catholic children from " the re(|uirement8 of the regulations as to religious exercises,'' unless the Catholic children are' in a majority in the school — if they were iu a minority they would not be exempt. (See. paragraj)!! '1 of the proposals.) As to text books, the Manitoba Government have given assurances that they will he unobjectionable to Catholics. Tliat point was conceded in the [iroi)osals. {Sf.r, Aiiiienkix C, page o4.) Q^ Representation on me Advisory Board. [See exi»lanation on Ap[iendix C, page 85.) The demand for a normal school was not insisted sn in the proposals. {See Ap[)endix C, page 38.) There can be no objection to Catholics who are preparing for the position of teachers attending the ]irovincial normal school. The other proposals were of minor importance. It will, however, be observed that in the last paragraph but one of the proposals made by the Conservative Government (Appendix C, page 32), consent was given that the schools at which Catholics attend were to be public schools and subject to the educational laws of the province. On referring to the concluding paragraphs of the proposals from the then Canadian ministers at page 39. Appendix C, it will be observed that they were willing to limit religious instruction to a certain time, and so anxious were they tor a friendly settlement that they asked the Manitoba Government to make some proposal that could be regarded as affording a chance of settle- ment which they so earnestly desired, thus giving evidence that the Canadian Governmen. was willing to accept less than the first proposal. One reason for this anxiety for a settlement was a doubt as to the validity of a Remedial Bill and the fear that even if valid it could not be enforced against the will of Manitoba. One of the commissioners was the Minister of Justice, the Hon. Mr. Dickey, and that he had grave doubts on the efficiency of the Remedial Bill is made clear by reference to a paragraph at page 37, Ai:)pendix C, which states : "Under the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the Remedial Order they (the Catliolics) certainly have important rights iu connection i>t| ss SYNOPSIS OF THE MAXITORA SCflOOfy CASE. with separate soIiooIh, and wliile the Doir.iiiion I'ai'Iiaiiit'iit may liavo jurisdiction to ent'inct' soino or all of tliosu ii;,'lits, it is uiiivfrsally ackMowlcdj^'cd that this could he (Intic witii moio advantage to all parties by tlie local legislature, and for this reason we are holding this conference." Ill view of the efforts miide Ity tljo late Conservative Administration to obtain a peaceful settlement of this (inestion, it is not consistent nor just nor fair for the friends of that Administration whether clerical or lay to charge the jiresent fiiheral Cabinet witli betraying the interests of the Catholic minority of Nfanitoba. The settlement now secured by friendly overtures is at least equal, if not superior, to the settlement the late Conservative Cabinet, with tlie approval of the Catliolic press, was willing to accept. (For opinions of Catholic prePs see Appendix D.) Those persons who now censure the present Administration for the recent settlement of tliis question should remember its past history, and the timid and vacillating policy adopted by the late Government who made this ques- tion subordinate to the political exigencies of their i)arty. The late Ad- ministration had a whole year within which to disallow the Act, and if they did not wish to assume the entire responsibility of disallowance, tiiey could have obtained the advice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and, as the sequel proved, that court would l)v a tnumimous judgment have declared the Manitoba Act of IHiX) abolishing separate schools to be ultra vires and therefore a proper subject for disallowance. The then premier, the late Sir John Macdonald, took part in the drafting of the Manitoba Act of 1870, and his colleague in the Administration, Sir Mackenzie Bowel 1, voted on the educational clause when it was discussed in Parliament. They certainly knew what the intention of that Parliament was, and had therefore no reason for having any doubt on the unconstitutionality of the Manitoba Act of 1890. {See the Debate and Division list, Appendix A.) It is believed by many persons that the true reason for non interference was the fear that disallowance would offend their extreme Protestant allies in Ontario, who had, in the year 1890, raised a sectarian agitation against the Liberal Government of that province for its policy in eidarging and improving the separate school system in the province ; certain it is that, in the provincial election in Ontario in that year, the chief ground of attack on the Liberal Administration was its alleged liberality towards Catholic separate schools. The Hon. Mr. Meredith was the provincial leader who was conducting the Conservative campaign on that occasion, and the following extract from the Toronto Mali of 24th May, 1890, may explain why the prerogative of disallowance was not exercised : '• Mr. Meredith de.sei'ves great credit for rebuking the pretentions of the Hierarchy in eiuieavouring to vindicate the rights ol: the (iovernnient and of the Catholic laity ; hut we are tirnily persuaded that the only sa^e course foi' the country, is to obtain such constitutional reforms as shall enable it to abolish the sepai-ate school system, root and branch, and to introduce the sane and wholesome principles which have helped in no small measure to make the neighbouring republic what it is."' Those prelates of the Catholic Church, who now so bitterly condemn the present Administration for its settlement of this question have no word of censure for the late Government who were in office from the year 1890 up to June, 1896, and who, having omitted to exercise their power of disallowance, permitted year after year to pass without making any effort by friendly nego- tiations to secure reasonable terms of settlement with Manitoba, until in 1896 If srxorsis of the manitoha school case. » K'tion to could he is reason ition to list nor luy to atholic tiires is viibinot, pillions recent e timid IS quGs- ite Ad- it' they y could ! seqiiol Bd the rs and late Sir 70, and on tlie y knew son for f 1890. ference Hies in nst the roving vincial Liberal ols. lucting !t from tive of of the 1 (.£ the f.i :)lesoine epubhc 1 HI trie For the y. isli the / m the 3rd of up to vance, nego- 1896 a strong Protestant feeling had arisen in the oth(;r provinces to oppose the coercion of Manitoba by legislation in flu; Federal I'arliamont. An explanation of the omission to disallow, is sometimes offered by alleging that Mr. Blake's resolution ado|)ted by tlie House of Commons of Canada ()n the -MHh April, 1890, contemiiluted non-interference with provincial legislation on " Educational matters." That resolution reads as follows : " It is expedient to piovidn inciiiis w iicpchy. on soU'iiin occasions touching' the cMM-cisf ot' the posvcr- ot ihsallowiincc, or of the appfUiite power ay to educational lc;;is|ation, important i|ue.stions of law or f.ict may be referred 1)V the ICxecutive to a hii,'h judicial tribunal for hearin;u' 'ii>d consideration, in such 'mode thiit the au- thorities and paitie-i interested may he represented and tjiat a reasoned opinion may he ohtained for the information of lIm; Hxeculive. ' The premier, the late Sir John A. Macdonald in that debate used the following language : " ()t' cour-^e my lionoui-altle friend (Mr. lilulve). in his resolution, has tjuarded Jlfjainst the supposition that such a decision is hindinir on the Kxticutive. It is expre-sly stated— and that is one of the instances which shows that this resolution ill;; heen most carefully piepared — that siieh a decision is oulv for tie- information the tlovernment. The Kxecuti\e i^ not relieved tVom anv responsihility heeau.se of any answei' i)ein;i ;,'iv'en i)y the tribunal. If the Kxeeutive were to be relieved of any such responsibility, 1 shoiild consider that a fatal blot m ihe proposition of my honourable friend. I bulieve in responsible novernment. I believe in the responsi- bility of the Executiv(>. iJut the. answer of the tribunal will be :jimply for the information of the (iovei'innent. The (iovernmetit may dissent fron ihat decision, and it, may bo their duty to do so if they ditler from the conclusion to which the court has come." Had the Administration of Sir John A. Macdonald adopted the course outlined by himself as the proper policy to pursue, and submitted to the Supreme Court ot Canada the (piestion of the c'on.stitutionality of tlie Manitoba Act of 1890, he could have had tin an.swer from that court, and an answer also from the Privy Council of England before the year expired within which to exercise the power of disallowance. No one knew better than Sir John that the Act was ultra vires, as he liad assisted in draftinu" the clauses of the Manitoba Ac'c, 1870, and never hesitated in expressing the opinion that the Act of 1890 wiis a violation of the terms on which Manitoba entered the union. And here \t is important to observe that the constitution had provided a remedy for precisely such a case as this, to wit : the power of disallowance and the power carried with it the duty ; for the courts of law were not insti- tuted for the purpose of relieving the government of the day from the responsibilities necessarily devolving upon it. In throwing this question into litigation as if it were one of extreme dubiousness the train was laid for the agitation and confusion which ensued and the question was compromised at the very start. Extraordinary and violent measures were invoked in the end to cover the neglect in applying the simi)le remedy provided by the constitution. There can be little doubt that had overtures beeti made to Manitoba in the year 1891, after the judgment of the