fO^ 
 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 // 
 
 ^/ 
 
 k 
 
 
 #. 
 
 Ki 
 
 f/- 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 ^ 14S IIIIIIO 
 
 1.4 
 
 18 
 
 1.6 
 
 m 
 
 ^% 
 
 
 //,. 
 
 ^? 
 
 ^;. 
 
 .'V 
 
 '/ 
 
 /A 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 33 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. )4580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 V 
 
 ^^ 
 
 :i7 
 
 \\ 
 
 
 ^9) 
 
 .V 
 
 C^^ 
 
 
 <* 
 
 6^ 
 
 
^ 
 
 €?.- 
 
 <i>" W 
 
 
 1' 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICIVIH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiq 
 
 ues 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy availab'e 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. 
 
 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagee 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde 
 
 I I Cover title missing/ 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relid avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 afong interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge int4rieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaiies pages blanches ajoutdes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela §tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 filmdes. 
 
 The 
 to X\t 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6td 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 m^thode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. 
 
 I I Coloured pages/ 
 
 w( 
 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 y 
 
 Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul^es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqudes 
 
 The 
 poss 
 of tl 
 filmi 
 
 Orig 
 begi 
 the I 
 sion 
 othe 
 first 
 sion 
 Grill 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages detachees 
 
 7 
 
 n 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 Quality in^gale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary naterial/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 The 
 shal 
 TINI 
 whi( 
 
 Map 
 diffe 
 entii 
 bef i 
 rig 11 
 reqi 
 met 
 
 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, una pelure, 
 etc., ont 6td film^es h nouveau de faqon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 □ 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl6mentaires; 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 National Library of Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible ccnsidering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and nnding on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol ^»- (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 bef inning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 rig It and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les images suiv&ntes ont 6X6 roproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impressicn ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds A des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour §tre 
 reproduit en un seul clichd, il est film6 d partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche 6 droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 - 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
A 
 
 A ! 
 
 -H 
 

 A 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 *Ji51??» 
 
 J 
 
 »i'5T. 
 
 > /»■■ 
 
 'S*- 
 
 I^IGrl i « 
 
 A CUESTlON OF ETHICS, POLIT!CS, 
 FACTS AND LAW, 
 
 A Review of ihe Maviitoba School Que'ition 
 published by "The V.'innippg Tribune." 
 
 », ( 
 
 PRrOE, fP5 OBNTS, 
 
INOKX. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Preface 1 
 
 General Considerations.. 3 
 
 History of Origin of Separate Schools in Manitoba 15 
 
 Legal and Constitutional Questions 31 
 
 REFERENCES. 
 
 Bill of Rights, No. 1 18 
 
 Bills of Rights, Nos. 3 and 4 20 and 21 
 
 British North America Act (Section 93) . ..... 25 
 
 Manitoba Act (Section 22) 25 
 
 Questions Referred to Canadian Supreme Court and Im- 
 perial Privy Council 33 
 
 fe 
 
 it* **';:. ^- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 15 
 
 31 
 
 33 
 
 It is now about a century since Thomas Jefferson, in a public 
 deliverance, reminded his countrymen of the necessity and wisdom of 
 frequently returning to the consideration of first principles. It is probable 
 that even at that early period of the American national existence, the 
 keen eye of Jefferson had perceived that tendency on the part of his 
 countrymen, which has since been developed into one of the most dis- 
 tinctive traits of the American national character. We refer to the ten- 
 dency to regard the abstract or philosophical aspects of questions with a 
 feeling somewhat akin to contempt. 
 
 Americans are prone to declare with an air of much self-satisfaction 
 that they care nothing for theories, that they are a pre-eminently prac- 
 tical people. Notwithstanding the great material prosperity of the American 
 people, this intense " practicality " has been the cause of much loss and 
 trouble to them already, and has sown the seeds of social and economic 
 disorder which may yet imperil even their national existence. 
 
 It is to be feared that Jefferson's wise advice would be almost as 
 applicable to the people of Canada as to those to whom it was tendered. 
 Our forgetfulness of first principles is shown in our readiness to com- 
 promise or " fix up," everything in the nature of a dispute, with regard 
 only to a sordid expediency, and to relief from a present difficulty, the solu- 
 tion of which we are always prepared to bequeath to posterity. This 
 apres moi le deluge policy in dealing with political and fiscal difficulties is 
 as immoral as it is pusillanimous. The sacrifice of principle to exped- 
 iency, and the disregard of theoretical soundness in favor of practical con- 
 
 I 
 
venience, may procure smooth sailing for a time, but it is a policy anal- 
 agous in its results to the proverbial sowing of the wind. 
 
 This tendency has been displayed to a very marked degree in certain 
 quarters in discussing and in dealing with the Manitoba School Question 
 — a question involving issues of the most fundamental importance. 
 Besides this peculiar and unfortunate inability to apprehend the question 
 in the abstract, there has been displayed a most extraordinary ignorance 
 and misconception with regard to the actual concrete facts of the case. 
 In many instances the ignorance and misconception are undoubtedly un- 
 conscious. In others it is impossible to avoid the conviction that the mis- 
 apprehension is wilful, and therefore dishonest. 
 
 In view of these considerations, and also of the fact that no compre- 
 hensive and connected statement of this case from an impartial or a Manito- 
 ban standpoint, has yet been presented to the public, the writer has penned 
 these pages. He is fully — even painfully — aware of the imperfections which 
 characterize this effort, but he trusts that at least the salient facts of the case, 
 and the essential principles involved, are placed in such bold, even if rude, 
 relief, that the public cannot fail to see what they are. If he has succeeded 
 . this, he considers that he has amply atoned for his rhetorical defects, as 
 he feels that the case of Manitoba is so intrinsically sound and strong, that 
 its presentation with some degree of fulness even by a " 'prentice han' " 
 cannot fail to carry conviction to any reader whose mind is open to it. 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 THE WRITER. 
 
 Winnipeg, June 1st, 1895. 
 
Is Manitoba Right? 
 
 I 
 
 A Question of EtWcs, Politics, Kacts 
 
 and La^w. 
 
 4 
 
 In a state in uhicli the form of 
 government is autocratic, as in 
 liussia at the present time, or aris- 
 tocratic, as it was in England up 
 till the beginning of the present cen- 
 tury, the safety of the form of gov- 
 ernment does not demand a high av- 
 erage intelligence on tlie part of the 
 masses. Indeed, in such cases the 
 liold on power is mucli better se- 
 cured to the autocrat or the ruling 
 class by the existence of a low aver- 
 age of intelligence in the masses. In 
 such states government is maintained 
 and the laws of the country are fram- 
 ed largely with a view to protecting 
 or increasing the privileges and 
 power of the perBons and classes who 
 control the government and make the 
 laws. 
 
 The function of the masses in coun- 
 tries governed in this way is to sup- 
 ply by their toll the material re- 
 sources from wliich all the power and 
 splendours of the rulers must be 
 drawn, and to furnish by their arms 
 and their blood the military strength 
 necessary to realize the schemes ol 
 conquest and aggrandizement which 
 these rulers may conceive, or to de- 
 fend these rulers in their privileges 
 and possessions from the attacks of 
 foreign or domestic assailants. In 
 such conditions government exists 
 primarily for the benefit of the 
 rulers, and any advantages beyond 
 the means of subsistence which may 
 accrue to the governed are merely in- 
 cidental. All history shows that re- 
 ligion has been a powerful instrument' 
 in the hands of the privileged rulers. 
 In assisting them to main- 
 tain their predominance. It 
 has always been, and is at 
 
 the present time easy to persuade, by 
 the manipulation of religious sanc- 
 tions, men whose intellectual fac- 
 ulty is In a low state of 
 development that they have 
 duties to the powers that 
 be, which cannot be neglected. 
 It has been equally easy 
 to induce them to overlook the 
 fact that they have rights which are 
 always correlative and commensurate 
 with those duties. Hence, in com- 
 munities wher9 the Intelligence of 
 the common people Is low, we have 
 always autocratic or aristocratic 
 government, and ^.Imost as Invari- 
 ably we see the civil and political 
 power of the rulers buttressed by, or 
 Identified with some ecclesiastical 
 organization, usually In the form of 
 a state church. 
 
 There have been forces of various 
 kinds at work, which have produced 
 a constant spread of intelligence 
 nmorigst the masses, notwithstand- 
 ing the hostility, more or less pro- 
 nounced, of the classes or individuals 
 who have been accustomed to re- 
 gard government, and its powers 
 and privileges, as a hereditary right 
 or perquisite. Simultaneously With 
 the acquisition of knowledge by the 
 masses, comes the demand on their 
 part for a vdflce in the government. 
 In these communities, Avliere the peo- 
 ple as a whole, are the most enlight- 
 ened, the government Is most demo- 
 cratic in form. Democracy is the In- 
 evitable outcome of enlightenment on 
 the ijart of the people as a whole. It 
 Is a fact that no true democracy ex- 
 ists at present, or ever has existed. 
 But this is simply because the high- 
 est degree of average Intelligence 
 
which has ever been atti-ined by any 
 tomraunlty has been very far short 
 of what may be and will be attained. 
 
 STATE SUPERINTENDED l-^DUCA- 
 TION A NECESSITY. 
 
 In view of the fact that democratic 
 government presupposes the intelli- 
 gence of the whole people, It Is ob- 
 vious that, in order to maintain or 
 Increase its success, careful provis- 
 ion must be made for the education 
 of the people. This necessity is so 
 belf-evident that it has been recog- 
 nized by all the more enlightened and 
 progressive peoples. Experience lias 
 shown that the safety of a demo- 
 cratic state demands that it shall 
 take measures to ensure to all its 
 citizens at least the elements of a 
 liberal education. This can be effici- 
 ently accomplished only by the estab- 
 lishment of a system of education 
 under the direct supervision or con- 
 trol of the state. A little reflection 
 will show the enormously increased 
 efficiency in the education of a people 
 which may be secured when the ar- 
 raagements and regulations are made 
 on a community-wide scale, and are 
 embodied in the laws. 
 
 The necessity for the education of 
 the people In self-governing communi- 
 ties has been admitted even by those 
 who, it is to be suspected, on grounds 
 of interest and inclination would re- 
 fuse to make the admission, but for 
 the fact that the soundness of th-e 
 proposition is self-evident. Those in- 
 dividuals, or corporations, or classes, 
 who enjoy special privileges, and who 
 desire that these shall be continued, 
 can have no sincere desire for the 
 education of the people, or for the 
 (development of the power of original 
 thouglit, or the exercise of independ- 
 ent judgment by the mass. The mod- 
 ern movement In the direction of pul> 
 lic education under the supervision of 
 the state, has been opposed and ob- 
 structed by various interests and for 
 various ostensible reasons. But in 
 all countries lu which free state edu- 
 cation has been introduced, the ot)- 
 structlon and resistance which have 
 been found to be the most strenuous 
 and most formidable, have emanated 
 from, and been Inspired by, the eccle- 
 siastics of certain religious denomina- 
 tions, and of these the Church of 
 Home has been, beyond all compari- 
 son, the most important, whetlier con- 
 sidered from tlie point of view of the 
 uncompromising attitude it assumes, 
 or from the solid homogeneousness of 
 
 the l)ody of citizens wliose action it 
 directs and controls. It is unneces- 
 sary here to rehearse the reasons why 
 In i\ self-governing community, com- 
 posed of heterogeneous elements, no 
 relationship is possible between the 
 state and any particular religious 
 denomination. These reasons will 
 suggest themselves. For the same 
 reasons which render it impossible for 
 a democratic state to recognize 
 any particular church or denomina- 
 tion, it is impossible to permit of the 
 teaching of any of the distinctive de- 
 nominational dogmas or doctrines in 
 the state schools. 
 
 But the Koman Catholic church 
 declares that any system of 
 education, in which Its dis- 
 tinctive dogmas are not taught, and 
 in which its claims to recognition as 
 the sole repository of revealed truth 
 are not admitted, is an Imperfect 
 and a dangerous system. It 
 will be seen later whether those con- 
 tentions of the Churcli of Rome are 
 sound,and whether they are support- 
 ed by tlie facts of history or by cur- 
 rent experience. At present we shall 
 confine ourselves to a statement of 
 the position of the church. It will be 
 seen that, on account of its attitude 
 on this question a really national or 
 common system of schools is an im- 
 possibility in a cpmmunity in which 
 there are any Catholic citizens if their 
 contentions are admitted. If Roman 
 Catholics may claim exemption from 
 the operation of any law of any state 
 of which they are subjects or cltl- 
 sens, on the ground that conformity 
 on their part to the law would be 
 Incompatible with certain conscienti- 
 ous convictions of tlielrs, wliy may 
 not tlie Jew, tlie Quaker or the Mor- 
 mon claim with equal right a like ex- 
 emption ? If the soundness of tlie 
 claim of the Roman Catlioilcs Is ad- 
 mitted that of the others cannot be 
 logically denied. But If the general 
 principle Is admitted, and all the 
 sects should make the claim, it is 
 clear that no general system could be 
 Instituted. It may be urged, as It 
 has Indeed already been urged by Im- 
 plication, on behalf of the Roman Ca- 
 tholics, that the other sects do not 
 make any such claims, and that even 
 If they did, ' their claims would 
 be based on mere "Isolated or eccen- 
 tric opinion." The fUmsiness of such 
 an argument, liowever, Is palpable, 
 because If conscience Is admitted to 
 be a reasonable basis of claim to ex- 
 emption, the number of the Individu- 
 als who may entertain the conscien- 
 tious Objection to the law, obviously 
 cannot be a factor In the caee, 
 
 NAH 
 
 I 
 
 A 
 
i 
 
 action it 
 a unneces- 
 asons why 
 "Ity, com- 
 mioiits, no 
 tveen the 
 religiouH 
 Bons will 
 the tiamo 
 ossible for 
 recognize 
 Jenoinina- 
 nit of the 
 nctive de- 
 ctriiies in 
 
 lie church 
 rstem of 
 its dis- 
 ight, and 
 rnition us 
 led truth 
 imperfect 
 em. It 
 hose con- 
 iome are 
 support- 
 r by cur- 
 ' we shall 
 ement of 
 It will be 
 attitude 
 tlonal or 
 a an Im- 
 in which 
 8 if their 
 t Roman 
 ion from 
 ny state 
 
 or citi- 
 nformity 
 ould be 
 mscienti- 
 hy may 
 he Mor- 
 
 like ex" 
 I of the 
 8 is ad- 
 nnot be 
 general 
 all the 
 , it Is 
 Jould be 
 1, as it 
 
 by im- 
 
 nan Ca- 
 
 do not 
 
 at even 
 
 ■would 
 
 eccen- 
 of such 
 vlpable, 
 ;ted to 
 
 to ex- 
 dividu- 
 )nscien- 
 viously 
 96. 
 