Supreme Court declaring the Act of 1890 ultra vires, a reasonably fair settlement could have been secured. But the late Government allowed the years 1890,-91-92-93 and 94 to pass without making any serious attempt to secure a friendly settlement. The subject was 24 SYXOPSIS OF THE MAXITOfiA SCHOOL CASE. allowed to drift and, in tlie meantime, a strong Protestant feeling was growing in all tlie provinces, except Quebec, in favour of the stand taken by Manitoba. The constitutional question was lost sight of, and the agitation developed into a determination to resist the coercion of Manitoba by legislation in the Fede- ral Parliament: and while, in 1896, some of the leaders of the Conservative party were honest in their advocacy of Remedial Legislation, yet it is well known that sevend members of the late Cabinet were secretly opposed to the measure, and that feeling was shared in by man}' of their Protestant suppor- tiTs. A reference to the Conservative press will prove the truth of that state- ment. After the recent election in June, 1896, and in view of the prevailing public opinion as expressed by the newly elected members and by a large section ot the Protestant press of Canada, it was evident that any Government adopting the ]iorcy of remedial legislation at the present time would be defeated in Pi^rhanient. Even if the 65 Catholic members were a unit on the subject tiiere was no poj^sibility of securing the support of a sufficient number of the Protestant members to carry a Remedial Bill even though the present Government advised the legislation. And it may here be noted, that if the Parliament of Canada lias the constitutional power to restore to the Catholic minority all " the rights and privileges" they claim, and that any future Parliament is disposed hereafter to intervene and enact legislation on the subject, the policy of the present Government in making a Iriendly settlement with Manitoba will not be a bar to such action by any Parliament that nmy be elected hercalter. The last judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was regarded as only an expicssion of opinion by the four judges who heard the argument and had no binding effect on the Parliament of Canada nor on the Legislature of Manitoba. The concluding words of the Imperial Order in Council expressing the approval of Her Majesty the Queen are purely flu'mal, and the non-observance of the recommendations does not involve any disrespect to the Sovereign. The late Government was (piite ready to drop the Remedial Bill if they could have made a friendly settlement Avith Manitoba and they therefore did not regard the Imperial Order as binding. The Government of Canada had submitted certain questions for the opinion of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Catholic minority, who naturally were dissatisfied, appealed to the judges of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for their opinions. The court in Canada and the court in England gave opposite answers to the questions Those opinions have no lunding eli'ect on the Parliament of Canada, and its members did not consider that they were offering any discourtesy to that court by declining to adopt tlie opinions and suggestions expressed by the Lord Chan- cellor in giving judgment on the questions submitted. Moreover there is no power under the constitution that could compel the Pai'liament of Canada to pass a measure it did not approve of. Six judges of the Judicial Committee of the Queen's Privy Council had in 1892 decided that the Manitoba Act of 1890 was intra vires, and the second judgment of that court did not controvert that decision and consequently that Act (1890) cannot now be called in question. In view of tliese incontrovertible facts there was no other course open to the present Administration than to negotiate with Manitoba, and secure for the Catholics the best terms possible. The present Cabinet assumed office in July last, and, soon after, they invited the members of the Government of I / y sryorsis of the Manitoba school case. s growing- Manitoba, loped into the Fede- iiservative it is well sed to the it suppor- th at state- prevailing y a large ivernment would be lit on the it number le present \ lias the i gilts and hereafter e present ; be a bar uncil was leard the ir on the ial Order re purely volve any to drop lent with binding. 3 opinion minority, Judicial nada and ! opinions ibers did court by rd Chan- lere is no t' Canada ornniittee la Act of 3ntrovert called in 3 open to ecure for ! office in nment of Manitoba to a conference which, after many proposals and counter proposals, resulted in the terras now agreed upon. The Cabinet were naturally desirous of securing larger concessions than those now obtained; but under existing conditions "that was found to be im- possible. They have good reason to hojje, however, that the Manitoba Gov- ernment in administering the law will give a liberal interpretation to its pro- visions and endeavour to make it acceptable to such Catholic schools as may adopt it. In those school districts which are exclusively Catholic (and there are many such districts in Manitoba) there would not seem to be any good reason whatever for refusing to come under the Public School law, as, with Catholic trustees and a Catholic teacher and the parish priet^t an authorized \isitor, those schools for all practical purposes would be essentially Catholic schools. They would be subject only to an occasional visit from an inspector, whose chief object would be to see that the average attendance was up to the Govern- ment standard to entitle the school to the annual subsidy, that the teacher employed held a qualifying certificate, and that the school generally was properly managed. It would be for the Catholic ratepayers of the district to fix the taxes for the support of their own school. Under these circumstances, and as nothing better can be secured at present, would it not seem more prudent to, at least, give the proposed changes in the school law a fair trial, and if, after the experience of a few years, the administration of the schools be not satisfactory, the Catholics are free to revert to the present system of voluntary schools? The Catholic members of the present Government fully appreciate the feelings that influ'^nce some of the prelates of their church in the strong protest they make against the bad faith meted out to the Catholics of Manitoba ; but the censure should attach where it projierly belongs. When the Conservative Administration failed to exercise its power of disallowance as requested by the Cardinal, the Archbishops and Bishops of Canada, the opportunity to protect the minority was gone for ever, a/ ^nd the history of that question for the last six years proves that atatenient. Those prelates \\'\\o now condemn the Lilieral Government for the recent settlement fail to recognize the conditions under which the present Cabinet had to consider the subject. Admitting a vrumi had been done, the question of hoiv to obiain a remedy i" not a theological but a practical one, the solution largely depends on the obstacles to be overcome. The Manitoba Act is an ordinary atatuie dependi7}g for Us iiderpretation on the judgment of the courts. There is no constitutional remedy outside of that statute ; and the remedial clausfs in the Act are not obligatory on the Parliament or Canada. The question of a 'emedy, therefore, involves thf consideration of matters of law and of fact. Remedial legislation by the Federal l*arliameiit is a novel feature in our constitution — it has never been exercised and with the present develop- ment of the doctrine of provincial rights such legislation would not give the desired relief. It could not be enforced in a community where the Catholic population ia only one-seventh of the whole, and would give rise to sectarian strife in the other provinces of the Dominion, which sympathize with Mani- toba, and thus cause irreparable h.irm. Remedial Legislation is impossible. It could not be carried by either of the political parties, and even if --assed would certainly be resisted by Manitoba, and would arouse tb.c syn/ /aihies of the strong Protestant element of the Dominion in support of P'O^'ii/cial rights. The euforcement of the law am '':it 26 SYNOPSIS OF THE MANITOBA SCHOOL CASE. would ue contested in the courts, and for a long series of years this burning question would continue to agitate the public mind, seriously disturbing the peace and harmony of the whole of Canada, and injuriously aftecting the Catholic minority in the other provinces; moreover, in view of the many conflicting judgments which have been given during the long litigation of this question, there is no certainty that in the end the legislation would be finally upheld. The members of a Government who are in touch with public opinion over this broad Dominion and who are familiar with the views of the representatives elected by the people are certainly in the best position to form a sound judgment on the wisest and most prudent course to take in the interests of those who, from circumstances now beyond control, have sufiered a grievous wrong. Actuated by the best motives and believing that the policy they have adopted was the only course available, the members of the Government must patiently wait until the present excirement on this question shall have abated, convinced that the calmer judgment of the future will justify the wisdom of the settlement they have now made. Cart Crav Gau( Frar LeV Mas* Mor Poze Sha. APPENDICES TO SYNOPSIS. 