 1 
 
 NATIONAL SCHOOLS SPF/ 'ALLY 
 REQUIRED IN MANITOBA. 
 
 We have endeavored to make it 
 clear why in a ^ community 
 In which the people govern them- 
 solvt's. a syntom of state education is 
 necessary. Great Britain is a con- 
 stitutional monarchy in name but is 
 In fact a democracy and In some re- 
 spects is the most advanced demo- 
 cracy that has ever existed. The 
 great autonomous coIo.,ies of Britain 
 are also virtual deoiocracies. In the 
 mother land itself, where the popu- 
 lation is mostly Indigenous and ho- 
 mogeneous, state education has been 
 fout"'' Imperative and is mak- 
 ing, vast Ijeadway in lace of 
 the enormous aggressive power and 
 the great vis Inertia of vested Inter- 
 ests and traditional custom. 
 
 If public eduation has been found 
 necessary in a country like Britain,the 
 necessity is greatly emphasized in a 
 new community like Manitoba, with 
 its heterogeneous and polyglot popu- 
 lation, and the great diversity of in- 
 telligence and ideas which character- 
 ize its yet unaKsimilated elements. 
 Many of the foreign immigrants.apart 
 from their ignorance, have had so 
 little opportunity in their previous 
 experience of acquiring any concep- 
 ceptions of the riglits, the duties, or 
 the responsibilities of the citizens of 
 a free country, that their presence in 
 large numbers would form a distinct 
 menace and danger to the continued 
 freedom and stability of the govern- 
 ment, unless means were taken to 
 ensure an education for their off- 
 t>prlng. ' 
 
 Confronted with these conditions 
 the legislature of Manitoba In 1890 
 enacted a law, or rather laws, which 
 provided for the education of all the 
 children of tlie province. The educa- 
 tion provided for was to be entirely 
 free from sectarian religious teaching. 
 The curriculum in the schools Is un- 
 der the supervision of a department 
 of education, which chooses the text 
 books. The schools are placed for 
 purposes of local administration un- 
 der boards of trustees. It is oi:)tional 
 with the.se trustees whether or not 
 religious exercises sliall be performed 
 in the schools. When it is deemed ad- 
 vlsart)le to Introduce such exercises, 
 their character is defined, and their 
 scope cleal'ly limited by the law.. No 
 schola^r is bound to i)articipate in 
 these exef-clses, no^" is he even bound 
 ta make ajiy declaration as to his 
 reasofn for non-partlclpatlou. The ex- 
 ercises occupy !xxi almost infinitesimal 
 
 pottlon of the entire working time, 
 and are so arranged that the work,or 
 the time of those not engaged in 
 them, is not in any way encroache<l 
 upon, nor interfered with. It is our 
 view that even the|Be exercises, short 
 and neutral ap they undoubtedly are, 
 Hhould, in the interest of absolute con- 
 sistency, be eliminated. It is con- 
 tended that they have a great ethical 
 value, and that any doctrine 
 involved ds common to the 
 religious creeds of the over- 
 whelming majority. There is the 
 soundest reason for doubting the 
 ethical Importance of the religious 
 teaching given in the schools at pre- 
 sent, or jit any time, and, while it is 
 true that no doctrine is taught nor 
 involved, which is not assented to by 
 all sects of orthodox Christians, yet 
 there are still others who have rights 
 in the use of the schools, who, while 
 they may not have expressed any po- 
 sitive objections to the religious ex- 
 ercises as at present conducted, can- 
 not certainly express any approval of 
 them. If these latter, however, claim- 
 ed the use of the schools for the in- 
 struction of their children In their 
 own peculiar tenets, It would mani- 
 festly l>e very difficult to 
 accommodate them, and per- 
 haps even more difficult to 
 furnish them. with an ade- 
 quate reason why they should thus 
 be virtually discriminated against, on 
 account of their religious views. 
 
 ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS THE 
 
 OBSTACLE TO STATE 
 
 EDUCATION. 
 
 As a practical fact, however, the 
 only interest which has expressed po- 
 sitive dissatisfaction with, or objec- 
 tion to the present system. Is the Ca- 
 tholic church. It does not object to 
 to the teaching on the score ot inef- 
 ficiency in regard to secular train- 
 ing. As has alreaidy been stated, it 
 takes tho arbitrary ground that any 
 system of education which Is not un- 
 der Its control. In AvUiich Its doctrines 
 are not Inculcated, and In which Its 
 various claims and pretensions are 
 not unquestlonlngly received, la peril- 
 ous to the eternal wellbeing of the 
 child. 
 
 Let us see what the attitude 
 of the Church of Rome involves and 
 oti what It Is founded. This church 
 as we have already stated, contends 
 that it Is the sole authorised Inter- 
 preter of revealed truth to mankind. 
 All other forms of religious l>elief, it 
 
6 
 
 asserts, are schisms or heresies, even 
 those ill which tho essentital spiritual 
 doctrines are indentlcal with its own. 
 These other Christian bodies are 
 branded as sects and heresies, bccaust' 
 they claim to have a knowledge of 
 revealed truth obtained outsidi' and 
 independently of the Church of Rome. 
 The I'ope, the head of the Church of 
 Rome, is asserted to be tho Yicar of 
 Christ and to liohl his office as the 
 spiritual succes.;or of St. I'eter. by 
 the direct authority of the Most- 
 High. He is ex cathedra an infalli- 
 ble arbiter in questions of faith and 
 morals. He claims to be, as in- 
 deed he must claim, as a corollary 
 of the infallibility doctrine, above 
 all princes and states. Although in 
 these later days the pretension to 
 temporal supremacy has been only 
 guardedly anserted, it lias never been 
 withdrawn, and indeed it could not 
 be, with any consistency, so long as 
 the doctrine of jiapul infallibility is 
 held. In lining the expression "tem- 
 poral supremacy," we do not refer 
 to the mere political and civil gov- 
 ernment of till! portion of Italy known 
 as the Papal States.but are usins;- tho 
 expression in its very widest sense. 
 In a comparatively recent encycll- 
 clical the present Pope Loo XIII, de- 
 clared th.at when tho obedience of 
 the Catholic to the state is iu con- 
 flict with his obedience to the church, 
 his first duty is to the church. How 
 could it be otherwine ? An infallible 
 arbiter in faith and morals cannot 
 restrict the application of his deci- 
 sions or injunctions to mere abstract 
 philosophical or theological prolv 
 lems. Faith and morals are inter- 
 Avoven with all the A^arious prac- 
 tical transactions, iiolitical, com- 
 mercial and personal, in which man- 
 kind are engaged. There is no dif- 
 ferent kind of morals for application 
 in the realms of theology, from that 
 wliich applies in the practical affairs 
 of men's lives. 
 
 If, then, the Pope is an in- 
 fallible arbiter In faith and mor- 
 als he ought to wield a supreme au- 
 thority in all human affairs. Free 
 constitutional government is based 
 on the theory that the state (that is 
 the majority of the people) is the 
 supreme authority within its own 
 borders, and that the people com- 
 posing that majority have sufficient 
 intelligence to rule themselves. This 
 theory of government, however, is in 
 direct conflict with the pretensions 
 and polity of the church of Rome, 
 and is incompatible Avith the doctrine 
 of papal infallibility. If the claims 
 and doctrines of the Roman Catholic 
 
 church are valid and sound, the prin- 
 ciples of democratic government are 
 unsound. A loyal citizen of a dem- 
 ocratic state can acknowledge no 
 other nor liigher authority in civil 
 or political affairs than that of the 
 state. A Roman Catholic must 
 admit the superior claims of the 
 pope or the church. He cannot 
 therefore be a. loyal oitizen of a dem- 
 ocracy. This is the conclu.'^ion which 
 is inevitable as the result of deducv 
 tive reasoning from the premises. 
 
 GENERAL DEDUCTIONS AS TO EF- 
 FECT OF CATHOLIC DOC- 
 TRINES. DEMONSTRATED 
 BY HISTORY. 
 
 But Ave are not confined to abstract 
 deduction. We can see in practical ex- 
 perience the results Avhicli Avould be 
 Indicated by the process of ratiocina- 
 tiv<i deduction, from the nature of 
 the pretensions which the church of 
 Komo asserts. History has shOAvn 
 that, in a state Avliich contends for 
 absolute freedom, the attitude and 
 the policy of the Catholic church have 
 always been a source of danger and 
 apprehension. The history of Eng- 
 land for several centuries shOAVS this 
 in almost every page. Tlie 
 policy of tlie church of Rome 
 in England, as in every other 
 European country, has been to 
 throw its Influenae into the scale in 
 behalf of despots, or Avould-be des- 
 pots, in return for a promised ac- 
 knowledgment of the church's pre- 
 tei\sions on the part of the would-be 
 despot. The interests of the masses 
 have never been understood by, nor 
 have they had any consideration at 
 the hands of, the church of Rome. 
 It is the traditional foe of democracy, 
 of the enfranchisement of the massep, 
 and of every movement calculated t<i 
 improve the lot of the proletariat. It 
 Is true that, within very recent years, 
 it has been the policy of the Pope and 
 of some of tlie leaders of the hier- 
 archy to make abstract and general 
 protestations of sympathy with dem- 
 ocracy, especially in the United 
 States. But in view of the claims 
 and doctrines of the church, such de- 
 clarations may be accepted merely as 
 an indication that the hierarchy ap- 
 preciates the groAving power and the 
 coming doniinancy of democracy. The 
 idea of a Roman Catholic deniocracj* 
 is a paradoxical absurdity. In an 
 autonomous republican community in 
 Avhich the large majority of the peo- 
 
 ple 
 
 meni 
 
 thee 
 
 char 
 
 toleJ 
 
 nowl 
 
 gresj 
 
 or tf 
 
 thei 
 
 Isticl 
 
 and ' 
 
 rep 111 
 
 tioni 
 
 cratl 
 
 of rI 
 
 Till 
 
d, the prin- 
 rnment are 
 of a dem- 
 ricdge no 
 ty in civil 
 hat of the 
 oiic must 
 tis of the 
 Ele cannot 
 1 of a (lem- 
 ision uiiicli 
 ; of deducr 
 emises. 
 
 V.S TO EF- 
 C DOC- 
 
 :ated 
 
 bo abstract 
 i-actical ex- 
 would bo 
 ratiocina- 
 uatiire of 
 churcli of 
 las sliown 
 itonds for 
 itudo and 
 lurch liave 
 iiij^er and 
 ^ of Enu;- 
 hows this 
 ?e. The 
 of Rome 
 ery other 
 been to 
 Hcale in 
 -be des- 
 mised ac- 
 ch's pre- 
 vrou Id-he 
 e masses 
 by, nor 
 ■ation at 
 Rome, 
 mocracy, 
 massep, 
 ulated to 
 ariat. It 
 !nt years, 
 Pope and 
 he hier- 
 general 
 ith dem- 
 United 
 e claims 
 such de- 
 ii(>rely as 
 I'chy ap- 
 and the 
 icy. The 
 mocraej' 
 In an 
 unity in 
 ihe peo- 
 
 •f 
 
 f 
 
 pie are Roman CathollcB, the govern- 
 ment is not a democracy. It Is a 
 theocracy— a government by the 
 charch, wh'ch is perhaps the most i«- 
 toleral>Ie and rasping sort of tyranny 
 nou' known. Stagnation and unpro- 
 gres^ivotR'Ss, materia I and intellectual 
 or turbulence and revolution, or all o! 
 them, are the distinctive character- 
 istics of such communities. Quebec, 
 and the Soutli and Central American 
 republics, may be cited as illustra- 
 tions of the resuts of pseudo-demo- 
 cratic government with the church 
 of Rome in actual control. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ROME AND TOIr- 
 ERANCE. 
 
 It may be said that all these con- 
 siderations might have weight in 
 other countries, and under different 
 conditions, but thfit in this country 
 public intelligence is so high, the non- 
 Catholic majority feo powerful, and 
 democrtitic institutions so firmly 
 grounded, th|it there is not the 
 blightest d^inger pf the Church of 
 Rome ever >ittempting to give prac- 
 tical enforcement to the doctrines 
 and pretensions alluded to. It may 
 also- 'bo said that any apprehension 
 on this scorei evinces the spirit of 
 the "Orange bdgot" or of the "zealot 
 of the P. P. A." Just in this connec- 
 tion let It be borne in mind th<ait, 
 while tlno leading Bpirits of tliis 
 church (which has ever had at the 
 head of its administration men of 
 great diplomatic capacity) see tlie 
 necessity for toning down and lieep- 
 Ing in the bacliground, those arbi- 
 trary dogmas and claims which are 
 antagonistic to the spirit of modern 
 progress and popular government, 
 not one of these claims has been re- 
 nounced or receded from. On the 
 other hand, we see an increasing and 
 uncompromising warfare being car- 
 ried on by the church in the midst 
 of tlie most enliglitened and freest 
 communities of to-day, against tlie 
 institution which is most essential to 
 the safety and continuance of gov- 
 ei-nment of the people by themselves. 
 We see also professing non-Catholics, 
 under the plea of a fatuous"tolerance" 
 and even in the name of "liberty," 
 take up the advocacy and defense of 
 the case of an organization whose 
 doctrines and principles would ren- 
 der tolerance on its part an incon- 
 sistent farce, and whose claims at 
 once fall to the ground if it can be 
 shown that men have a natural right 
 to liberty. We see expressions by 
 
 the leading ecclesiastics of the Catho- 
 lic church in the United States, which 
 are couched In conciliatory language, 
 and are calculated to produce the Im- 
 pression that these digtdtaries are 
 imbued with the spirit of tolerance. 
 There is reason to fear, however, that 
 these expressions are prompted more 
 by the superior diplomatic acumen of 
 the prelates, than by any Intention 
 on their part to abandon any of those 
 pretensions, in the light of which, the 
 genuineness of their tolerance is at 
 least open to suspicion. The more un- 
 sophisticated members of the clergy, 
 however, are not so diplomatic, but 
 are more consistent. In an article 
 in the Western Watchman, a Roman 
 Catholic paper published In St. Louis, 
 and edited by Father Phelan, the 
 following passage appeared a few 
 weeks ago : 
 
 "We would draw and quarter Pro- 
 testantism; we would impale it and 
 hang it up for crows' nests; we would 
 tear it with pincers and bore it with 
 hot irons; we would fill it with molt- 
 en lead and sink it into hell-fire a 
 hundred fathoms deep." 
 