27 3 burning irbing the jcting the the many igation of would be inion over ssentativea Q a sound fiterests of I grievous they have oent must ve abated, visdom of APPENDIX A. EXTRACT FROM THE DEBATE IN THE PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ON THE ACT ESTABLISHING THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF MANITOBA. House of Commons Hansard, May 10th, 1S70. ]\Ir. Oliver moved that the Education clause be struck out. Hon. ]\lr. Ceiauveau lioped the amendment would not be carried. It was desir- able to protect the minority in Manitoba from the great evil of religious dissensions on education. There could be no better model to follow in that case than the Union Act, which gave full protection to minorities. It was impossible to say who would form a majority there, Protestants or Catholics. If the population were to come from over the seas, then the Pn testants would be in a majority. If, as hatl been asserted, Manitoba was to be a French preserve, then the Catholics would be a majoriiv. He did not care which, because he desired only to see the new province freed from discussions, which had done so much injury in the old provinces of Canada. They presented a pr'oblem to the whole world, and th(» ([uestion was, could two Christian bodies, almost equally balanced, be held together under the liritish constitution. He believed that problem could be worked out successfully. Hon. ]Mr. McDouGALL, M.C., said the effect of the clause, if not struck out, would be to tix laws which the Local Legislature could not alter in future, and that it would be better to leave the matter to local authorities to decide, as in the other provinces. He (juite agreed with his lion, friend in giving the same powers to this province as the others, and it was for that reason that he desired to strike out the clause. Hon. Sir Georoe E. CAKTiEit referred to the manner in whi-jh the Red River country had been settled, and grants of land which had been made to the clergy for the purposes of education. Mr. Mai;kenzie was prepared to leave the matter to Ije settled exclusively by the Local Legislature. The British North ^Vmerica Act gave all the protection necessary for minorities ; and local authorities und rstood their own local wants better than the General Legislature. It was his earnest desire to avoid introducing into the new pro- vince, those detrimental discussions which ha 1 operated so unhappily on their own country, and therefore hoped the amendment would be carried. After a long discussion a division was taken on the amendment — Yeas 04, Nays, 8L YeAs ; — Messrs. Aull, Bodwell, Bolton, Bowell, Bowman, Brown, Connell, Dobbie, Drew, Ferguson, .Jones (Leeds and Grenvillci, Kirkpatrick, .Macdonald (CUengarry), Mackenzie, McConkfy, McDougall (Lanark), Metcalfe, Mills, ^Morrison (V^ictoria, O.), Oliver, Redford, Ro;s (l)undas), Ross (Prince Edward), Ross (Victoria, N..S.), Koss, (Wellington C. R.) ]{ymal, Snider, Stirton, Thompson (Ontario), Wallace, Wells, AVhite, Wright (York, Ontario, W.R.), and Young.— 34. Nays : — Messrs. Archambeault, .Vrchibald, Beaubicn, Bt'chard, Bellerose, Benoit, Blanchet, Bourassa, Bown, Brousseau, Burtin, Cameron (Peel), Campbell, Cariiiig, Caron, Cartier (Sir George E.), Casault, Cayley, Chauveau, Cheval, Ciraon, Costigan, Coupal, Crawford (Brockville), Daoust, Dorion, Dufresne, Duncan, Fortier, Fortin, Gaucher, Gaudet, Geoffrion, Gendron, Gibbs, (Jodin, (irant, Ciray, Grover, Heath, Hincks (Sir Francis), Holmes Holton, Huot, Hurdon, Keeler, Lacerte, Langevin, Langlois, I^awson, LeVesconte, McDonald (Lunenburg), McDonald (Middlesex), Masson (^'oulanges), Maason (Terrebonne), McDougall (Three Rivers), McCh-eevy, Mi Keagney, Merntt, Morris, Morison (Niagara), O'Connor, Peltiei', Perry, Pinsonneault, Pope, Pouliot, Pozer, Ray, Renaud, ilobitaille, Ryan (King's, N.B.), Savary, Scatcherd, Scriver, Shanly, Steplien son, Tilley, Tremblay, Walsh and Wilson. — 8L Gr as.s Ed Re \vii Ac thfc loy the eut of 1 pet be is \ stri ren anc IE. C tc. tEi tJo jJe tVi tPi t( tL. tJ. tP.« \ tTi tJ. tA: d tJ. tAi tJ. APrEXDlCES TO SYXOPSIS. 29 APPENDIX R PETITION OF THE BISHOPS FOR DISALLOWANCE. To His Excellency the Governor General in Council. The petition of the Carclinal Ai-chhishop of Quebec, and of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman CatlioUc Church in the Dominion of Canada, subject> of Her Gracious Majesty the Queen, — Humbly sheweth : — That the seventli LegislaUire of the Piovince of Manitoba, in its third session assembled, has passed an Act intituled, "An Act respecting the Department of Education,'' and another Act to be cited "The Pul>lic Scliool Act," which deprive the Roman Catholic minority of the prt)vince of the rights and pri%ileges tliey enjoyed with reg.ird to education. That during the sii.me session of the same parliament there was passed another Act, being fifty-three Victoria, chap. XIV.. tu the ftiH-t of aljuHshing the official use of the French language in the parliament and courts of justice of the said province : That the said laws are contrary to the dearest interests of a large portion of the loyal sulijects of Hei' Majesty ; That the said laws cannot fail to grieve, and in fact do atflict, at least the half of the devoted subjects of Her Majesty ; That the said laws are contraiy to the assurances given, in the name of Her Majesty, to the population of Manitoba, during the negotiations which determined the entry of the said Province into Confederation : That the said laws are a flagrant violation of the British North America Act, 18G7, of the Manitoba Act, 1870, and of the British North America Act, 1871 : that your petitioners ai-e justly alarmed at the disadvantages and even the dangers, which would be the result of a legislation forcing on its victims the conviction that public good faith is violated with them, and that advantage is taken of their numerical weaknes-s, to strike at the constitution under which '^hey are so happy to live. Therefore your petitioners humb'_ prfiy Your Excellency in Council to aftbrd a remedy to ''.itS pernicious legislation above mentioned, and that in the most efficacious and just way. And your petitioners will, as in duty bound, ever pray. Montreal, 6th March, 1891. IE. A. Cardinal Tasckereau, Archb. of Quebec. tC. O'Brien, Archb. of Halifax. tEoouARD CiiAS., Archb. of Montreal. tJoiiN Walsh, Archb. of Toronto. tJean, Archb. of Lfontopolis. tVitalJ., llishop r f St. Albert. IPeter McIntyrk Bishop of Charlotte- town. tL. F., Bishop of Three Rivers. tJ. Ca.meron. Bishop of Antigonish. IPaul Dl'rieu, O.M.L, Bishop of New Westminster. tTHOM.\8 Joseph, Bishop of Hamilton. tJ. N. Lemmens, Bishop of \'ancouver. fANDRE Alhert, Bishop of St. (iermain de Rimouski. fJ. C. McDonald, Tit. Uishop of Irina. t Ale.v , Archbishop of St. Boniface. tJ. Thomas, Archbishop of Ottawa. tJ. Farrelly, Administrator, Diocese of Kingston. f John Sweenky, Bishop of St. .John. tIsioore Clut. < ).^l.I., Bishop of Arindele. tT. < »'Mahony, Bishop of Eudocie. tANTOiNE. Bishop of Sherbrooke. f L. Z.. Bishop of St. Hyacinthe. tX. Zephirin. Bishop of Cy there, Vic. Apost. of Pontiac. tELPiu;<.E. Bishop of Nicolet. tIJk hard .\. tfCoNxou, Bishop of Peterbo- rough. T Alexander Macdonell, Bishop of Alex- ami ria. ^Denis O'Connor. Bishop of London. tX. DoKET, Priest, V. G., Prot. Apost, Administrator, of the I)iocese of Chicou- timi, during the absence vi Mgr. in Euro].>e. aL I PI mmmmm APPUXDICES TO srXOPSlS. 31 APPENDIX C. PROPOSALS FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE MANITOBA SCHOOL QUESTION MADE BY THE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT. MESSAOE (89o.) Aberdeen, The Governor General transmits to tlie Senate the Report of the Com- missioners appointed to confer with the Government of the Province of Manitoba on the subject of the schools in that Province. Government Hoqse, Ottawa, 6th April, 1896. Winnipeg, 2ii.1 April, 1806. To Bis Excellency the Governor General in Council : We, your comraisBioners appointed to eoiifor with the Government of Manitoba on thesubject of the echools in that province, beg respecttiilly to report as follows : — We proceeded to Winnipeg, arriving there at eight o'clock on the evening of 25th March. On the next day Hon. Mr. Cameron called and informed us that he and Hon. Clitford Sifton, Attorney General, had been appointed by the Manitoba Government to meet us for the purpose of discussing the school question, and a meeting was arranged for the following day. Thereafter several meetings took place at which the proceedings took the form of informal and contidontial conversa- tion of a most frank and friendly character. Attached hereto, marked "A," " B," "C" and "D" respectively are the various written communications which passed between us and the gentlemen representing the Manitoba Government and which explain themselves. We respectfully submit them for your information and con- sideration. (Signed) DONALD A. SMITH, ALPH. DESJARDINS, A. R. DICKEY. {Confidential.') SUGGESTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT OP THE MANITOBA SCHOOL QUESTION BY THE DOMINION COMMISSIONERS TO THE MANITOBA GOVERNMENT. Legislation shall be passed at the present session of the Manitoba Legislature to provide that in towns and villages where there are resident, say, Iwenty-five Roman Catholic children of school age, and in cities where there are, aay, fifty of such children, the board of trustees shall arrange that such children shall have a school house or school room for their own use, where they may be taught by a Roman Catholic teacher; and Roman Catholic parents, or guardians, say, ten in number, may appeal to the Department of Education from any decision or neglect of the board in respect of its duty under this clause, and the board shall observe and carry out all decisions and directions of the department on any such apijeal. 