 This chaste and beautiful passage 
 is, as our readers may observe, redo- 
 lent of tolerance and calculated to 
 promote tluit sentiment of brotherly 
 love which, we presume, it Is one of 
 Father Phelan's offices to Inculcate. 
 Another Catholic organ, the Boston 
 Pilot, recently 'contained the follow- 
 ing : 
 
 "No good government can exist 
 without religion; and there can be no 
 religion without an Inqulsltion,whlch 
 is wisely designed for the promotion 
 and protection of the true faith." 
 
 Now the reverend gentlemen who 
 pen these luorceaux, are doubtless 
 quite sincere, and are much more con- 
 sistent than their superiors, but their 
 utterances could hardly be pronounc- 
 ed as being pregnant of "tolerance." 
 
 No discrimination of any sort Is 
 attempted to be made against Ca- 
 tholics in Manitoba by the legisla- 
 tion of 1890, but if such discrim- 
 ination had been attempted the prov- 
 ince might have been able to give 
 some color of authority and sanction 
 for the attempt. By the constitu- 
 tion of Great Britain a Roman Ca- 
 thoVic cannot occupy the throne.Why 
 this significant discrimination ? His- 
 tory will show. The monarch of 
 I'^ngland must be a Protestant, be- 
 cause he is the constitutional head of 
 a state wliich asserts its absolute 
 supremacy in the control of its af- 
 fairs. In view of the nature of the 
 pretensions of the Church of Rome, it 
 is recognised that no individual who 
 
8 
 
 f 
 
 m 
 
 admits these pretensions, is 
 fitted to loyally discharge the duties 
 of sovereign of such an empire as that 
 of Great BrltaJn. The history of 
 
 the Stuart dynasty in Scotland and 
 England demonstrates the necessity 
 for such a provision in the British 
 constitution. 
 
 CONSCIENCE NOT A VALID PLEA 
 
 FOR EXEMPTION FROM 
 
 TAXATION. 
 
 It may be asked what bearing li.is 
 all this on the Manitoba schoo! quLs- 
 tlon. It has the most cogent bear- 
 Uig. For It is on the assumption of 
 the soundness of tliese pretensions 
 that the hostility to the Mani- 
 toba school legislation Is attempted 
 to be or can be justified.lt Is not con- 
 tended by Its opponents that the sys- 
 tem now in operation is 1; efficient, nor 
 that It does not compare favorably 
 in results with that wluch it super- 
 seded. It is admitted to be admir- 
 ably adapted, in a social and econo- 
 mic sense, to the conditions existing 
 in the province. But con-iderations 
 of economy or of national progress 
 or unity, count for nutlilng wlien the 
 Interests of the ''liurch are Involved. 
 In effect the Church simply says : 
 "Neither our authority nor our claims 
 are recognised in this system of edu- 
 cation; therefore we oppose it. We 
 enjoin our communicants against 
 countenancing it, and as the church 
 is the rule of conscience for Catho- 
 lics their objoction Is therefore a con- 
 scientious on \. It Is true that if you 
 admit the principle that the plea of 
 conscience is a valid one, in sujjport 
 of a ".laim for special privileges or 
 exemptions, your system will become 
 impracticable. But that is no con- 
 cern of ours. The dictum of the 
 church is the law of conscience for 
 Roman Catholics and that is all there 
 '.8 al)out it." Now let us carefully 
 avoid being misled by the specious ar- 
 gLMuent of conscience. The mere 
 
 liict that a man has a conscientious 
 ol>jection to any law which the peo- 
 ple may deem advisable to enact in 
 tlie common interest, cannot, mani- 
 festly, be accepted as a valid reason 
 for his exemption from tlie opera- 
 tion of that law. What is the au- 
 thority which Is to determine when 
 a con«cientious scruple booomes a 
 mere fad or whim ? 
 
 We are Informed, on credible au- 
 thority, that the riymoiith Ureth- 
 ren. a religious sec;t who liold most 
 of the essential tenets common to all 
 
 Christian denominations, do not be- 
 lieve In the payment of taxes at alb 
 and pay only because they must. 
 These people, it is alleged, believe 
 that the total abolition of govern- 
 ment would hasten the advent of the 
 millenium. They reason, we presume, 
 that as it is very wrong to do any- 
 thing wliich will tend to postpone the 
 millenium, the payment of taxes by 
 which governments are sustained, is 
 a very pernicious practice. The Ply- 
 mouth Brethren are, In their personal 
 lives and conduct, a very moral and 
 rlglit-living people. Their views on 
 the question of taxation are, presum- 
 ably, entirely conscientious. But so 
 long as the majority still cling to 
 mundane notions as to the necessity 
 for some sort of order, pending the 
 arrival of the millenium, it is prob- 
 able that the Brethren will continue 
 to pay taxes. 
 
 With special reference to the case 
 of education in Mardtoba, it may be 
 "aid, in short, tliat if conscience be 
 admitted as constituting a full and 
 satisfactory ground for exemption 
 from taxation for the support of the 
 scliools, a provincial system of edu- 
 cation would be an Impossibility. The 
 necessary theory of monarcliical gov- 
 ernment is tliat "the king can do no 
 wrong.'' For the purposes of a dem- 
 ocr.'itic state, that might l)e translat- 
 ed "tho will o? the majority is al- 
 ways riglit." In the latter case the 
 theory is mucli more in accord with 
 the practical results than in the for- 
 mer. 
 
 THi: POLITICAL POLICY OF THE 
 
 CHURCH COSTLY TO THE 
 
 PEOPLE. 
 
 The enormous cost to the toiling 
 masses, of the civil policy of the 
 church of Rome is only faintly realiz- 
 ed. In Quebec we observe enormous 
 loss to the people through corrupt 
 and Incapable government, which, 
 there is loo much reason to believe, 
 is tlie Indirect outcome of tlie church's 
 Influence and policy. The landscape 
 in that province Is characterized by 
 the contrast of the frequent and 
 stately ecclesiastical edifices, with 
 the mean and liumble cot of the sim- 
 ple haliltans, out of whose toll and 
 sweat the grand and costly piles have 
 been reared. Lavaleye, the cele- 
 brated Belgian economist, is quoted 
 in a pamplilet recently pul)lislied by 
 Mr. Dalton McCarthy, as follows: 
 "Steady progress is very difficult in 
 Catliolic countries, because the church 
 
 , 
 
x 
 
 alms at establishing lier do- 
 minion througliout. and the 
 living energies of the na- 
 tion are almost exclusively em- 
 ployed in repelling the pretensions of 
 the clergy." While Lavaleye's re- 
 marks had more especial application 
 to France and Belgium, it must strike 
 the reader with what aptness they 
 fit tlie case of Canada.. A synopsis of 
 the political disputes and troubles 
 directly due to the aggressive pol- 
 itical action of the Catholic church 
 in Canada would fill a newspaper 
 column. Indirectly, the policy of 
 the church affects all Canadian legis- 
 lation. Nothing can be done if Home 
 obstructs. And she obstructs often 
 and effectively. AVhat are the so- 
 called "politics" of Quebec? A rather 
 unsavory mess of Intrigue, corruption 
 and extravagance. What is the re- 
 sult of this nauseating network of 
 Intrigue and corruption ': The in- 
 evitable one. Wliilst the average con- 
 dition of the patient, frugal, and in- 
 dustrious peasantry of Quebec is one 
 not much removed from penury, the 
 public treasury is in a condition of 
 almost chronic bankruptcy, due to 
 tlie almost incredible carnival of cor- 
 ruption and Avastefulness in which 
 the devout political .proteges of the 
 church have revelled, and of which 
 extravagance the churcli, in .at least 
 one instance, was a large benefic- 
 iary. But it is a notorious fact 
 that, whilst the province and citi- 
 zens of Quel)ec are in a condition of 
 chronic poverty, the Roman Catholic 
 church in that provionce is, yo to 
 speak, rolling in wealth. What ren- 
 ders this state of matters possible '.' 
 Simply a low degree of average in- 
 telligence on tlie part of the masses, 
 wliose toil must always and uufaiiing- 
 1.V Piiy for these extravagances, roi>- 
 berles and accumulations. 
 
 ARE THE CHURCH'S CLAIMS JUS- 
 TIFIED BY ITS WORIvS ? 
 
 It would l)e expected that a cor- 
 poration Avhleh professes to l)e the 
 only authorized medium for the 
 transmission of the truth of reve- 
 lation to mankind, would show an 
 excellence in the result of Its work 
 which would render comparison with 
 that of unauthorized bodies liicli- 
 crous. What is the function of a 
 church ? Is the church an end In It- 
 self, or Is it properly only the means 
 to an end ? If the latter, wliat is the 
 end or object which churches exist to 
 attain ? Is it the iuculcatloD ol 
 
 creed or dogma ? Manifestly not. 
 Creeds and dogmas are themselves 
 only tools for the attainment of the 
 desired end, and are often so clumsy 
 and faulty in conception and con- 
 struction, that they hinder more than 
 they help, distract more than they 
 guide. What then is the end ? All 
 religions, at least all Chris- 
 tian religions, agree that the 
 highest attribute of God, is the per- 
 fection of his moral being. The chief 
 aim of the churches, then, is, or ought 
 to be, the training and direction of 
 the moral nature of man, and the de- 
 velopment of those powers of reason 
 and intelligence of which he alone, 
 amongst all created terrestrial be- 
 ings, is the possessor, and without 
 which no conception of morality is 
 possible. 
 
 Now, a church which is assisted in 
 the attainment of these ends by the 
 direct and exclusive authority of the 
 ruler of the ujilverse,whose earthly 
 head is endowed with the attributes 
 of divinity, to the extent of being In- 
 fallible on (juestions of faith and mor- 
 als, would naturally be expected to 
 .show results in its efforts for the 
 moral and Mi)iritual regeneration of 
 mankind, which would prove the fal- 
 lacy and Imposture of those heretical 
 faiths, by comparison with the re- 
 .sults achieved by the heretics. But 
 what .'s the fact ? In every civilized 
 country in which the communicants 
 of the Church of Rome form the mass 
 of the people, morals, material pros- 
 perity and intelligence are compara- 
 tively low. In the.se countries the 
 church has, or has had till within re- 
 cent year.s, practically absolute con- 
 trol of education. What Is the re- 
 sult ? That the percentage of lllit- 
 I'racy Is very liigli, and (mark it well) 
 the criminal .statistics of these coun- 
 tries show that crime and illiteracy 
 are almost invariably in an exact 
 ratio. 
 
 SO.MI'. INSTRl'CTIVE FACTs? AND 
 FIGURES. , 
 
 A very active ad^-oeate of the 
 separ;it<" school system In Manitoba, 
 'Slv. Ewart, in an endea.vor to nhow 
 tiiat the Catholic church is 
 111 no way opposed to 
 
 education, (luotes the following 
 figures from the Encyclopaedia Brlt- 
 annlea, with a somewhat sardordc 
 renuirk to the effect that statistics 
 are proverbially mlwleudiug: 
 
10 
 
 '/. a *^g c 
 
 Country. := "S ^''.tS 
 
 •S -1^ O ^ ct 
 
 Switzerland l,08t,40O 1.577,700 15;") 
 
 German Empire.... 14,867 oOO 25,CUO,700 1,52 
 
 Luxembourg 197,000 400 1 42 
 
 Norway 350 1,704,800 138 
 
 Sweden tK)0 4,203,800 138 
 
 Netherlands 1,313,000 2,l!l8,i00 i;iG 
 
 Denmark 1,9IJ0 1,8()5,0(X) 135 
 
 France 35,388,000 610,800 131 
 
 Belgium 4,08O,(X)O 1.5,000 123 
 
 Austria 27,!K)4,3U0 .3,571,000 100 
 
 Great Britain 5,800,0U0 ?%900,000 83 
 
 Spain 16,500,000 82 
 
 Italy 26,750,000 35,000 70 
 
 This table shows a good average 
 of school attoiidance in Much Catholic 
 countries as iSpain and Italy, when 
 compared with Great Britain. But 
 the figures, which would ho.ve been 
 more to the point, are tliose showing 
 the relative efficiency and illiteracy 
 in these countries. Here are some fig- 
 gures, bearing on this point, taken 
 from the same authority as Mr. 
 Ewart's statistics, and whicli, we 
 think, are a little more relevant to 
 the subject. Spain is a country in 
 which the population is practically 
 entirely Catholic. Out of a total 
 population of 10,000,000 there are 
 only about 00,000 Protestants. It 
 v.'ill be seen from the table quoted 
 above that the school attendance in 
 Spain per 1,000 persons is about the 
 same as that of Gre;it Britain. Wliat 
 is the result ? In the name article 
 from which Mr. Ewart's statistics 
 are taken it is stated that in Spain 
 72 per cent could neither read nor 
 Avrite, and in another portion of tlie 
 Kame authority it is stii.ted that, in 
 1877, 75.52 per cent of the population 
 coulu neither read nor write. 
 
 In the article from wliieh xMr.Ewart 
 obtained his statistics, tlie following 
 passage occurs: "That the clergy do 
 not readily ;ic<iuieHce in the ch;inges 
 that diniinisli their influence is excus- 
 able, but at the same time their de- 
 mands have occasioned the most la- 
 mentable obstruction to education." 
 The reason why the writer In (pies- 
 tloii did not (luote tills sentence may 
 ,bo readily inferred, and it may tlirow 
 Home light on Ills conclusion that 
 (Statistics are unreliable. He seems 
 to have Introduced the above table, 
 jiot because it has any bearing on the 
 (luestlon under dlscusshju, but simply 
 with a desire, perli.'ips not unnatural, 
 to distract attention froiu the very 
 suggestive fact that the separate 
 school advocates have not a vestige 
 of historical or statistical fact to 
 Justify their couteutious. 
 
 The same advocate, who is a pro- 
 fessed Protestant, calls for the ad- 
 mission of the Catholic claims for 
 special privileges, in the name of 
 tolerance and liberty. Now, we have 
 endeavored to sho'sv that the friend 
 of tolerance and liberty must, If he 
 fully understands the basis of the 
 Catholic claims, oppose them, becausa 
 they are founded on doctrines which 
 roeognlzo neither tolerance nor lib- 
 erty. It may be objected that this is 
 a more philosophic argument, depen- 
 dent entirely on theory or abstract 
 deduction. Let us see whether prac- 
 tical experience justifies the deduc- 
 tions. Again, referring to tlie same 
 authority, the Encyclopaedia Britan- 
 nlca, and still on the subject of edu- 
 cation and religion in Spain, we find 
 the following: "By the constitution 
 of 1870 non-Catholics are permitted 
 to exercise tneir own forms of wor- 
 ship, but they must do so in private, 
 and without making any public an- 
 nouncement of their services." This 
 Is a .specimen of the tolerance and 
 consideration which is extended to 
 "conscience" in the countries in which 
 the Church of Rome is in power ! It 
 may be added that before 1870, even 
 the private exercise of any religious 
 worsliip other than that of the 
 Church of Home, was prohibited by 
 law, was vigilantly ferreted out, and 
 severely punished, at the instance of 
 the clergy. It was only In the face of 
 strenuous opjiosltlon on the part of 
 the clergy that even the above meas- 
 ure of "liberty" was attained. Spain 
 was the theatre for the display of 
 the operations of the Inquisition,that 
 admirable device for the propagation 
 of liberty and tolerance, which the 
 reverend editor of the Cathollc"Bo*- 
 ton Pilot" Avould like to see establish- 
 ed in America at tlie present time. 
 