32 srxorsis of thi-: maxitoha sciiqoi. case. Provision shall be mailo by ihis Icifislation that sfhoolw wherein the majority of children arc Catholics should bo exempted from tlio lequi-emeiits of the regulations as to religious exercises. That tcxt-bookis bo permitted in Catholic nchools such as will not ottond the relii^ious views of the minority, tmd which from an educational standpoint shall be satisfactory to the advisory board. Catholics to have rcpro^entatiori on the. advisory boaid. Catholics to have ropreseiitution on the board of examiners appointed to examine teachers for certificates. It is also chiimetl that Catholics should iiavo assistance in the maintenance of a normal school for the education ot their teachers. The existing system of pcimiis to iion-qualitied teachers in Catholic schools to be continued for, say, two years, to enable them to quality, and then to be entirely discontinued. In all other respects the schools at which Catholics attend to be public schools and subject to every provision of the Education Acts for the time being in force in Manitoba. A written agreement having boon arrived at, and the necessai-y legislation passed, the Remedial Bill now before Parliament is to be withdrawn, and any rights and privileges which maybe claimed b}* the minority in view of the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council shall, during the due observance of such agreement, remain in abeyance and be not further insisted upon. 2Sth March. 189G. Reply of the Manitoba Government. Government Buildings, Winnipeg, 30th March^ 1806. To the Honourable Arthur R. Dickey, Honourable Alphonse Desjaruins, Sir Donald A. Smith, K.C.M.Ct. Gentlemen. — We have had under consideration the memoi'andum handed to us on the liSth instant containing your suggestions for settlement of the Manitoba school question, and have the honour to submit herewith our reply thereto. We desire first to refer to the understanding upon which the conference was proceeded with. You will lememberthat we thought it necessary before proceeding with the discussion (jf the question involved, to stipulate; 1st. That while the conference was proceeding, the Remedial Bill now before Parliament should be held in abeyance, and no proceedings taken thereon in the meantime, provided that the conference did not extend beyond Tuesiiay next. 2nd. That in the event of an agreement being reached for settlement, the Remedial Bill should be at once withdrawn, and the execution of the terms of the agreement left to the parties. These stipulations were agreed to by j'ourselves without hesitation, but not- withstanding such agreement and in violation of its terms, the Remedial Hill was advanced a stage in the House of Commons on Saturday morning. While not desirous of taking any advantage of this departure from the conditions upon which the negotiations were opened, wo deem it due to ourselves to protest against the coui'se thus pursued by the government by which you were commissioned. We regret that we are unable to accede to the terms of the propositioti subraiti'ed to us. A study of its details i-eveals the fact that it involves much more than would appear at tirst sight. The objections are both general, that is to say, as to principles involved, and special, that is to say, as to practical operation. An amendment to th-? School Act embodying the terms of the memorandum would divide the population, for educational purpose, into two classes, Romaa Catholic and Protestant, giving to the Roman Catholic population distinct and ¥ A/'/'EXDIX C TO SYXOrSIS. 83 spocitil privilesjces as ntilution of advi- sory board, boards of examiners and normal school — would be modified to bring it into accord with the separation princijtle, to an extent not usual even in places where regularl}' constituted separate school systems obtain. In the Order in Coun il of the 2Uth December. 1S!)5, tran.-^raitted to the Pedoi'al Government as embodying tho views of tho ManitobaGovernment upon the question, it is stated that the proposal to establish a system of state aided separate schools in any form cannot be agreed to. That Order in Council was taken a- tlie basis of tho policy of the government upon the question in tho late general provincial election, and upon it the government was sustained. It is clear, therefore that we ai'c pre- cluded from arccpting the proposition which has been made. Such acceptance, woultl, in onr opinion, be a direct breach of faith with the ])eoplf of our province. Apart from the fundamental objection above stated, we think it due to you to state somewhat in detail a few of the practical objections to your proposals. As to i;it tirst clause : — 1. Separate schools under this clause would result iti a teacher having under his charge a comparatively small number of pupils of various ages and degrees of pro- ticionc}'. The sidiool could not therefore be proijeily graded and could not attain tho degree of efficiency reached by public schools in cities, towns and villages. Grading of classes and mutual competition would be destroyed. The separate school would, therefore, of necessitj^ be inferior. Experience elsewhere will prove the truth of this contention. 2. The organization of the separate school would be compulsory. Neither the Roman Catholic parents noi- the school trustees woul I have any option. The volun- tary idea upon which, almost universally, school organization depends, and which rules even in Ontario, where there is a fully developed separate school system, is entirely eliminated. Given the requisite number of Roman Catholic children of school age, and the law would compel the separation without regard to the wishes of the parents or the trustees, and equally without regard to the ability of the district to maintain another school. It is most probable also that in such a case it would be held that the Roman Catholic children had no legal right lo attend the public school. Thus we would by law compel Roman Catholics to separate themselves and deprive them of the right to send their children to the public schools. There seems to be uo precedent even in separate school legislation for such a provision. 3. In man}- cases it would be impossible to provide a separate building, and the Roman Catholic children would therefore be assigned a room in the public school. It seems beyond dispute that nothing could be worse than the separation of children into two distinct bodies within tlaily view of each other. 4. The financial objections would be serious. A voluntary separate school system such as exists in Ontario, or such as we had in Manitoba prior lo 1890, would only be put into operation where the Roman Catholic rates added to ihe legislative grant would be sufficient to maintain the school, but under the plan proposed this idea is not recognized ; if the number of Roman Catholic children are to be found, a school must be provided and maintained. By whom? By the public school trustees. The rates paid b}- the Roman Ca'holic ♦^axpayers might be only one-tenth of the cost of the school, yet the rest of the district must maintain it. As a matter of fact, in agreatmajorityof cases, in cities, towns and villages in Manitoba, thocontribu tionsof the Roman Catholic ratepayer would only be a fraction of the cost of main taining the school. As -i result tho bulk of the expense would require to bo met out of the taxes paid by non-Ca,holic ratepayers, and the school would therefore be an additional and unnecessary charge upon the school revenues already in every case heavily burdened. It would be hard to conceive of a more indefensible and offensive method of compelling one portion of the people to pay for the education and secta- rian religious training of the remainder, and to maintain a separate denominational sohool to the principle of which they v/ere opposed. 31 SYXOPSIS OF THE MANITOBA SCHOOL CASE. It ifl quite clear that Huch a plan would prove unworkable. Tlie noii-Cutholic people would continually Htruggle against supporting what tlioy .vould consider to fee an unjust burden. The truntees elected would probably be in accord with the views of the majority and might prove hostiio and refractory in carrying out the details of the scheme. Altogether it is clear that a most unhappy state of affairs would result. We believe there is no justification for substituting such an arrange- ment fur that which now exists. At pi-esent in every city, town and village in the province, outside of Winnipeg and Si. Boniface, the Homan Catholic children attend iho public schools. Not a word of complaint is heard. Absolute contentment and satisfaction prevails. The children have the advantage of efflcient instruction, and numbers of them are qualif3'ing themselves to become teachers in the public school. We do not hesitate to say that not only is there no desire to separate, but if left to themselves, the Roman Catholic people in the cities, towns and vilhiges outside of Winnipeg and St. Boniface would not consent to a change in the direction indicated. ;"). It would be idle to say that such a plan would not impair the efficiency of the public schools. Such efficiency depends in the main upon the sufficiency of the school revenues. Given a sufficient revenue, antl the people under the stimulating action of the department may be de|)en(led upon to have a good school. The school taxes are now a heavy burden and one of the ever present questions in municipal finances is to decide how much the people can afford to pay for their schools. Sub- tract a substantial sum, such as would be necessary to maintain the separate schools, and nothing can be more certain than that a general lowering of the stan- dard of efficiency of the public schools would result. As to clause two : — 1. The effects of this clause would be to absolutely divest the legislature and government of control of the schools so far as religious exercises and teaching are concerned. Where a majority of the pupils are Eoman Catholics, doctrinal religious teaching without any restriction or control might go on at any hour, or all hours. The schools might be in effect, so far as religious