 Let us iioAV turn briefly to Italy, 
 that land of ancient splendors, the 
 very footstool of the church, and pos- 
 isessing the most homogeneous Catho- 
 lic population of any state in the 
 world. Mr. Ewart's authority, re- 
 garding the state of education in 
 Italy, s.iys: "As late as the census 
 of ISOl it waH found th.at In a popu- 
 lation of 21,777,331 there Avere no 
 Jess than 10,J»99.701 (tiearly 80 per 
 cent) 'analphabotes' or persons abso- 
 lutely destitute of instruction, abso- 
 lutely unable to read. » • • • 
 While r)\) per cent of the men married 
 fln 180(» were obliged to malce their 
 mark, 7H j or cent of tlie women were 
 in the sjime case. In the iJasiik'a.ta 
 (an Italian province with a popula- 
 tion of over half a million) the llliter- 
 uto class comprised 912 out of every 
 1,000 inhabitants." It Is true that 
 
11 
 
 
 
 since the consolidation of the Italian 
 states, matters educational have im- 
 proved greatly in Italy, although 
 the educational condition of the peo- 
 ple is still deplorahly hucku-ard. Mr. 
 Ewart refers to this improvement as 
 an evidence of tht> friendliness and 
 eagerness of the Catholic church for 
 the intellectual improvement of the 
 people. But, unhappily- for the force 
 of Mr. Ewart's argument, he evident- 
 ly does not know (otlierwise he would 
 presumably have mentioned the fact) 
 that the great inovemcMit for popular 
 education was begun and carried on 
 in the teetli of the most bitter and 
 uncompromising hostility of the 
 church, by the anti-Clerical and Uiii- 
 ted Italy party. A recent article by 
 Monsignor Satolli, the representa- 
 tive of the I'ope in America, in the 
 North American Koview, shows that 
 while the church in Italy has been 
 whipped Into competitive effort by 
 the energetic action of the civil 
 power, it still regard.s the state edu- 
 cation with an undisguised repulsion, 
 which, in vicAV of the results of its 
 own centuries of fruitless control, 
 iseems positively fatuous. 
 
 Whilst we see tlie uiisuitisfaetory 
 educational or intellectual condition 
 of the masses in these countries whose 
 interests in that regard liav(> been al- 
 most wholly under the control, or at 
 the mercy of the Churcli of Rome, 
 what do we find when wo look into 
 the ethical results of its supremacy ? 
 In Spain and Italy, crime is prevnli-nt, 
 particularly crimes of violence. Ac- 
 cording to a recent writer on this 
 subject, there are, for every murder 
 committed in I'.ngland, forty in Spain, 
 and two huiulrod in Italy. The habits 
 of tlie lower orders are semi-barbar- 
 ous. The bull fight and the vendetta 
 are national institutions, and In 
 Italy, up till the n\ost recent years, 
 the profession of brigand had attain- 
 ed a respectability whleh drew to 
 Its ranks not a few of the old nobil- 
 ity, who did honor to their aiieient 
 lineage alike by the daring and tlio- 
 rough going character o' their riis- 
 cality, and by tlieir devout attention 
 to their religious observances be- 
 tween atrocities. The material Condi- 
 tion of these nations corresponds with 
 tiielr educational and moral con- 
 dition. Each of these nations has 
 been. In turn, the most opulent and 
 formhbible powi>r of the eartli. ^I'o- 
 day, Spain has gone hopelessly to tlu^ 
 rear, and Italy owes Its recent par- 
 tial recovery of political status to the 
 fact that it has thrown off both the 
 civil and Intellectual domination of 
 the Church of Itomc. Favored by na- 
 
 ture with rich soils and good cllmatee, 
 the peasantry and the proletariat of 
 these countries live in a condition of 
 extreme, and, in some cases and local- 
 ities, Incredible poverty; their taxa- 
 tion Is grlndiiigly onerous, while their 
 national revenues .are strained by the 
 burden of heavy debts. 
 
 Thus we see three classes of phe- 
 nomena which are, as a rule, found 
 in combination. Where we have a 
 low average standard of education 
 and Intelligence, we find a low de- 
 gree of morality, and a low material 
 condition. The simultaneous exist- 
 ence of those three conditions Is not 
 mere coincidence. The two last are 
 tlie corollary and result of the first. 
 
 Now, wo have seen from tne statis- 
 tics that in these Catholic countries, 
 the average of school attendance has 
 been fairly high. The very high il- 
 literacy cainiot be due to want of 
 opportunity for instruction. The rea- 
 sonable inference, then, is that It la 
 the kind of instruction which is at 
 fault. I'ossibly, it n.iight be said, so 
 much effort is directed to moral de- 
 velopment, that the intellectual is 
 neglected. This, however, is not a 
 feasible explanation, because tlie mor- 
 al nature can only be developed 
 through, and co-ordinately with, the 
 intellectual faculties. But again, we 
 do not need to rely on a merely phil- 
 osophical explanation. We have con- 
 crete facts. We know that the mor- 
 ality in these countries Is low. If,then, 
 the .school attendance has been good, 
 whilst the intelligence and the moral 
 status of the people are extremely 
 low, we must conclude that the in- 
 struction is neither calculated to im- 
 jirove the mind nor tlie moral nature. 
 The teaching imjiarted, It is to bo In- 
 ferred, is principally of that kind 
 which is calloil, or rather miscalled, 
 "religious." It is composed largely of 
 dogmas and formulas and injunctions, 
 calculated to imbue the learner with 
 the Importanco of the church, as an 
 entity apart from all other consider- 
 ations or ends. The ethical objects, 
 for which Kololy the cliurch exists, or 
 ought to exist, are lost siglit of. 
 :Mundane and political considerations 
 obscure the true object. The interest 
 of the church, as a wealthy and pow- 
 erful corjioration, becomes of more 
 importance tlian the object for which 
 it was originally organized. The 
 means become the end. Religion, 
 
 under sucli Instruction, becomes an 
 idolatry. It becomes a worship of 
 the church, instead of tho worship of 
 God. 
 
 In those Eurojiean and American 
 countries wliere the majority of tho 
 
12 
 
 population is largely non-Catholic 
 the education of the Catholic portion, 
 while always inferior to the Protest- 
 ant, is still Incomparably higher than 
 is the education in those countries 
 where the population is almost ex- 
 clusively Catholic. The proximity 
 and the example of Protestant vigor, 
 and intelligence, and independence, 
 seems, by its contagion, to stimulate 
 the Catholic citizens and the clergy. 
 But in all countries where there is 
 a Catholic and a Protestant popula- 
 tion, it will be found that the former 
 is on the average much inferior to the 
 latter, both intellectually and mo- 
 rally. Take the case of Canada.The 
 writer has not been able to learn of 
 the existence of any statistics show- 
 ing the proportion of illiteracy, to re- 
 ligious beliefs. But a reference to 
 the official criminal statistics of the 
 Dominion for 18912 shows that all the 
 principal religious denominations are 
 represented amongst the criminals ay 
 follows : (The figures in regard to po 
 pulation were obtai.-^d from the Do- 
 minion census reports of ISiJl.) 
 
 Population Per- 
 
 1891 cent- 
 
 , age of 
 
 crimincals 
 
 1892. 
 
 1,992,017 4:H"h 
 
 847,7()5 9.8 
 
 755,326 7.1 
 
 046,059 18.3 
 
 303,839 2.Gi 
 
 Roman Catholics - 
 Methodists - 
 Presbyterians - - 
 Church of England 
 Baptist - - - 
 
 An analysis ot the figures in this 
 table shows that tiie Koi.ian Cat'io- 
 lie population of the Dominion fur- 
 nishes 70 per cent more criminals than 
 an equal number of all the Protestant 
 population. But analysis will also 
 show the striking fact, that the pro- 
 portion of criminals acknowleding al- 
 legiance to the church of England, is 
 even greater than that of the Ilo- 
 man Catholic church. Several rea- 
 sons might be given In explanation of 
 this remarkable fact. In the first 
 place there is a very large immigra- 
 tion from England, of a very poor 
 class, who are under special tempta- 
 tions to crime in a new country, and 
 most of whom claim the church of 
 England as their church. Again, 
 many of these immigrants belong to 
 various sections of the "submerged 
 tenth" of England, and are sent out 
 to Canada by philanthropic agencios 
 with a view ' to reformation or re- 
 t'laraation, which desirable ends, it 
 is to be feared, in many cases are not 
 jichievod. But at* we are citing the 
 statistics we must abide by their 
 showing, regardless of how it may 
 
 affect our line of argument. It will 
 be seen that the percentage of Roman 
 Catholic criminals is more than twice 
 as great as that of those of the next 
 most numerous religious denomination 
 in Canada (the Methodists). It is 
 fullj- two and one-half times as great 
 as the Presbyterian, and nearly three 
 times as large as the Baptist per- 
 centage. The only admissable 
 reason for the existence of a church 
 is that it teaches men to live aright. 
 Here we have a church which lays 
 claim to the most exclusive monop- 
 oly of the authority to convey the 
 will of God to man. It also contends 
 tliat its rela.lnnship with the Deity 
 is so intimate that its visible head 
 Is actually endowed with one of the 
 most essential attributes of divinity. 
 How incompatible are these preten- 
 sions with the results achieved by 
 the supervision of the church over 
 the moral and educational welfare 
 of Its proteges I Judgment by re- 
 sults is the only sure test. "By their 
 fruits vo shall know them," is the 
 dictum of an authority which even 
 the church will not refuse to recog- 
 nize. 
 
 Much statistical matter has been 
 adduced, and much more might still 
 be furnished, to show that the Ro- 
 man Catholic church has utterly fail- 
 ed to Justify its pretensions by its 
 performances. The position of this 
 church has been especially dealt with 
 not because of the existence of ani- 
 mus towards it as an exponent of 
 revealed or speculative spiritual doc- 
 trines, but because its polity, which 
 impels it to constantly interject it- 
 self as a factor in civil politics, and 
 renders it a standing menace to the 
 continuance of free institutions, Is 
 really the root of this "school ques- 
 tion." 
 
 EDUCATION IN SECULAR SUBJECTS 
 A MORAL AGENT. 
 
 It will have been observed, that in 
 Canada, the official records show 
 that the Baptists, Presbyterians and 
 Methodists, contribute the least share 
 of the criminal population, while the 
 Catholics and Anglicans contribute 
 the largest. Now it is a remarkable 
 fact that the clergy of both of the 
 latter denominations are very em- 
 phatic in regard to the necessity for 
 the teaching of their denominational 
 doctrines in the schools. We say de- 
 nominational doctrines, as dlstln 
 uuishcd from general ethical truths. 
 In Italy and Spain, instruction 
 
3 
 
 Is, or was until recently, main- 
 ly devoted to Catholic formula 
 and dogma. In England, in 
 the pfxroclilal echools, great 
 stress is laid on the formulas of the 
 church and its overshadowing im- 
 portance, as a factor in the well- 
 being of the nation, and of the in- 
 dividual. In the former countries 
 the results of the almost exclusive at- 
 tention to the inculcation of theolo- 
 gical dogma, are shown in the illiter- 
 acy, immorality, and material pov- 
 erty of the masses of the people. The 
 effect of the Anglican system, if the 
 showing of the criminal statistics of 
 Canada may he considered a fair test, 
 would go to confirm the conclusion 
 that the "sanctions" supplied by the- 
 ological dogma, are not the God-given 
 power wliich is to save the nations 
 from anarchy and destruction. 
 
 The denominations whose mem- 
 bers and adherents behave themselves 
 best, are those which place little or 
 no stress on the necessity of the 
 teaching of religion In the schools. 
 It is true that considerable sections 
 of the clergy in tlie Methodist and 
 Presbyterian bodies, believe in the 
 necessity of religious sanctions along 
 with secular teaching for the devel- 
 opment of moral growth. But the 
 difference between their position and 
 that of the ecclesiastics of the 
 churches claiming exclusive "author- 
 ity" Is a great and essential one. The 
 former contend that common Chris- 
 tian truth should be taught, the lat- 
 ter that their distinctive doctrines 
 are necessary. In Scotland and Prot- 
 estant Canada the illiteracy Is com- 
 paratively small; so Is the percent- 
 age of crime; so is the proportion of 
 religious teaching to secular. In Italy 
 and Spain and Mexico illiteracy is de- 
 plorably prevalent; the percentage of 
 crime Is large, and dogma and form- 
 ula have been taught in the clerical 
 schools to the almost entire exclu- 
 sion of Instruction which would in- 
 form the mind and develop the judg- 
 ment. What is the inevitable con- 
 clusion from these facts ? Simply 
 that the acquisition of knowledge and 
 the development of the intellectual 
 faculties,tend of themselves to awak- 
 en and develop the moral nature. As 
 a matter of fact, true or high mor- 
 ality cannot co-exist wltli low intel- 
 ligence. 
 
 In the Canadian parliamentary re- 
 cords of tlie statistics of crime for 
 1892, to which reference has already 
 been made, the following table ap- 
 pears : 
 
 Percentage of 
 Criminals. 
 Untt,biG to read and write 20.3 
 Elementary .... 74.3 
 
 Superior 2.2 
 
 Not given 3.2 
 
 Now this table clearly shows that 
 crime Is largely the product of ig- 
 norance. Persons unable to read 
 and write, form 20 per cent of the 
 criminal class, whereas all the per- 
 sons unable to road and write, who 
 are of an ago to be convicted of crime, 
 form a very small proportion of the 
 entire population. Practically all 
 the balance of the criminal class Is 
 drawn from the class of persons who 
 have an "elementary" education. A 
 person possesses In law an "element- 
 ary" education, If he can read and 
 write. It Is to be Inferred, from the 
 nature of the other figures In the ta- 
 ble, that the great bulk of the 74 
 per cent of persons having an ele- 
 mentary eduation, were able to read 
 and write, and beyond that were 
 practic.'iUy unlnstructed. It is true 
 thai many wise and moderately 
 minded men, who are favorable to a 
 common school system, believe that 
 moral teaching cannot be Inculcated 
 without religious sanctions. But 
 what are "religious sanctions?" It 
 is to be feared that. In the minds of 
 many very good men, they are syno- 
 nymous with doctrines and dogmas, 
 and especially those peculiar to their 
 own denominations. To say that a 
 moral sentiment or principle, cannot 
 be Instilled without reference to some 
 doctrinal tenet. Is to take a position 
 the soundness of wlilch has not yet 
 been demonstrated. 
 
 This is not said with any Idea of 
 detracting from the value of doctrlnoe 
 whlcli enforce .sound moral precepts, 
 but in order to suggest th.'Ut a sys- 
 tem of education, in which neithi-r 
 doctrines nor creeds are taught is 
 not necessarily immoral and "god- 
 less." The niONt moral elements of 
 the people of Canada are the most 
 intelligent, and they have been train- 
 ed In secular knowledge, in schools In 
 which the "religious instruction" has 
 been aimo.Ht infinitesimal in cpiantlty, 
 and has Imhmi confined to tlioso gen- 
 oral subjects calculated to directly in- 
 culcate moral principles, rather than 
 to instil an appreciation of dlstlnct- 
 iveiioss of creed. Is It straining the 
 credulity to ask one to believe thai 
 If these infinitesimal ami perfunctory 
 exercises were entirely omitted, the 
 present generatlo'n of schohirs would 
 Jiot in their timoi be nt leasit as moral 
 us the present geenratiau of adults ? 
 
14 
 
 France and %h.e Australasian colony 
 of Victoria pre cited as "frightful ex- 
 amples" of the result of "godless" 
 educatio'n. But, with all due respect 
 to the sincerity of the worthy men 
 who think they see their conclus- 
 ioiis justified by the conditions in 
 these communities, it has ta be stat- 
 ed that absolutely no evidence has 
 yet been ifurnished which could be ac- 
 cepted as sshowing any evil results 
 which are clearly and solely trace- 
 able to (secular education in these 
 countries. The most clamorous o\>- 
 jectors to secular education are tho 
 clergy of certain denominations, and 
 In this connection it is to be remem- 
 bered that there is a strong and ap- 
 parently ineradicable tendency in the 
 ecclesiastical mind, ,to jump to the 
 conclusion that what is new is of a 
 necessity wrong. This is especially 
 the case If the Innovation is thought 
 to have the tendency to in any way 
 lead to a diminution of the ecclesias- 
 tical influence. 
 
 I'nough has probably been said, to 
 make a reasonably good case for the 
 contention that schools in whicli ar- 
 ticles of denominational creed are 
 omitted, are not "godless schools," 
 and that, conversely, there is no es- 
 pecially "godly" or desirabU' result 
 to be attained by such 'instruction in 
 the schools. 
 
 In the face of the com- 
 parative results of so called 
 "religious .instruction" and of 
 education Avhich is practically sec- 
 ular, it seems almost incredible that 
 honest and intelligent men who are 
 satisfied w^ith the present system, can 
 hold up their hands In horror when 
 they contemplate the dire results 
 which they picture in tholr minds, 
 would ensue from the abolition of 
 the present meagre and perfunctory 
 religious exercises. 
 
 NO akgumi:nt FOU SEPARATI^ 
 SCHOOLS ON THE MISHITS. 
 
 It has not been our lot to encounter 
 any sustained and completed argu- 
 ment for the contentions of the Ro- 
 man Catholic Church In this 
 matter, strictly on the ethi- 
 cal questions and principles 
 involved. In most of the de- 
 llverances.technlcal points of law and 
 questions of abstract justice, have 
 been jumbled and confused in the 
 most bewii'lering maimer. When the 
 ethical fact and circumstances, stop 
 short of justifying an argument to 
 the extent necessary to make It ef- 
 
 fective, an ex-parte statement of the 
 legal rights of the separate school 
 claimants Is Introduced to fill up the 
 gap. 
 
 In arguing for the moral Impregna- 
 bility of the Catholic claims from a 
 purely ethical standpoint, much vir- 
 tuous Indignation and pathos Is em^ 
 ployed, and not a little gratuitous 
 sneering at the Intolerance of the 
 brute majority, Is Indulged In. The 
 indignation and the sneers are evok- 
 ed by the spectacle of the brute ma- 
 jority wrenching away the rights of 
 the weaker section. 
 
 Now, It is to be remembered, that 
 the Separate school advocates believe 
 in the necessity of state superintend- 
 ed education. They know that no 
 efficient system of stats education 
 can be Instituted or operated, if all, 
 or even any considerable number, of 
 denominational groups, asked for 
 Separate schools. They know that 
 In the schools of the present system 
 the most absolute equality.soclal and 
 I'ellglous, is combined with a credit- 
 able educational efficiency. Yet they 
 claim immunity from the taxation 
 necessary to support the .system. Be- 
 cause they arc discriminated against? 
 No. But because, they say, they are 
 entitled to treatment which would 
 practically operate as a discrimina- 
 tion In Ihelr favor. They cannot, of 
 cour.-e, argue that they can claim 
 such "rights and privileges" on purely 
 ethical grounds. They revert, then, 
 to their alleged "constitutional 
 rights." But let us recollect 
 that the indignation and con- 
 tumely, have been based altogether 
 on am assumed moral injustice, which 
 was being inflicted by the majority 
 on the minority. The legal Is thus 
 deftly welded on at the point at 
 which the ethical falls short, and the 
 combination is presented as an argu- 
 ment purely on the moral merits. 
 
 It Is possible that many just-minded 
 persons, who auay not be over-acute 
 in their examination of the argu- 
 ments, may be misled hy this confus- 
 ed, Incoherent and disingenuous meth- 
 od of argument. It is not intended 
 at present to deal with the legal as- 
 pect of the question. That will be 
 (lone later. We nre now- simply ex- 
 amining the moral basis of tho Rom- 
 an Catholic clainm. 
 
 Now if. for instance, tho legisla- 
 ture of 1890 had enacted that the 
 creed of the Church of England 
 should be taught In the public schools 
 and it it had nmde it compulsory 
 that the Roman Catholics, or mem- 
 bers of any of the other bodies which 
 dissent from tho Anglican views, 
 
 I 
 
15 
 
 should attend the public schools, and 
 receive instruction in that creed ; if 
 these people had been prevented from 
 erecting schools and providing an ed- 
 ucation for themselves — if any of 
 these things had been done, then 
 ■would the cry of "persecution" and 
 "intolerance" have been justified. But 
 none of them have even been thought 
 of 
 
 HISTORY OF OKI(;i^ OF 
 SEPARATE SUUOOLS. 
 
 The results produced by the sep- 
 arate schools in Manitoba, prior to 
 the act of 1890, were simply deplor- 
 able. It is true that at a recent lec- 
 ture on this question in Winnipeg.the 
 legal counsel of the Catholics produc- 
 ed a number of specimens of work 
 now being done In tlie separate 
 schools, which were doubtless quite 
 creditable to the individuals wlio 
 produced them, but this is obviously 
 a most inefficacious test of the gen- 
 eral efficiency of the work of the sep- 
 arate schools, and it is to be recollect- 
 ed tliat the work placed on exhibition 
 by Mr. Ewart, is being done now, 
 when the separate schools are being 
 put on their mettle, not only by the 
 emulation which the contemplation 
 and proximity of heretical 
 
 vigor and intelligence alWaty's 
 seems to produce, but by 
 the necessity of preventing the 
 charge that their own utter ineffic- 
 iency would be a strong, though not 
 the vital argument for tlielr abolition. 
 
 When we consider that the 
 adult native Koman Catho- 
 lic population of tliis prov- 
 ince to-day is In a condition of 
 pitiable and almost primeval ignor- 
 ance, when w(> are sliown that the 
 examination papers for a person at- 
 tempting to obtain a first class 
 teacher's certificate in the Roman 
 Catholic schools, are largely composed 
 of questions calculated to elicit his 
 knowledge of the peculiar dogmas of 
 the Church, and his impressions as to 
 Its overshadowing Importance, and of 
 (luestlons on trivial points of deport- 
 ment in addressing the clergy; when 
 we find grown men who are so Inno- 
 cent of the necessary facts of civilis- 
 ed life, that they are Ignorant of the 
 very names of tlie calendar months, 
 and measure time by tlie fete days of 
 the saints (this Is no hypothetical il- 
 lustration); when we find such re- 
 sults of the prevalence of separate 
 schools, coutrolled by the Roman Ca- 
 
 tholic clergy, and when we find these 
 results correspond exactly with the 
 experience in all other countries In 
 which education Is in the same hands, 
 who will say that the M.mitoba le- 
 gislature was not amply justified, if 
 on no other ground tlian that of con- 
 sideration for tlie Roman Catholic 
 children themselves, in ending this fu- 
 tile and pernicious system ? 
 
 In the preceding pages we have 
 dealt with the general ethical and 
 political questions involved in, and 
 suggested by, the position of the 
 Roman Catholic church in this con- 
 troversy. Trusting that we have 
 succeeded in furnishing tlie reader 
 with a standpoint from which he will 
 be able to take a broad and compre- 
 hensive view ol the case, and of the 
 Issues involved, we shall now proceed 
 to deal with the historical facts, and 
 the .special legal and political aspects 
 of the question. 
 
 In 1867 the Dominion of Canada was 
 created by the federal union of the 
 provinces, or colonies, of Nova Scotia, 
 New Brunswick, and the then prov- 
 ince of Canada. The Imperial sanc- 
 tion of Confederation, and the recog- 
 nition of the Dominion as a political 
 entity, are embodied In the British 
 North America Act, an enactment of 
 the British parliament. This act. 
 which is the Canadian constitution. is 
 an epitome of the results of the nego- 
 tiations carried on, of the arrange- 
 ments and agreements arrived at by 
 the representatives, of the interested 
 colonies, and of the Imperial govern- 
 ment. It defines the relative status 
 and powers of the federal and pro- 
 vincial legislatures. Certain subjects 
 of legislation are specifically named 
 as being witliln the exclusive power of 
 the federal parliament, and certain 
 others (of entirely provincial concern, 
 of course.) as belonging exclusively to 
 the provincial legislatures. But all 
 legislative power, not specifically con- 
 ferred upon local legislatures, is re- 
 served to the Dominion. In tills Im- 
 portant respect the consrtitution of 
 Canada differs from that of the 
 United States, which reserves to the 
 states all legislative power not ex- 
 pressly conferred on the federal au- 
 thority. It is, to some extent, be- 
 caus<i of the limitation of the local 
 authority in the Canadian constitu- 
 tion, that the Manitoba legislation of 
 18<)0 has become a "question." 
 
 One of the subjects, declared by the 
 British Nortli America Act to l)o ex- 
 clusively within the power of the 
 provincial authorities. Is that of edu- 
 cation. This power is, however.glven 
 subject to rewtrlctions. The author- 
 
16 
 
 Ity and its limitations are defined in 
 section 93 of the British North Am- 
 erica Act. As this section, and Its 
 'Sub-sections, are the only portions of 
 that act having :\ny immodiati' bear- 
 ing on our bubject, it will be (luoted 
 jverbatim further on in this paper. 
 
 RED KIVER JUST BEFORE THE 
 iUNION. 
 
 When the federation of those old- 
 er provinces was consummated, the 
 vast territory, of which what 
 is now the province of Man- 
 itoba formed a portion, wars 
 for the most part practic- 
 ally a terra incognita— a "great lone 
 land." A large proportion of its 
 sparse population were more or less 
 nomadic in their habits.. There were 
 hunters, trappers and traders, and 
 a few adventurers of various nation- 
 alities. These, with the Indian tribes, 
 practically composed the pf)pulation. 
 Civilization was represented by the 
 Hudson Bay company's officers, a few 
 earnest and devoted clergymen of 
 the Roman Catholic, Presbyteri^iAi 
 and Anglican denominations, and a 
 handful of merchants and agricultural 
 settlers. 
 
 The territory was, of course, un- 
 der the sovereignty of Great Brit- 
 ain, but the only government which 
 the country knew or needed (under 
 the then circumstances) was adminis- 
 tered by the Hudson's Bay company's 
 authorities, with the sanction, of 
 course, and at the instance of, the 
 Imperial government. 
 
 The great potential agricultural 
 wealth of the territory had been un- 
 derstood in Canada, and because of 
 the existence of this wealth, and for 
 other reasons of a political nature, 
 It was deemed desirable to embia<ce 
 the great region in the Canadian con- 
 federation. An arrangement had been 
 made by the Canaldian government, 
 with the Hudson's Bay company, 
 by which the former was to pay tlie 
 latter £300,000 as compens,a^ion for 
 the surrender of part of its lands 
 and its jurisdiction. 
 
 THE SETTLERS HAD REAL GRIEV- 
 ANCES. 
 
 It would seem that the Canadian 
 government, having thus arranged 
 with the Hudson's Bay company had 
 considered that the work of annexing 
 the territory had been virtually com- 
 
 pleted. It had forgotten about the 
 inhabitants of the country and their 
 rights; or it had calculated that, 
 these inhabitants being so few in 
 number, and of such primitive habits 
 and understanding, they probably did 
 not tliemselves realize that they lia.d 
 any rights, and that, if the matter 
 required any consideration at all, it 
 could be postponed to a more con- 
 venient season. The government had 
 forgotten that the actual inhabit- 
 ants—the resident population of a 
 country— have rights which are 
 paramount to all other claims. 
 
 The population in the settled por- 
 tion of the territory consisted about 
 the end of 1869, of 12,000 souls. Of 
 these .'>,000 were Freneh half-breeds, 
 5,000 English half-breeds, the remain- 
 ing 2,000 being white persons. Many 
 of the latter were Canadians, and ap- 
 pear to have been markedly charac- 
 terized by the speculative, adventur- 
 ous, fortune-huTi^ing spirit whieh is 
 usually the distinctive trait of the 
 individuals comprising the ad\ance 
 guard of civilization in a new coun- 
 try. He who has dwelt, in a fron- 
 tier land, in the early phases of Its 
 development, knows that the pioneer 
 speculator is not a person whose per- 
 sonal progress or prosperity is likely 
 to be retarded to any apprecial)le de- 
 gree, by his fastidious sense of honor, 
 or by the searching scrutiny to which 
 he submits his own commercial acts. 
 He is generally admitted, indeed, to 
 acknowledge very Utile restraint in 
 transactions involving considerations 
 of meum and tuum. His ideal may 
 be s'uramed up In the vulgar expres- 
 sion of "get there;" and if in "getting 
 there," it should incidentally happen 
 tint some ottlier person had to be 
 over-reached, the enterprise would 
 prol^ahly be all the more attractive, 
 and success all tlie more enjoyed on 
 that account. 
 