teaching is concerned, church schools. It might be said that if religious teaching were carried on to the detri- ment of secular education the department might withhold the grant. Even if this were done, the school trustees would be compelled to carry on the school, and the penally woukl be suffered by the ratepayers. Apart from that, however, the remedy is apparent i-ather than real. In actual administration wa know from expei-ience that it is most difficult to decide on the withholding of a grant on account of ineffici- ency. Repeated and troublesome inquiries have lo be made, conflicting opinions have to be weighed, and in the end it is doubtful what course should be followed. Moreover, the withholding of a grant from a separate Catholic school, established in pursuance of a treaty of settlement, would almost inevitably be charged to be a violation of the spirit of the treaty. Another feature of this clause is the effect on non-Catholic children. What would become of them while the religious education of the majority was proceeding? Under our present conscience clause there is no possibility of trouble to any class. In the memorandum there is no safeguard. We know by experience that in schools where there was a Protestant minority, under the old system, most bitter com- plaints were made of the inability of the non-Catholic children to properly pro- gress with their studies owing to the time of the school being taken up with religious instruction. The same result would inevitably follow in an aggravated degree if we were unable to control the holding of religious exercises in every case where the Roman Catholic children were in the majority. It is our belief that in such a case the schools would be of little benefit to the non-Catholic minority. In vievv of the above remarks it will be unnecessary to deal at length with the other proposals contained in the memorandum, and our remarks thereon will there- fore bo confined to a brief space. As to the text-books : — It will be impracticable to provide by statute that the text-books should be satisfactory to the Roman Catholic minority, but wo have no doubt that if other points could be agreed upon an arrangement could be arrived at on the text-book AI'I'ENDIX G TO SYNOPSIS. 86 quorttion which would bo mutiiully satirtfuoloiy. We roi^'iird thin part of the ditficulty U8 comparatively easy of udjusttnent. We would have no objection to the Catholic people boint,' roproHented upon the udviHOiy board and the boiiid of oxatninorH. In point of fact His Ui-aco the late Archbirthop was offered a seat on the advisory board. But wo see no ])ractical way of embodying Huch a provision in the Htatutes. Tho ofioct of huch a statutory pro- vision would be that tho boards would not be lei^ally constitutod without Catholic members, and the legal constitution of the Itoartl might be disturbed by tho resig- nation of the Catholic members oi- tho refusal of Catholic norniiioes to accept office. It would also be impossible to give a statutory privilege of representation to one religious denomination without according the same privilege to others. The proposal to adequatoly assist a separate normal school wo could not consider. It would be absolutely unjustifiable. The normal school is a technical training school for teachers. We endeavour to raise it to the highest possible standard by devoting to it as much of tho school funds as can bo spared. There can bo no argument advanced in favour of dividing the funds, or of separating Roman Catholic teachers ia process of trui niiig from the other.*. The Roman Catholic teachers would not be prevented from acquiring religious instruction elsewhere, but it is clear that their own educational interests and that of the schools to be placed under their charge would be best served by their attendance at the provincial nor- mal school. As to the question of permits ; — Tho proposition in the memorandum might be agreed to by the government, to be carried out as a matter of administration. Tho last clause of the memorandum referring to the terms upon which tho Remedial Bill would be withdrawn is not, it is submitted, in accordance with the understanding arrived at upon the opening of the ccnferenco. The understanding was that in tho event of a settlement being made, the Remedial Hill shoidd be immediately withdiawn. The passing of the necessary legislation, and the carrying out of the terms of tho settlement was to be left to the parties. Tho clause of the memorandum referied to is therefore a departure, in that it requires, as a condition of the withdrawal of the Remedial Bill, that legislation to carry out the terms of the settlement, if mado, should be enacted before tho withdrawal of the bill. Apart from the understanding which was had, it would be impossible to accede to the terms of the last clause. The legislature cannot meet until the I6th of April, and under the ordinary procedure the government could not undertake to have a bill passed before the 25th of April, the day upon which the Dominion Parliament expires by effluxion of time. It will be seen from tho above remarks that the plan proposed involves the establishment of a state aided denominational system of separate schools, which in practical effect would carry with it the evils of the system which prevailed prior to 1890, and would also involve grave additional evils and difficulties of which wo have not hitherto had experience. The objections may be summarized as being : 1st. The statutory division of the people into separate denominational classes. 2nd. The necessary inferiority of the separate school. 3rd. Impairment of tho efficiency of the public schools through division of school revenues. 4th. The burdening of non-Catholic ratepayers by compelling them to maintain separate schools. 5th. Tho acjording of special privileges to one denomination which could not on principle be Jonied to all the others, but which in practice could not be granted to such others without entire destruction of the school system. It will not, therefore, be a matter of surprise to you that we are unable to accede to the proposition made, or any proposition based upon similar principles. We are prepared, however, to make good the promise to remedy any well- founded grievance if such exists, and we, therefore, submit apian of suggested modi- fications, which we believe to be free from objections upon principle, and which in 3i SYXOrSIS OF THE MANlTOliA SCHOOL CASE. our opinion will remove imy hucIi ^riovuiico, iiml at the sumo time ii\ no way all'oct tlu< t'flu'.ioncy nlilio jjuhlif m-Imo! HV'Htum, or deprivo tlio Roman (/alholic cluhlren of the privili'^e of participation in llio Hamo ctliifational ailvaiiluyos enjoyed by tho rout (it I he people. Our proposition is in tho form of an allornalivo: KirHl : Shoiilil it he aecoi)to(i as a satisfactory measure of relief to tho minority and as removinn' their ifriovances, we hereby oH'cr to cornpleli^ly seculaii/o the pul)lic school sysicm, eliminatint; lolit^ious exorcises and teachiuij of every kind during school hours. Wo desire it tube understood in connection with this proposition that it is made as a com])romise oiler, and not as embodying the policy wbieli the govern- ment und loicislutuie of tho province are themselves desirous of puisuin^. We are willing, however, to adopt such a measure in order to attain a settlement of the dispute. Second : In tho ahcrmitive wo oiler to repeal the present j)rovisions ol' tiio School Act relating to religious exercises, and lo enact in substance tho following : — •' >io leligious exercises or teaching to talco place in any pul)lic Bcliool, except ns provided in the Act. Such exercises or teaching, when held, to bo between half past throe and four o'cdock in the afternoon." " If autlutrized by resolution of tho trustees, such roHolution to bo assented to by a majority, robi^ious exorcises and teaching to bo held in any public t-chool between 3.30 and 4 o'clock in the afleinoon. Such religious exorcise and teaching to bo con- ducted by any Chiistian clergyman whose charge includes any poition of the school district, or by any poison satisfaciory to a majority of tho trusteoB who may be authorized by said clergyman to act in his stead ; the trusteeH to allot tho period tixed for religious exercises or teaching for tho ditferent days of tho week to the representatives of the ditl'eront religious denominations to which the pupils may belong in such a way as to proportion tho time allotted as nearly as possible to tho number of pupils in the school of the respective denominations. Two or more denominations to have the privilege of uniting for tho purpose of such religious exercises. If no duly authorized representative of any of the denominations attend, tho regular school work to bo carried on uniil four o'clock." " No pupil to be permitted to be present at such religious exorcises or teaching if the parents t-hall object. In such case the pupil to be dismissed at 3.30." " Where the school room accommodation at the disposal of tho trustees permits, instead of allotting diU'erent days of the week to different denominations, tho trus- tees to direct that the pupils shall be separated and placed in different rooms for tho purpose of religious exercises as may be conveniei t." We believe that the foregoing proposivls will remove any well-founded grievance. If the objection of the minority be that the schools are Protestant, as alleged in some of their petitions, then the objection can be fully and finally disposed of by complete secularization. If tho real objection be the desire to have along with efficiency, secular educa- tion, proper religious training, then the second piiin proposed otters an effective method of attaining the object desired. In finir it is difficult to conceive what better plan could be proposed even wore wedoHii'ig with a system of schools entirely Catholic. It would be, in any event, necessary to have some general provision as to tho time allotted for religious exercise!;- and teaching. The individual school could not bo permitted to act without restraint. The time suggested seems to be a reasonable and sufficient proportion of the school hours, and the hour in the day is undoubtedly the most convenient for the operation of the conscience clause. At the same time no distinction of any kind between denominations would be made. Absolutely equal rights would prevail. Non-Catholics desiring a greater amount of religious instruction than is given at present, might carry out their views. While this desirable end would be accomplished, the uniformity and efficieney of the schools to which the children of all denominations would go, would remain absolutely unimpaired and unaffected. CLIFFORD SIPTON, J. D. CAMERON. .1 / '/'A'A7>/ V C TO srXOPSIS. 