 It would appear that, In the case 
 of this new territory, even the offi- 
 cials of tlier Canadian government, 
 had conducted themselves in such a 
 manner as to inspire the simple-mind- 
 ed natives with a feeling of anything 
 but confidence and security. The 
 land-gral)blng spirit was rampant. 
 And it Is to be feared, that not a few 
 native owners were induced to part 
 with their holdings for little or no 
 consideration, by means which it, 
 would be far from exaggeration to 
 term unscrupulous. Not only this, 
 but a certain highhandedness on the 
 part of the officials, their uiidlsguls- 
 edly contemptuous treatment of the 
 natives, and their apparent iimblllty 
 to comprehend the possibility of these 
 
17 
 
 bout the 
 and their 
 [1 that, 
 ) few in 
 ve liabits 
 l>n,l)ly (lid 
 tlioy liad 
 
 niattor 
 at all, it 
 ore con- 
 iinent had 
 
 inhabit- 
 in of a 
 ich are 
 lims. 
 
 ;tled por- 
 ted about 
 
 ouis. or 
 
 ilf-breedH, 
 e rema in- 
 ns. Many 
 s, and ap- 
 y charac- 
 adventur- 
 which iH 
 t of the 
 ad \ a nee 
 ie%v couii- 
 n a fron- 
 ses of its 
 \e pioneer 
 rhose per- 
 ,' is liliely 
 jciable de- 
 of honor, 
 
 to AVlliCll 
 
 cial acts. 
 ndeed, to 
 traint in 
 ideratlons 
 ideal may 
 ar expree- 
 
 1 "getting 
 ly happen 
 ad to lie 
 ise would 
 ittractive, 
 iijoyed on 
 
 I the case 
 the offi- 
 )vernraent, 
 Ln such a 
 nple-mind- 
 ' anytliinp; 
 ty. The 
 
 rampant. 
 
 not a few 
 d to part 
 ,tle or no 
 
 which it. 
 
 atlon. to 
 oidy this, 
 ess on tlie 
 uiidisu'uis- 
 >nt of the 
 inability 
 ty of these 
 
 inhabitants having any rights which 
 they were bound to respect, filled the 
 minds of the nadvea with resentment 
 and apprehension. 
 
 The lO.OUO half-breeds wlio consti- 
 tu'.ed five-sixths of the entire popula- 
 tion were, as we liave seen, about 
 e(iu;tlly divided as to nationality. Of 
 the French lialf-breod, Mr. Begg. the 
 historian of Manitoba and the Nortli- 
 west, says: "The Freai'h half-breed, 
 called also >[etis, and formerly Bois 
 Brule, is an athletic, rather good- 
 looking, lively, excitable, easy-going 
 l)eing. Fond of a fist pony, fond of 
 merry-maliing, free liearted, open- 
 handed, yet indolen and improvident, 
 lie is a marked feature of border 
 life." It Is this wild and intract;ubie, 
 but still attractive, child of the plains 
 ^vlio, we are aslced to believe, was so 
 calculatingly solicitous to secure the 
 permanency of Roman Catholic sep- 
 arate scliools. "A.A different as is 
 tlie patient roadster from the wild 
 mustang, is the English-speaking 
 half-breed from tlie Metis." This is 
 a description of tlie other h'llf of the 
 native population l)y the ':ame au- 
 thority. 
 
 The Canadian government. l)ef()r'' it 
 had acquired any territorial rights 
 or jurisdiction, sent a party of sur- 
 veyors into tlie country, with instruc- 
 tions to survey and sul)divide the 
 very lands wliich tliese natives owned 
 by tlie riglit of occupation, and of 
 Bquatter sovereignty, if by no other. 
 These simple and inoffen.sive people 
 saw the lands which tiioy liad been al- 
 ways accustomed to regard as their 
 property, on wliicli most of tliem 
 were born, and on whicli stood their 
 homes (.sucli as they were), dealt witli 
 by the strangers, as if their rights 
 in tliem were so flimsy that tlie 
 strangers need take no account of 
 tliem. As the work of surveying went 
 on, tlieso natives saw the speculative 
 tadventurors, to whom allusion has 
 already been made, acquire posses- 
 sion of the most desiralMe lands by 
 tlie following simple proC(>ss : "When 
 a lot was cliosou by an Individual 
 lie proceeded to eut a furrow round 
 i'^ wltli a plough, and then drive 
 stakes with his name marked upon 
 them Into the ground lierc and there. 
 Tills was considered sufficient to 
 give the claim;int a right to the 
 land, and In tliis way hundreds of 
 acres were taken possession of for tlie 
 purpose of t-peculation. It seemed, as 
 soon as there aiipeared ;i certainty 
 that lion. Wm. 'Mclinugall was to l)e 
 governor, that tlie men who profess- 
 ed to l)e ills friends In Red River, made 
 it a point to secure as luucii of the 
 country to themselves as possible. It 
 
 is notorious that the principal one in 
 tills movement, the leader of the so 
 called C?iuadiaii party, staked off suf- 
 ficient land (had he gained possession 
 of it) to make liim one of tlie largest 
 landed proprietors In the Dominion. 
 Can it 1)6 wondered at, if tlie people 
 looked with dismay at this whole- 
 sale usurpation of the soil ? Is It 
 surprising if they foresaw tlie pre- 
 dictions of tlie very men wlio acted 
 as usurpers, as likely to come true, 
 namely, that the natives were to be 
 swamped by the incoming strangers?" 
 The above extract from Mr. Begg's 
 valuable and interesting work 
 "The creation of Manitoba" throws 
 a powerful light on tlie slriLster me- 
 "^hods and transactions, which have 
 •characterised all dealings with lands 
 in tlie new territories, by Canadian 
 governments. The distribution of 
 ilie nation's natural resources 
 amongst speculators and partisan 
 heeler.s, has been the cause of Incal- 
 culable cost to the people of Canada. 
 It led to the armed resistance to 
 their encroachments by the poor 
 Metis in 187U, and it was the main 
 cause of the later uprising on the Sas- 
 katchew'au In 1885. 
 
 THE BEGINNING OF THE TROUi 
 BLES. 
 
 The chief oi the surveying party. 
 Colonel Dennis, communicated to the 
 government at Ottawa, the iirobable 
 results of per.severarice In the survey 
 without an arrji;ngement with tlie 
 natives, liut to no purpose. The sur- 
 veys were continued lill the resist- 
 anee of tiie Metis rendered the work 
 unsafe, and Indeed Impossible. 
 
 Who shall say that the action i)r 
 the attitude of the Metis, in resisting 
 the usurpation of authority over 
 them, and the confiscation of their 
 properties, l)y a government which 
 had no rights of either treaty or con- 
 quest, was not justified ? When they 
 found tliat the government was being 
 transferred from the Hudson's Bay 
 ecjnipany to the Dominion of Canada, 
 without any consultation Avitli them; 
 wlier. they saw the emissaries of the 
 Canadian government, even before 
 tills transfer had been consummated, 
 p.ircelling out their lands and dis- 
 daitifully ignoring their existence, is 
 It wonderful that, as Lord Woiseley 
 (then Col. Woiseley) points out, the 
 impression should have olitalned 
 umoiig-t these people, that they ''were 
 being liought and sold like so in.'iny 
 cattle." Lord Woiseley adds: "Wltli 
 such a text the most common placo 
 
18 
 
 of democrats (he probably meant dem- 
 agogues) could preach for hours; and 
 poor indeed must have been their 
 clap-trap eloquence, if an ignorant 
 and impressionable people such as 
 those at Red River had not lieen 
 aroused by it." 
 
 They were aroused. They organ- 
 ized 'ihcmselvep for resistance to the 
 assumption of authority by the Can- 
 adian government, till proper terms 
 had been made with them. The 
 French element, organized under Louis 
 Riel, elected twelve delegates, and in- 
 vited the English natives to elect 
 other twelve. The invitation was 
 responded to. The twenty-four dele- 
 gates met on Nov. 16, 1869, and ad- 
 journed because of their inability to 
 agree as to the proposal to consti- 
 tute a provisional government. On 
 December 1 they re-assembled, and 
 formulated the first Bill of Rights, 
 which is as follows: 
 
 LIST OF RIGHTS. 
 
 1. That the people liave the right 
 to elect tlieir own legislature. 
 
 2. Tliat the legislature have power 
 to pass all laws local to the territory 
 over the veto of the executive by a 
 two-thirds vote. 
 
 8. Tliat no act of the Dominion par- 
 liament (local to the territory) be 
 binding on the people until sanctioned 
 by the legislature of the territory. 
 
 4. That all sheriffs, magistrates, 
 constables, school commissioners, etc., 
 etc., be eiected by the people. 
 
 ;j. A free homestead and pre-emi> 
 tiou land law. 
 
 6. That a portion of the public 
 lands be appropriated to the benefit 
 of schools, the building of bridges, 
 roads and public buildings. 
 
 7. That it be guarajiteed to con- 
 nect Winnipeg by rail with the near- 
 est line of railroad within a term of 
 five years; the land grant to be sub- 
 ject to the local legislature. 
 
 8. That for a term of four years, 
 all military, civil, and municipal ex- 
 penses be paid out of the Dominion 
 funds. 
 
 9. That the military be composed of 
 the inhabitants now existing in the 
 territory. 
 
 10. That the English and French 
 languages be common in the legisla- 
 ture. "'- ' courts; and all public docu- 
 meitufl and acts of legislature be pub- 
 lished in both languages. 
 
 11. That the judge of the Supreme 
 court speak the English and French 
 languages. 
 
 12. That the treaties be concluded 
 and ratified between the Dominion 
 
 government and the several tribes of 
 Indians in the territory, to ensure 
 peace on the frontier. 
 
 1:5. That we have a fair and full 
 representation in the Canadian par- 
 liament. 
 
 11. Th.it all privileges, customs and 
 usages existing at the time of trans- 
 fer bo respected. 
 
 This Is the first of the three Bills 
 or Lists of Rights which were ad- 
 mittedly adopted by the legislative 
 or executive representatives of the 
 inhabitants. It will be seen that 
 there is no reference in the above 
 list to education or schools. A fourth 
 bill, of somewhat mysterious origin, 
 and of hazy identity, plays a most 
 important part in this question, and 
 it would be desirable that the reader, 
 in order to obtain a clear under- 
 standing of the historico-legal 
 phase of this dispute, should closely 
 follow the facts relating to these 
 Bills of Rights. The Bill of Rights 
 quoted above was adopted by the 
 council "without a dissenting voice." 
 
 Meanwhile the Hon. Wra. McDou- 
 gall, who had been appointed Lieu- 
 tenant-Governor of the Territory, 
 had been at Pembina on the boundary 
 since October 30, preparing to make 
 his formal entry as soon as the trans- 
 fer should be consummated. The pro- 
 ceedings of the inhabitants had ren- 
 dered this impossible. 
 
 HISTORY OF BILLS OF RIGHTS. 
 
 Three commissioners were then sent 
 by the Canadian government to en- 
 deavor to pacify the inhabitants, and 
 effect a settlement. These were Very 
 Rev. Grand Vicar Thibault, Colonel 
 De Salabery and Sir (then Mr.) Don- 
 ald A. Smith. These commissioners 
 met the settlers in mass meeting on 
 January 19, 1870. The meeting, 
 a very large one, was lield 
 in the open air,and so intense was 
 the interest that, although the ther- 
 mometer registered 20 degrees below 
 zero, it lasted over five hours. Mr. 
 Smith's commission was read and ex- 
 plained. Tlie election of a council 
 of forty was decided upon "\\ ith the 
 object of considering Mr. Smith's 
 commission, and to decide what would 
 be best for the welfare of the coun- 
 try." Pursuant to this decision, 
 the forty representatives were 
 elected, tAventy by the French, and 
 twenty by the English settlers. They 
 assembled on .January 26 and elect- 
 ed Judge Black chairman. Sir Donald 
 Smith, who seems to have taken 
 the most prominent part in all these 
 
 tl 
 
 t| 
 el 
 
 o| 
 
Id 
 
 lI tribes of 
 to ensure 
 
 r and fmi 
 1.(1 ian par- 
 
 stoms and 
 ' of trans- 
 
 liree Bills 
 were ad- 
 egislatlve 
 s of the 
 >n that 
 e above 
 
 A fourth 
 ^ origin, 
 3 a most 
 tion, and 
 e reader, 
 under- 
 ico-legal 
 J closely 
 these 
 f Rights 
 by the 
 ? voice." 
 
 McDou- 
 1 Lieu- 
 ?rritory, 
 oundary 
 o make 
 e trans- 
 'he pro- 
 -d ren- 
 
 jIITS. 
 
 en sent 
 
 to en- 
 ts, and 
 e Very 
 
 "olonel 
 ) Don- 
 sioners 
 ing on 
 eeting:, 
 lield 
 i was 
 ther- 
 
 beloTv 
 Mr. 
 nd ex- 
 ouncil 
 ih the 
 initli's 
 would 
 
 coun- 
 lision, 
 
 were 
 and 
 
 They 
 elect- 
 onald 
 
 aken 
 these 
 
 transactions, delivered an address it 
 the opening session. He also assist- 
 ed in tiie discussion of the second Bill 
 of Uights, which this Council of 
 forty drew up. 
 
 This second list is much more 
 lengthy than the first. It contains 
 twenty clauses, and shows that the 
 poiutb to be discussed in dealing with 
 Canada, had received much considera- 
 tion in the meantime. Like the first 
 list, it contemplated the entry of tlie 
 Northwost into the Canadian Con- 
 federation as a territory and not as 
 a province. It made much more spec- 
 ific financial stipulations than the 
 first bill did, and took great pains 
 to guard the right of self government 
 and the autonomy of the territorial 
 legislature. The only reference to 
 education which it contained is in 
 clause 9, which reads : "That, while 
 the Northwest remains a territory, 
 the sum of .$25,000 a year be appro- 
 priated for schools, roads and 
 bridges." 
 
 DELEGATES ARE APPOINTED. 
 
 Sir Donald requested the Council to 
 send delegates to confer with the Do- 
 minion government at Ottawa, with 
 a view to a proper understanding 
 by that government of jthe "wants 
 and wishes of the Red river people" 
 and "to discuss and arrange for the 
 representation of the country in par- 
 liament." In response to this invita- 
 tion. Rev. Father Ritchot, .Judge 
 Black, and Mr. Alfred H. Scott, were 
 appointed delegates. The provision- 
 al government, of which Ricl was then 
 head, and which had tiikeii possession 
 of Fort Garry, was endorsed and con- 
 tinued in office by the council, and a 
 general election for members (to the 
 number of 24) of a new assembly, was 
 ordered. Turbulent times ensued, 
 however. Some complications arose, 
 partly through misunderstanding, 
 partly on account of occasional un- 
 wise acts of the provisional govern- 
 government, and partly owing to tlie 
 imperfect nature of the means of 
 communication and travel then in ex- 
 Istejice. A number of the Canadians 
 were taken as prisoners by Riel, who 
 seems to have conducted himself on 
 the whole with some moderation, 
 when Ills origin and training are con- 
 sidered. He however lost control ap- 
 parently both of himself and his fol- 
 lowers, and without trial, or rather 
 after a burlesque of a trial, at 
 which the accused was not present, 
 one of the prisoners, Thomas Scott, 
 was sentenced to be shot. This sen- 
 
 tence was executed with cold blooded 
 atrocity on March 4, 1870. This act 
 was the beginning of the end of Riel, 
 but as his history has no further con- 
 nection with our subject, we shall 
 leave him liere. He seemed to have 
 been a born agitator, not alto- 
 gether destitute of good qualities.His 
 intellectual endowments and his ca- 
 pacity for command have been 
 extravagantly overestimated In some 
 quarters. Want of balance and sta- 
 bility of character, as well as the 
 heavy handicap which his lack of 
 modern training and experience had 
 placed upon him, unfitted him for the 
 role which his ambition and his van- 
 ity impelled him to assume, and led 
 ultimately to his tragic end. He was 
 entirely devoid of executive capacity 
 apparently, does not seem to have 
 been over-courageous, and was In tem- 
 perament of that peculiar combina- 
 tion of half-ecstatic, half-charlatan, 
 which so readily obtains influence over 
 the minds of semi-civilised people. 
 
 The elections, which had been or- 
 dered by the Council of Forty, were 
 held on Feb. 20, 1870. The first meet- 
 ing of the twenty-four members of the 
 new assembly was held on March 9. 
 A resolution was adopted, declaring 
 the unaltered loyalty of the North- 
 west to the British crown. A con- 
 stitution was also adopted, and the 
 provisional government confirmed and 
 declared to be the only "existing au- 
 thority." 
 
 DELEGATES LEAVE FOR OTTAWA. 
 
 According to t he arrangements 
 made by the Council of Forty, the de- 
 legates appointed by that body,should 
 have left for Ottawa as soon after 
 the adjournment of the council as 
 they could conveniently have done so. 
 The turbulent occurrences to which 
 we have alluded, of course made It 
 Impossible for them to leave In a pro- 
 perly representative capacity till 
 matters baidi settled down again. 
 When the act of the new assembly, 
 however, had given the provisional 
 government a constitutional status, 
 that body gave its attention to the 
 matter. 
 
 The delegates appointed by the 
 Council of Forty were, as we have 
 seen, Rev. Father Ritchot, Judge Black 
 and Mr. A. H. Scott. Their instruc- 
 tions were embodied in the list of 
 rights drawn up by the Council of 
 Forty, which was Bill of Rights Num- 
 ber 2. This list, however, was not 
 taken to Ottawa by the delegates. 
 Much discussiou having doubtless 
 
20 
 
 taken place in the Assembly, and tlio 
 desires and tlie requirements of tlio 
 settlors more fully ascertained, the 
 I'rovisional Govornment drew up a 
 new Bill of Rights, wldch was given 
 to the delegates, and which they 
 took to Ottawa. 
 
 The delegates left Red River for 
 Ottawa with the Bill of Rights en- 
 trusted to them by the Provisional 
 Government on March 23, 1870. It 
 will be well to make a note of this 
 date, as It is very Important. Now. 
 it is the question of tlie Identity of 
 the Bill of Rights which was actual- 
 ly committed to their care, wlilch 
 forms the very centre of the battle- 
 ground in what we have termed the 
 historico-legal phase of the school 
 question. 
 
 Before dealing with the very Im- 
 portant question f)f the identity of 
 the genuine Bill of Rights, let us con- 
 sider the nature and causes of the 
 occurrences which had taken place at 
 Red River. Mr. Ewart, the legal 
 counsel of the Cath()lics, dwelt at 
 great length on this early history. 
 Now, we could understand, for rea- 
 sons which we shall presently explain, 
 why these events should be described 
 and cited in support of the conten- 
 tion that the Catholic party in tliis 
 dispute is wrong, but It Is Impossilbc 
 to conceive what assistance their 
 case receives from the most elaborate 
 recital of the events In question. For, 
 be It carefully noted, the agitation 
 which preceded the introduction of 
 Canadian government to the North- 
 west was, as we have seen, of a pure- 
 ly agrarian character. It arose, jis 
 we have also seen, and was main- 
 tained, solely on account of the man- 
 ner In which the Canadian officials 
 and the Canadian adventurers were 
 dealing with the lands. The doubts 
 and fears of the settlers regarding 
 the safety of their properties, and as 
 to the general treatment they should 
 receive under Canadian government, 
 \fter it should obtain control, were 
 aroused, very reasonably and very 
 justifiably, by the high-handed and 
 unscrupulous actions of Canadians, 
 before Canada had acquired any act- 
 tual log.il authoriiy. Now, Mr. Kw irt 
 has gone to much trouble to show the 
 arbitrary character of the bearing 
 and actions of the Canadians, and has 
 expressed much well-merited indigna- 
 tion at their conduct. But we are at 
 a loss to understand why he lias de- 
 voted so much time and space to 
 this historical phase, unless it was his 
 object to create an Impression that 
 all this agitation was In some way 
 or other connected with, and had 
 Bome bearing upon, the claims of the 
 
 iioman Catholics In the present dis- 
 pute. This !s far from be- 
 ing the case. In all the 
 agitations, disputations and de- 
 iiiarids, UiL' sul)ject <if education was 
 apparently unthouglit of ,and separ- 
 ate schools are not so much as men- 
 tioned. In all the numerous testimon- 
 ies, cited almost ad nauseam by Mr. 
 Kwart, there is not one word about 
 .^•chools, nor do we find in tlie records 
 of any of the three representative 
 bodies, whose proceedings we have re- 
 ferred to. any account of any discus- 
 sion of the subject. Even the last 
 Assembly, which was in session when 
 the delegates departed for Ottawa, 
 .seem.-; not to have considered tlie 
 question at all. Let us be clear, 
 therefore, as to the origin and char- 
 acter of the agitation, and the de- 
 mands of the people. 
 
 THE BILLS OF RIGHTS. 
 
 Now, as to the Bills of Rights. There 
 has been much dispute as to tlie prov- 
 isions wiilcli wore contained in tlie 
 I'i!l of Itiglits entrusted to tlie dele- 
 gates by the Provisional Government, 
 or. to i)ut it perhaps more clearly and 
 accurately, there lias been much dis- 
 pute as to the Identity of tlie bill 
 wlilcli was actually entrusted to the 
 ■"elegatos by the Provisional Govern- 
 ment. There was a list of riglits 
 prepared by the Provisional Govern- 
 ment as to the authenticity of which 
 there Is no doubt nor di-puto. This 
 list, which Is Bill of Rigiits No. 3, It 
 is contended by the province of Mani- 
 toba, is the only li.st which the Prov- 
 isional Government ever drew up, and 
 is the one which was given to the de- 
 legates. The Roman Catholic party, 
 however, say that still another list 
 (No. 4) was prepared by the Prov- 
 isional (";overniuent,and that it super- 
 seded No. 3. We shall present the 
 evidence for each side. 
 
 Bills of Riglits Nos. 3 and 4 contain 
 each twenty clauses. We reproduce 
 the first seven clauses of these bills, 
 in parallel form, ^t may be remem- 
 bered that Bills of Rights Nos. land 
 2 contemplated the entry of the 
 Northwest into Confederation in the 
 position of a territory. It will be 
 observed that Bill of Rights No. 3 of 
 the Provisional tJovernment, and also 
 Bill of Rights No. 4, whose origin is 
 still a mystery, both stipulate for the 
 provincial status. 
 
 LIST NO. 3. LIST NO. t 
 
 1. That, the territor- 1. Thhttheterrltories 
 ies heretofore known of the Northweht enter 
 a-< Rupert's Ijaml iiiid into (!oiifederiitioii of 
 Northwest shall not the Dominion of Can- 
 enter into the Confcd- ada as a province, with 
 
 el 
 
 p| 
 
 ill 
 vl 
 al 
 al 
 
 tf 
 
 01 
 
 rfl 
 !3| 
 
(lls- 
 
 be- 
 
 tlie 
 
 (le- 
 
 W.1H 
 
 21 
 
 esGnt 
 pom 
 all 
 ••ind 
 ition 
 
 11(1 Kc'par- 
 1 as nieii- 
 testimnii- 
 Q by Mr. 
 rd about 
 e reconlH 
 tentative 
 ■ have re- 
 y discuH- 
 thc last 
 on wlicii 
 Ottawa, 
 red the 
 e clear, 
 nd char- 
 the de- 
 
 rs. 
 
 s. There 
 he prov- 
 in the 
 ho dele- 
 'riuiieiit, 
 irly and 
 uch dis- 
 he bill 
 
 to till' 
 
 Goverii- 
 ' rlglits 
 CJoverii- 
 f wliitii 
 Tliis 
 o. 3, it 
 f Maui- 
 
 ip. 
 
 rrov- 
 and 
 the de- 
 party, 
 er list 
 Prov- 
 super- 
 t the 
 
 oiitaiii 
 rod lice 
 i bills, 
 emem- 
 1 and 
 the 
 111 the 
 111 be 
 3 of 
 also 
 :iu Is 
 3r the 
 
 eration, except an a 
 province, to bo styled 
 and known as the i'ro- 
 viiicj of Assiniboiii, 
 and with all the riKiit?* 
 and privilege- common 
 tn (litlVreiit j)rovinces 
 of the Dominion. 
 
 Itoricfl 
 tenter 
 lioji of 
 f Can- 
 e.with 
 
 2. That we have two 
 representatives in tlie 
 Set ate, and four in the 
 House of Commons of 
 Canada, until such time 
 as an increase of popu- 
 lation entitles the pro- 
 vince to a greater re- 
 presentation. 
 
 3. That the Province 
 of Assinihola shall not 
 be held liable at any 
 time, for any portion 
 of the public debt of 
 the Dominion cont rant- 
 ed before the date ibe 
 said province shall 
 have entered the Con- 
 federation, unless the 
 Kaid province shall 
 have first received 
 from the Dominion the 
 full amount for whioh 
 the said province is to 
 be held liable. 
 
 4. That the sum of 
 880,000 be paid annu- 
 ally by the Dominion 
 Rovernmcnt to the leg- 
 islature of the pro- 
 vince. 
 
 5. Thatallproperties, 
 rights and privileges 
 enjoyjed by the people 
 of this province up to 
 the date of our enter- 
 ing into the Confedera- 
 tion be respected, and 
 that the arrangement 
 and confirmation of all 
 customs, usages and 
 privileges bo left ex- 
 clusively to the local 
 legislature. 
 
 6. That during the 
 term of five years, the 
 Provinceof Assiniboia, 
 shall not be subject to 
 any direct taxation, ex- 
 cept fauch as might be 
 imposed bv the local 
 legislature for municl- 
 piu or local purposes. 
 
 7. That a sum equal 
 to eighty cents per 
 head of the population 
 of this province bo paid 
 annually by the Can- 
 adian government to 
 the local legislature of 
 the said province until 
 such time as the said 
 population shall have 
 increased to 600,000, 
 
 all the privileges com- 
 mon with all the dif- 
 ferent prnvin(;es in the 
 Dominion. 
 
 That this province 
 b(! governed : 
 
 1, By a |jieut.-Gov- 
 ernor. appointed by the 
 Governor - Ueneral of 
 Canada. 
 
 2. Hy a senat". 
 
 H. By a legislature 
 chosen by tlio people 
 with a res-ponsiblo 
 ministry. 
 
 2. That until such 
 time as the increase of 
 population in this 
 country entitles us to 
 a greater number, we 
 have two representa- 
 tives in the senate.and 
 four in the house of 
 commons of Canada. 
 
 .3. That in entering 
 the Confederation, the 
 Province ef the North- 
 wcst bo completely 
 free from thfi public 
 debt of Canada ; and 
 if called unoa to as- 
 sume a part of the 
 said debt of Canada, 
 that it be only after 
 having received from 
 Canada the same 
 amount for which the 
 said province of the 
 Northwest should be 
 held responsible. 
 
 4. That the annual 
 sum of $80,000 be al- 
 lotted by the Domin- 
 ion of Canada to the 
 legislature of the pro- 
 vinces of the North- 
 west. 
 
 5. Thatallproperties, 
 rights and privileges 
 en.iojed by us up to 
 this day be respected, 
 and that the recogni- 
 tition and settlement 
 of customs, usages and 
 privileges be left ex- 
 clusively to the decis- 
 ion of the local legiuia- 
 turo. 
 
 6. That this country 
 bo submitted to no 
 direct taxation except 
 such as may be im- 
 posed by the local leg- 
 islature for municipal 
 and other local pur- 
 poses. 
 
 7. That the schools 
 bo separate, and that 
 the public monev for 
 schools bo distributed 
 among the different 
 religious denomina- 
 tions in proportion to 
 their respective popu- 
 lation according to the 
 system of the province 
 of Quo bee, 
 
 p. will be seen by fflnnclng at the 
 first six clauses of both listH, tlint 
 substantially tlie same dem.inds are 
 made in each bill, and in the K.inio 
 consecutive order, although there is 
 a variation In the words in which 
 the demands are stated. In the cise 
 of clauses 8 to 18 of both bills, inclu- 
 sive, the same thing conld be noticed 
 —agreement in sub.stance, but differ- 
 ence In phraseolofiy. In clauses l'.» 
 and 20 the words are the same in 
 each bill. It will also be seen that 
 tlierc is no reference in the seven 
 clauses of No. 3 wliich are Riven 
 above, nor in the first six clauses of 
 No. 4, to education nor schools. Nei- 
 ther is there any sucli reference in 
 tlie thirteen clauses of both bills 
 wliich we have not reproduced. The 
 reasons for the omission of these 
 clauses are, that they are rather 
 lenjrthy, have no relevancy to our 
 subject, and are not In tliemselves of 
 absorbing literary or lil.stoiic 1 ite- 
 rest. 
 
 It will be noted that the essential 
 difference between the two lists oc- 
 curs in clause 7. In list No. 3, clause 
 7 provides for the payment of a sulv 
 sidy to the province by the Dominion. 
 In that list there is no reference 
 whatever to schools or education. In 
 list No. -l, clause 7 provides for sepa- 
 rate schools; and It contains no sti- 
 pulation whatever for the payment of 
 a subsidy. This important provi- 
 sion does not appear at all in list 
 No. 4. 
 