37 Rejoinder of (he ('ommimoners for the dominion. Manitohv JIotkl, Winnu'eq, iUst iMurcli, 1896. llonouruljlo (/LtKFOKD SiFTON, " J. 1). Cameron. frENTi,EMRN, — Wc lio<; Icjivo to !icknowlcii;,'o yoiii' communication diitoii yostor- day, and wiitton in roply to our sui,'jfoMion.s tor Hcttloniont o\ the Muniioba nchool question. We rei!;rot to tin ! that ihcro Iiuh lu'i^n some misaj)preia'Msion an to any umier- Htanding upon which the contorunco was pioccodod with. Art to iho tirst ot'thowe matterrt mentioned by you ; we undetvtand the i'acts to be that you in-isteil that no furtljor conbi(b'rati<»n of ihi' Komedial Hill shoulit bi' jirt'ssed iov by ihn Dominion (iovernmcnt until to-day (Tuosdayj and that we diieeiod your jlttontion to tlio annouiK'oment to that ertect in ^h^^ newrtpapoiw of via day, and having every desire to moot yourwishoH wofurthor promised to communicatD vviih tlie Dominion (Tovorn- ment askini^ ihat the bill bo not taken up on Kriday. This cnnHuunication wo >ent, and we wero as much surprised as yourselves to tind that late on the n'^hl of the Friday silting the bill was advanced a statrc. VVe cannot say what consideration forced the government to the conclusion thai this step was necessaiv, and wo sincerely rej^n-t that any misuiiderslandini; has arisen as to a point ii])on which we carried out what wv. believed to be our eni^aifement. and upon which we did al! wo could to have your wishes observed. As to the second matter whuh you mention, there seems to have been a clear and perhaps not unnatuial misunderstaiidini;- between us. Wo unders'ooii you to 8ti])ula(o that vvlien the school question was settled the Remedial Hill would be withdrawn, and we ilid not mean to lead you to believe thai this was to take place aH soon as an agreement was arrived al between us, and the concluding paragraph of our suggestions therefore expressed our undeihtJinding of what was originally agreed upon. Wo refer to these questions, which are in themselves unimportant, in order to remove from the controversy all matlerr^ of a personal ch:iraclor. A few words are necessary ua to the character of our momoiandum. It was put in general terms tis a suggested basis upon which our future discussions might jiroceed with a view to a possible agreement of all parties interested. It i-^ therefore open to some of the objections raised by you, inasmuch as it does not deal with details, and j)rofesses only to lay lei'iing issues. In our view much (>f your argu- ment misHi's its mark because you have not '•ecognized the present position of affairs and dealt with our suggestion as compared witli a regular system of separate ^chools such as might bo established under the Remedial Hill, or under the old system, but have rather con ined your attention to maintaining that our po.-ition would involve some of the dravvbacks of these other schools. We deeply regret that you have felt obliged to reject our proposition, and with all deference it does not appeal- to us that the objections, general and special, which you urge are such as to necessarily involve .so serious a step. It would serve no useful purpose for us to support our view with any detailed argument, but some general considerations may be advanced as to the three objections upon principle which you mention; viz.: (1.) That our plan would divide the population into "two classes, Ronnan Catholics and Protestants, giving theformer class privileges as against the latter; (2.) That it would establish a system of state supported separate schools ; SYXOPSIS OF THE MANITOBA SCHOOL CASE. and (3.) That the whole school organization would be modified to an unusual extent to bring it into accord with the separate school principle. As to the first of these objections we may observe that the separation of the Roman Catholics as a class does not arise from our suggestions. It is made by the constitution and arises as to them because they happen to be a minority of the population. It is inaccurate to say that any privilege iu given to them as against the lest of the population. It is only the i-ighi-. .jonferred on the minority by the constitution that are in question. The problem presented in the school question is to secure to them their just and lawful privileges under the constitution in such a manner as to cause the minimum of interference with the public school system ot Manitoba, and in that view we think our suggestion has merits. As to your second objection we may observe that the Roman Catholic popula- tion contribute their share of all taxi'tion for schools, and in return are entitled to obtaiti education for their children. It is now a question of the mode of that educa- tion in view of the rights held by the minority under the constitution. The con- tention that the system we propose would be unduly expensive and the limitations on ordinary separate school privileges emboilied in our prop(»bition will be con- sidered later on. In so far as there is any principle violated by the application of taxes to the support of schools in which Roman Catholic doctrines are taught, your alternative suggestion would seem to be quite as objectionable as ours. In reply to your third objection, we beg to urge upon you that the changes we sugi^c'st are much less than what we understand to he involved ordinarily by the establishment; of sepai-ale schools. We do not insist upon normals chools As to text-liooks, and roprosentation on the boards, as a matter of pi-actice and adminis- tration we find that you raise in point of fact no objection. We do not ask that the Roman Catholics have a separate riijht to elect trustees or otherwise to have any special representation on the board of trustees, being content with the protection afforded by an appeal to your own Dejiartment of Education, and in this respect our proposals very materially limit ichat is always considered the privileges essential in collection with a separate school system. The proposed schools would be con- trolled by trusstees elected by the whole body of ratepayers under the provisions of your school law. Theie does not seem to be any adequate foundation for your remark that the carrying intoelfect of our suggestion would involve a modification of >chool organization greater than urense intend to exclude the pi'inciple of election on the part of the Roman Catholic^, a principle which is elementary, and which is embodied in the Remedial Bill. As to your third objection, we cannot agree that there would be any special disadvantage in having Roman Catholic children in a se])arate room as distinguished from teaching them in a separate building. It would seem to be quite as objection- able OP _irinciple to separate them for religious exercises, as one of your owa BUggeb n» would involve. APPENDIX C TO SYNOPSIS. 39 We cannot altogether follow your reasoninj^' with respect to the financial objec- tions. As before stated, the Roman Catholics must pay their share of the taxation, be it great or small, and in return they have a right to educational privileges. The school laws are full of tinancial anomalies, as occurs for oxam.ple in the case of a wealthy man without children as compared with a poor man who has u large family. You observe that in Ontario and in Manitoba, prior to 1890, a separate school could not be established unless the rates with the legislative grant could maintain it, and suggest that our proposition is faulty in that this is not recognized. Your argument on this head loser: weight when it is considered that we propose that there should be in towns and villages iwenty-tive, and in cities tifty, Koman Catholic children before they could ash for a separate room or building, while under the old law, before 1890, under the Remedial Bill, and even under your own existing law, the presence of ten children only is neces>-ary to the establishment of a school district. We must again direct your attention to the evident adimntages in point oj eeconomy of the system we propose over the old system, over schools under the Remedial Bill, and paiticuarly over the existing state of atfairs where an impoitant section of the public has to pay school taxes, and in addition feels compelled from conscientious motives to educate their children at their own expense. There would be no expenses of organization either general or local. The utmost that can be .-aid is that it would cost the wlioie community the increase in expense, if any. which would necessarily be involved in the Roman Catholic children being eiucatid together in one room or in one building, as compared with ediicaiing them scattered amongst the rest of the school childi'en. It is only in small mixed communities that this could be a serious item. We note 3'our objection that this would be an offensive method of com))elling one portion of the people to pa}?^ for the education and sectarian religious training of the remainder, and must again remind you ihut in principle your own alternative suggestion is equally objectionable, because con- ceivably the Roman Catholics under your >y.>lern might pay a comparatively insig- nificant shaie of taxation, and 3"et you proi)oso that their reli>:;ion shall be taiiitht them in the schools. We must further draw your attention to the Hagraiit injustice of the present system, which compels Roman Catholics to contribute to schools to which they cannot conscientiously send their children, and we beg to suitmit that this fact deserves due weight and consideration in this connection. It is to be further noted that the Roman Catholics earnestly desire a complete system of separate schools on which only their own money would be expended, a state ot matters which woufi meet the oh-ervation under coiisiileration, but which you (lecline to gnint. Our suggestion was to relieve j'ou from the Ilece-^ity of going as far as this. It is perhaps impossible to devise a i-ystem that would be entirel\- uuobjeclioriable theoretically and in the abstract. We had great hope that what we sugi^ested would commend itself to }-our judgment as a |)iacticablo scheme doing reason.ably .substan- tial justice to all classes,, uid securing that harmony an I tranquillity which are per- ha|)s more than anythinv, else to bo desired in a young and growing community such as is now engaged in Oie task of developing the resources of M-initoba. The g>'nnnd taktn in 3'our fifth objection has been touched on in the preceding remiU'lvS. As to clauses •: wo of our memorandum your '»ji;ctions could be met by provisions as to detail. If desired the privde<,a of teac \. ' religion could he limited to a certain time in the schools attended by Roman CathoiU'i>. The noint that jiro- vision should be made for non-Catholie children is certainly well taken and is quite in accordan'ie with our views, which were in ibis respect imperfectly expessed in the memon ndum. Neither of the proitositions \vhi( h you make would, as it ap|)ears .0 us, remove the sense of unjust treatment existing amongst the ninority, nor would they possess the elements of permimency and freedom from friction in administra- tion which are certainly necessary for a final and peaceable solution of existing diffi- culties. We once more appeal to you in the interests of the whole population of the province^ indeed of the Dominion, as well as in the int:'r"sts ot the miaority, to reconsider the dec - sion at ichich you have arrived and i yraiit some proposal that we could regard as affording a chance of the stttlement which we so earnestly desire. 40 SYNOPSIS OF THE MANITOBA SCHOOL CASE. Reply of the Manitoba Government to Rejoinder. Government BuiLDiNrss, Winnu'EG, Ist April, 1896. To the Honourable Arthur H, Dickey, Honourable Alpiionse Hesjardins, Sir Donald A. Smith, K.C.M.G. Gentlemen, — We have the honour to submit herewith our views upon your monaorandum of yes^terday. As remarked by yourselves in your memorandum, a lengthened reicreiicc to the objections raised to your tirst suggestions will not serve any valuable purpose at tho present stage of the discussion. ();;i- pui])Ose in statin?-: the objections was to give you our view as to the results which would follow from the plan proposed, or any similar plan. The point of difficulty in an-iving at a basis of settlement seems to be very clearly defined. You maintain that, in tho words of your memorandum, the Roman Catholics "certainly have imjmrtant legal rights in connection with separate schools," and that your idea of the object of the conference is to give effect to those rights in the most unobjectionable way, through the action of tho legislature of the province. We hold on the contrary that the constitution gives the Roman Catholics no legal rights in reference to separate schools, except tl right of appeal under which the federal authority may, or may not, icstore any lights formerly enjoyed under provincial legislation. Your proposition aims at the legal recognition by the legislature ofM:».nitoba of the right of the Roman Catholic people to separate for school purposes. Our proposition aims at removing every jiractical objection to the present system with- out giving a legal right to separate. We understand that, by Order ir, Council, your authority is limited to making a settlement satisfactor}' to the minority, and that as a matter of fact the minority will accept nothing short of statutory recognition of the right of separation. We I'cgard ourselves as precluded by our declaration of policy preccdinir our last election from assenting to such statutory recognition. While joining with you in the earnest desire to reach a settlement, we are unable to suggest any way of reconciling these two propositions. We are of the opinion that there wonlii be no objection on principle to the plan we propose, and that its practical operation would prove to b" very satisfactory. It would give substantial lelief on every material matter without legal separation. If the minority insist;; on legal separation there dees not seem to be any possibility of reaching a basis of com])romise. We cannot but express our regret .nnd disappointment at the failure of our negotiations. We assumed when a conference was aslced for by the Federal (lovei-n- ment, with full knowledge cf the tact that wo were cleai'ly estopped by the teims of the Order in Council of 20th December, 1895, from assenting to the re-establishmcnt of separate schools in any form, that it was with the object of securing substantial modifications, which while fallirg short of the principle of separation, would remove every alleged reason for Rimian Catholic opposition to tho use of tho public schools. We think that the proposition which we have made would, if adojjted, remove every such reason, and it is thcre'ore such a proposition as we believed you had come pre- pared to accept. Its noii-acceptance, apparently, is duo to tho determination of the minority to insist upon the most extreme, and in our opinion, unsound view of their legal rights. We entered upon the task of seeking a settlement of the question nt issue in the face of grave and obvious difiieullies. In the first place, so far as the re-establishment of sejwrate schools is concerned, the question has for Noars been considered settled so far as the people of this province, to whom we are responsible, are concerned. In the nex; place we have hitherto believed ihat a state aided separate school system, and that only, would !;•• acceptc. From the " CatMic Register'' of the 0th April, 1896. NO CHANCE OF SETTLEMENT. That tliere never was the slightest chance of an airreement Ijeing arrived at between the commissioners appointed by the Federal Government to confer with the Manitoba authorities and Messrs. 8ifton and Cameron, actin;: for the Provincial Government, is made manifest by the jiublication of the otficial rejxirts of the conference. J?ir Donald Smith and Messrs. Desjardins and Dickey submitted the following proposals : — (Here follow the proposals as in Appendix C.) To all intents and purposes the Dominion commissioners might have submitted the Remedial Bill and asked that it be passed as a pr-jvincial stiitute, for the riglits stated in the foregoing (|uotation from the comniissii'ners' report include all the rights that remedial legislation is intended to secure or can secure. The main objection stated by Mr. Sifton to those proposals was the flivision of the people int(j denominational classes. Well, the people are divided into denominational classes, and any law or regulations enacted by the (Tovernraent of Manitoba, or any other government, for the common education of children is not likely to resv,ore Christian unity, or remo%'e Christianity from the path of politicians. From the " Catholic Rerord." 11th April, 1S9G. THE M.\N"IT0nA CON'FERENCE. The proposals made by the Dominion commissioners were e.vtremely moderate, yet they were such as would have been accepted by the Manitoba minority. It was proposed that in towns and villages wherein there are twenty-tive and in cities where there are fifty Catholic childrei), there should be a school-house, or at least a room for their use, and that a Catholic teacher should l»e emj'loyed for ilu-m. In the-e schools the (Protestant) pra\ers and religious e.\erci-es now prescriljed by the Public .School Act should not be enforced, and this last provi-ion should extend to localities where a majority of the children are Catholics. In these Catliolic schools, text-books should be such a> would not offend the reli- gious views of Catholics, but the b )oks should be satisfactory to ♦:he Advisory (pul)lic school) Board. On the Advisory Board anr the Board of Examineis there should be Catholic representation, and Catholics shou.d have assistance for the maintenance of a Catholic normal school. In all othei- respects the Catholic schools should Ije subject to the Manitoba School Acts, V)ut two years should be allowed to enable those teachers wlio have not certificates to qualify before being subjected to the strict application of the present requirements of the law. If these conditions had lieen accepted, the commissionei-s promised, on the passing of the necessary legislation by t!.e Legislature ..f Manitoba, that the Remedial Bill now ])efore Parliament would be withdrawn, and any rights and privileges claimed by the minority would renuiin in abeyance, and not be further insisted upm. We have heard nmch during the discussion «>f this ipiestion, of unreasonable requirements on the part of the Catholic minority, and also of their desire to maintain 44 srxorsis of the maxitcha school CAStj. inefficient schools. It was in fact on this supposed inreasonalileness of the Catholics that ^lessi's. Attorney General Sifton and D' Alton McCarthy laid most stiess in their anti-remedial speeches, especitally dining the election ca]nj)ai<;n in Haidimand, but cer- tainly there is not in the proposals of the commissioneis anything to justify such a statement. The point on which the Catholics of ^Manitoba insist is that Catholic teaching be allowed for Catholic children and not that they shall be allowed to have inefficient schools, and there is no good reason why the guarantees under wliich Manitoba entered into the Canadian Confederation should not tie faithfully observed. Messrs. Sifton and Camei-on, on behalf of the Manitoba Government, objected to those proposals merely l)y a series of (juibl)les, to tin- effect that the Catholic schools as proposed by the commissioners would be necessarily inferior, and that it is against the public interest that there should be any separation between children of different faiths. The con)missioners proposals wert; not immutnble as to details, if the Greenway Government had shown any disposition to be conciliatory, but instead of this they complained that the Remedial ]iill now before Parliament had not been held in abeyance. Tt is evident, therefoi'e, that the solo purpose of the M-initoba Government in arran'dnjjr for a conference at all, was to defeat the Remedial Bill, or to delav it for another year, and perhaps thus to prevent its bi'coming law. " The Casket" Avtlgonish, X. S., 9th April, 1S96. The otHcial report of the negotiations between the Dominion connnissioners and the representatives of the Co^ernn1elxt of Manitoba, while it removes the last hope of a voluntary settlement ol' the scIujkI ^ne. 'j.vin, is satisfactory inasmuch as it clears the air of the clouds of dust that have been purposely stirred up around the subject and leaves the issue standing out l)oldly and distinctly. We now know ju.stwhat Manitoba will do and whai she will not do to effect a settlement. The commissioners asked the Mani- toba Government to establish by law, in the towns and cities where there ar<> Catholic pupils in considerable numl)ers, a system practically the same as that which obtains by practice in the city of Halifax, and the Manitoba Government, through its authorized representatives, I'efused most pointedly e\en to entertain the proposition- -not because of the Remedial Order ; not because of the Remedial Bill ; not because their " back was up "' ; not because of '' threats "' of " coercion " ; but because they are opposed to the principle of separate schools in any form. In otliei- words they assured the Dominion commissioners that they meant what they said when they declared in their last official communication on the subject that they "positively and definitely rejected the propo- sition to establish a system of separate schools in.anyform. " They went to the country, they say, on that platform, and, having been returned upon it, it is impossible for them now to recede from it. They have l)urned their boats and cannot retreat. Therefore they cannot even entertain the pioposition to establish the Halifax school system. ****** As a sacrifice for peace sake the Manitoba minority, it would appear, consented to accept the Halifax system, though they had been guaranteed a great deal more ; but the Greenway Government positively refuse to give them that, and offer something which they cannot accept. From the North-ivest Review, Sth April, 1S9G. Sunny ways. The Ottawa commissioners may rest assured of our deep gratitude for their honest and patient efforts ii our behalf. Nothing could exceed or even eijual the kindness and geneious hospitality of 8ir Donald A. iSmith, the calm reasonableness of the Hon. Mr. Dickey and the unruffied urbanity of the Hon. Mr. Desjardins. 1 APPEXDIX D TO SYNOPSIS. 45 One thing is plain as a pikestaff : the Local Government have been approached with the sunnkst of " the sunny ways of patriotism," and yet those gentle and per- suasive rays have failed either to penetrate or melt those icy hearts. Mr. Laurier himself, wreathed in smiles and breathing honeyed phrases^ could not have made a nobler effort. " The Truf Witness,'' Sth April, ISOG. From an article entitled " Th- Winr. peg Conference." In view of the stand taken bv the Dominion Government on Pvemedial Legislation many were at a loss to conceive "what proposition coukl be made that would ije satis- factory to the minority embracing less than the scope of the measure now before the House of Commons. A moderation of the demands made on behalf of the Cathohcs in the subjoined proposals will be a surprise to most people. (Here follow the propositions.) Could anything less exacting have been put forward. That the minority should have been willing to accept such a settlement only proves that there exists in then- hearts a strong desirs to avoid conflict they are anxious for peace. From " La Presse," 0th April, 1896. Our readers must have seen that our rep esentatives have made all the concessions and the sacrifices that the mhiority could do to arrive at a settlement which would have been acceptable to both parties. ^>H >t= * ^ * '^ Greenway's Cabinet has refused to accept these reasonable offers, etc. From "La Mimrve," 4th April, 1S96. •Ileferring to proposals made by Messrs. Dickey, Desjardins, and Smith. (Translation)-The proposals of the Federal Government have gone as far as it was possible to go without sacrificing any of the essential rights confirmed by the Lupenal Court of the Privy Council. APPENDICES TO SYNOPSIS. 47 APPENDIX E. MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT. TERMS OF THE ACJKEEMKNT MADE BETWEEN THE <;OVERNMEXT OF CANADA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF MANITOBA FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 1. Legislation shall be introduced and passed at the next reiiulai' session of the Legislature of Manitoba eiul)odyinif the provisions hereinafter >pt forth in amendmcfnt to the " Public Schools Act," for the purpose of settling the educational i|uestions that have been in dispute in that province. 2. Religious teaching to be conducted as hereinafter pronde^l : — \. If authorized by a resolution passed by a majority of the schof)l trustees, or, 2. If a petition l)e presented to the board of school trustees asking for religious teaching and signed by the parents or guardians of at least ten children attending the school in the case of a I'ural district, or by the parents or guardians of at least twenty- five children attending the school in a city, town or village. 3. Such religious teaching to take place between the hours of 3.30 and 4.00 o'clock in the afternoon, and to lie conducted 1)V any Christian clertrvman whose char<:e includes any portion of the school district, or by a pei-sitn duly authorized by such clergyman, or by a teacher when so authorized. 4. Where so specified in such resolution of the trustees, or where so required by the petition of the parents or guardians, religious teachini,' during' the prescri1)ed period may take place only on certain specified days of the week in>tead of on every teaching day. 5. In any school in towns and cities where the average attendance of Roman Catho- lic children is forty or upwards, and in villages and lural disiriet.s where the average attendance of such children is twenty-five or upwaids, the trustee-- shall, if required by the petition of the parents or guardians of such numl)er of Roman Catholic children respectively, employ at least one duly certificated Roman Catholic teacher in such school. In any school in towns and cities where the average attendance of non-Roman Catholic children is forty or upwards, and in villages and rural districts where the average attendance of such children is twenty-five or upwartls the trustees shall, if required b}* the petition or the parents or guardians of such children, employ at least one dulv certificated non- loraan Catholic teacher. 6. Where religious 'caching is requii-ed to be carried on in any schrol in pursuance of the foregoing provisions and there are Roman Catholic children and non-Romun Catholic children attending such school, and the school-room accommodation does not permit of the pupils beinij; placed in separate rooms for the purpose of religious teaching, provisions shall be made by regulations of the Department of Ivlucation (which regula- tions the board of school trustees shall observe) whereby the time allotted for religious teaching shall be divided in such a way that religious teaching of the Roman Catholic children shall be cirried on during the prescribed period on one-half of the teaching days in each month, and the religious teaching of the non-Roman Catholic children may be carried on during the prescribed period on one-half of the teaching days in each month. 48 SYXOrSIS OF THE MAXITOliA SCHOOL CASE. 7. The Department of Education shall have the power to make regulations not inconsistent with the principles of this Act for the carrying into effect the provisions of this Act. 8. No separation of the pupils by religious donorainations shall take' place during the secular school work. 9. Where the school-room accommodation at tlie disposal of the trustees permits, instead of allotting different days of the week to the different denominations for the purpose of religious teaching, the pupils may he separated when the hour for religious teaching arrives, and placed in separate rooms. 10. Where ten of the pupils in any school speak the French language (or any lan- guage other than English) as their native language, the teaching of such pupils shall bo conducted in French (or such other language) and English upon the bilingual system. 11. No pupils to be permitted to be present at any religious teaching unless the parents or guardians of such pupils desire it. In case the parents or guardians do not desire the attendance of the pujiils at such religious teaching then the pupils shall be dismissed before the exercises, or shall remain in another room.