 WHICH IS THE AUTHENTIC LIST? 
 
 Before presenting the evidence 
 which, we think, will enable our read- 
 ers to form an intelligent opinion as 
 to the origin of bill No. 4, we will 
 give the explanation of the striking 
 difference in clause 7 of the two lists, 
 supplied by Mr. Ewart, the legal re- 
 presetitative of the Manitoba lioman 
 Catholics. 
 
 "Attention is called to paragraph 7 
 in list No. 4 : "That the schools 
 be separate." There is no reference 
 to schools in list No. 3. Hence the 
 dispute. Did, or did not, the Pro- 
 visional government demand that the 
 schools should be separate ? On the 
 one hand is produced what is said to 
 be "the official copy, found in the pa- 
 pers of Thomas Bunn (now deceased) 
 secretary of Kiel's government." This 
 is identical with list No. 3. Mr. Begg 
 in his history, gives this list No. 3 
 as the true one, and accompanies It 
 with a copy of the instructions given 
 to the delegates. That such a list 
 is among Mr, Bunn's papers is suf- 
 
22 
 
 flcient to Bhow that it had actual 
 exiHtence. It Is no evidence, ol 
 course, that it was not superseded 
 (as already two others had been su- 
 perseded); and Mr. Begg, although 
 careful and trustworthy, may liave 
 been misled through not having heard 
 of a subsequent list. 
 
 •'The best and only direct evidence 
 tliat has been adduced upon the sub- 
 ject, is the sworn testimony of the 
 Rev. Mr. Ritchot (himself one of the 
 delegates), who was called as a wit- 
 ness when Lepine was being tried for 
 the murder of Scott (1874), and when 
 no one could have had any object in 
 misstating the facts. At that trial 
 Mr. Ritchot produced list No. 4, 
 and swore that it was the list given 
 to him as a delegate. 
 
 "Other evidence,and of very strong 
 filiaracter, may be added : After much 
 consultation between Sir John A. 
 Macdonald and Sir George Cartier, 
 on the one '. and, and the Rev. Mr. 
 Ritchot and Judge Blaclc on the oth- 
 er, a draft bill was submitted to the 
 delegates as that which the govern- 
 ment was prepared to concede. The 
 Rev. Mr. Ritchot made observations 
 in writing upon all the clauses in 
 the draft and sent them to the min- 
 isters. Section 19 of the draft dealt 
 with the schools, and the following 
 are the observations made upon it by 
 Mr. Ritchot: 
 
 " 'Cette clause etant la meme que 
 celle de I'Acte de "Amerique Britan- 
 n'que du Nord, confere, je I'lnterprette 
 ainsi, comme prlncipe fundamental, le 
 privilege des ecoles separees dans 
 toute la plentltude et, en cela, est 
 •conforrae a I'article 7 de nos in- 
 structions." 
 
 (TlilK clause being the same as the 
 British North America Act, confers, 
 BO I interpret it, as fundamental prin- 
 ciple, the privilege of separate schools 
 to the fullest extent, and In that is 
 in conformity with article 7 of our 
 in/Btructions.) 
 
 "Internal evidence, too, is not 
 wanting in support of Mr. Ritchot's 
 statement. Paragraph 1 of list No. 
 4 demands a senate for the new 
 province, and a senate was granted, 
 although the expense of it was much 
 objected to. List No. 3 says noth- 
 ing about a Senate. Again, List 
 No. 4 (paragraph 7) demands "that 
 the schools be separate," and clauses 
 were Inserted to that end In the 
 Manitoba Act. liist No. 3 says 
 nothing about schools. It would be 
 strange It both these points could 
 have got, by chance. Into the Mani- 
 toba Act— an act Avhlch, as we 
 shall soon sec, was the 
 result of elal)orate negotiations 
 
 with the delegates. It May be add- 
 ed that list No. 3 aslis that the prov- 
 ince shall be "styled and Ijnown as 
 the province of 'Assiniboia.' List 
 No. 4 suggests no name. It is in- 
 conceivable that tlie Dominion should 
 have deliberately refused to adopt 
 the name Assiniboia had it been ask- 
 ed,for the Dominion has since then 
 called a large part of the Territories 
 by that very name. 
 
 "Comparison of the lists will show 
 that No. 3 was probably the draft 
 and No. 4 the finally revised form of 
 the list of rights. Observe that 
 while No. 4 often adopts the lan- 
 guage of No. 3, it varies from it, 
 not only in the important respects 
 already referred to, but frequently in 
 mere verbal expression. Judge 
 
 Fournier, of the Supreme Court, in 
 his recent judgment, adopts No. 4 
 as the true list." 
 
 Mr. Ewart goes on to argue that 
 there can be no doubt that it was a 
 list of the Provisional Government, 
 and not that of the Council of Forty, 
 which was the basis of negotiations 
 at Ottawa. 
 
 No one, so far as we are aware.has 
 ever contended that Bill of Rights 
 Noi. 2 (that formulated l>y the Council 
 of Forty) was the basis of negotia- 
 tions. Mr. Ewart's only conceivable 
 olijoct In thu« stating facts which no- 
 bodj' has thouglit of contradicting, 
 would seem to be to Impart to the 
 somewhat flimsy and far-fetched ar- 
 gument, and rather dubious facts, 
 which ho has mixed up with the un- 
 disputed one8,nn air of soundness and 
 i-espectabllity, which he must feel 
 they sadly lack, standing alone. 
 
 Regarding "the official copy found 
 in the papers of Thomas Bunn (now 
 deceased), secretary of Rlel's govern- 
 ment," there is not the slightest doubt 
 about Its authenticity, as Mr. Ewart 
 admits. Indeed, there Is the beat 
 reason to believe that this document 
 is the original Bill of Rights formu- 
 lated by tho Provisional Governmont, 
 of which, be it observed, Mr. Bunn was 
 the secretary. There Is very little 
 wonder that "Mr. Begg (who pulv 
 llshed his book in 1875) should give 
 this Bill (No. 3) as the true one," bo- 
 cause he never knew nor had cause 
 to suspect that any later bill ex- 
 isted. 
 
 Mr. Ewart is forced to admit that 
 this Bill of Tllglita No. 3 had an ex- 
 istence, but he says there "is no evi- 
 dence that it was not superseded (as 
 filroady two others had been auper- 
 seded). and Mr. Begg, althougii care- 
 ful and trustworthy, may have been 
 misled through not having seen a 
 subsequent list." 
 
23 
 
 This is a quite Ingenious, but most 
 disingenuous argument ; so much so 
 indeed, as to suggest that Mr.Ewart 
 felt this phase of his case to ba a 
 very unsatisfactory one. In the first 
 place, there is no analogy btitween 
 the abandonment of the first two 
 Bills of Ilights. and the alleged aban- 
 donment of the third. Mr. Ewart 
 himself supplies reasons for the aban- 
 donment of Bills No. 1 and No. 2, but 
 he does not, and cannot, supply any 
 reason for the abandonment of Bill ol 
 nights No. 3. Under the circum- 
 stances, the onus is not on the be- 
 lievers in Bill No. 3, to show that It 
 Avas not "superseded," but on Mr. 
 Ewart's clients to show that it was. 
 Mr. Ewart adroitly endeavors to 
 shift the onus. Whilst not under obli- 
 gation, by the rules of argument, to 
 do so, the opponents of separate 
 schools may safely undertake to 
 prove that No. 3 was not "super- 
 Kpdpfl " 
 
 Now, the Bill of lilghts No. S.tound 
 amongst ]Mr. Bunn's papers, was 
 dated March 23, 1870, or the very 
 day on which the delegates left for 
 Ottawa. They had evidently been 
 awaiting the completion of the list, 
 and started immediately thereafter. 
 How could this list have been "super- 
 seded" and the substituted list still 
 be pre-sented at Ottawa by the dele- 
 gates, who left on the day the sup- 
 posedly "superseded" one had been 
 completed ? Why should it have been 
 "superseded" by the Provisional Gov- 
 ernment, none of whose members did 
 at any time express the slightest con- 
 cern about separate schools ? 
 
 Powerful evidence (although not 
 the most conclusive that will be 
 produced) that the bill was not "sup- 
 erseded," is presented by the fact 
 that the provisional government on 
 the day the delegates left, printed In 
 French, and circulated amongst the 
 French spcNiking people a copy of the 
 Instructions given to the delegates, 
 and of Bill of Rights No. 3, as the list 
 of the demands wliich were being 
 made by the delegates on behalf of 
 the provisional government, and the 
 people of the Northwest. Is it cre- 
 dible that this body would h:ive cir- 
 culated ns an official document, a list 
 of rights which had been "supersed- 
 ed," whilst saying not one word 
 about the sul)stltute ? Printed 
 copies of this bill, published l\v the 
 lUel governmeJit, are In existence, and 
 In possession of the Librarian of the 
 Province of Manitoba, as is also the 
 original document found amongst the 
 .papers of Mr. Buun. 
 
 No wonder. Indeed, that Mr. Begg 
 (not "although careful and trust- 
 
 worthy," but because "careful and 
 trustworthy") gives list No. 3 as the 
 true one. 
 
 But Mr. Ewart says he "may 
 been misled through not hav- 
 ing heard of a subsequent list." 
 How could he have heard of a sub- 
 s€(iuent list, when no meml^er of the 
 pul)llc, or of any government or legis- 
 lature of Manitol)a, knew of the ex- 
 istence of such a list, till Dec. 27. 
 18S9, when the late Archbishop Tache 
 referred to it In a letter to the Free 
 Press of Winnipeg. 
 
 Mr. Ewart says "tlie best and only 
 direct evidence • • • is the sworn 
 testimony of Rev. Mr. Rltchot, etc". 
 
 Mr. Rltchot's part in this most mys- 
 terious episode, has yet to be ex- 
 plained. He must kno\ a great 
 deal more tlian he has ever told the 
 public, and he has some Inexorable 
 facts to confront, which, as we shall 
 see, require a deal of explanation, 
 and that from him. Mr. Ewart says 
 that at the trial of Lepine, Rev. Mr. 
 P.itchot produced list No. 4, and swore 
 it was the list given to him as a dele- 
 gate. 
 
 Now it is a very remarkable fact 
 that the document which Mr. Rltchot 
 did produce at the Lepine trial, is 
 not anywhere to be found. It is not 
 on file with the papers In the case. 
 It lias been lost or stolen, from the 
 records of the court. This is a most 
 unfortunate, as well as mysterious 
 and suggestive, circumstance. If the 
 document which Father Ritchot pro- 
 duced at that trial could be produced 
 now, it would afford a solution of 
 the mystery. If it turned out to be 
 Bill No. 4; if it were, like Bill No. 3, 
 in the handwritinig of Mr. Bunn, the 
 secretary of the provisional govern- 
 ment; if It were signed l)y the presi- 
 dent and Mr. Bunn; then this very 
 disagreeable and very disquieting 
 mystery would be unravelled. But If 
 that document should have turned 
 out to be Bill No. 3; or, If Bill No. 4, 
 If It had turned out not to be a doc- 
 ument written or signed by the pro- 
 visional government officers, but a 
 mere copy wliich might have been 
 made up anywhere, say Ottawa for 
 instance, It would have been very un- 
 pleasant for certain parties. But 
 that document Is non est. Whither 
 it has disappeared, and who or what 
 was the cause of its disa,ppearance, 
 nobody knows, at least nobody who 
 cares to tell. 
 
 Mr. I':wart argues that no one could 
 have any oliject in , misstating the 
 facts at the Lepine trial. This is an 
 altogether too sweeping assumption. 
 If any person had had any object In 
 substituting a spurious Bill of Rlghta 
 
24 
 
 for that which the proriHional govern- 
 ment drew up, the same reason would 
 obviously have exlnted at the time o! 
 Lcplne's trial, for keeping up llio do- 
 ception. 
 
 Mr. Ewart draws attention 
 to the fact that Sir John A. Macdon- 
 ald and Sir (Jeorgo Cartlcr Kubraitted 
 to Messrs. Kitchot and Black, a draft 
 bill containing a clause regarding ed- 
 ucation, Identical with the British 
 North America Act clause, on which 
 Mr. Ritchot made written coninients. 
 Mr. ICwart regards this a.s evidence 
 "of very strong character." We con- 
 sider it to l>e, on the con- 
 trary, extremely flimsy, and 
 8hall a little later furnish our 
 reasons for so thinking. "When, and 
 under what circumstances, was the 
 notation made by Rev. Mr. Ritchot ? 
 These particulars are obviously of 
 the highest importance, yet Mr.Ewart 
 tlirows no light upon the time and 
 place. Equally flimsy is the "inter- 
 nal evidence" which Mr. Ewart ad- 
 duces. The fact that paragraph 1 of 
 list No. 4 demands a senate, and 
 that a 'senate was granted, is quite 
 frivolous, when used as an argument 
 to prove that Bill of Rights No. 4 was 
 tliat glA'en to the delegates. Item 1 
 of list No. 3 is more general in its 
 terms, but "all the rights and privil- 
 eges common to the different prov- 
 inces of the Dominion," might be pre- 
 sumed to cover this, as all the prov- 
 inces of the Dominion then had, with 
 the exception of Ontario, a senate or 
 upper chamber. It is also argued by 
 Mr. Ewart that the fact that the 
 name of "ABsiniboia," stated in item 
 1 of Bill No. 3, was not adopted, is 
 evidence that Noi. 4 was the true bill. 
 He says "it is Inconceivable that the 
 Dominion should have deliberately re- 
 fused to adopt the name 'Assiniboia,' 
 had it been asked." Wliy is it incon- 
 ceivable ? The fact that another 
 portion of the territories was suljse- 
 quently called Aesinibola, instead of 
 making it "inconceivable," Avhy that 
 name should not liave given to 
 Manitoba, rather suggests a reason 
 for the refusal, if any such refusal had 
 been made. But there is no evidence 
 that there was any refusal at all, 
 much less a "deliberate" refusal. 
 The question was, for reasons Avhicli 
 wo shall presently soe, probably con- 
 sidered of no importance by the dele- 
 gates. If there was any general de- 
 sire in Red River for the name of 
 "Asslniboia," the delegates certainly 
 knew of its existence. Now, let us as- 
 «ume that Bill No. 4 was the basis of 
 negotiations at Ottawa. When th3 
 question of the name of the province 
 camo up, the delegates would cer- 
 
 tainly state the feeling of the people 
 on the point. In that case the "in- 
 conceivable" must have happened, be- 
 fause, as ve know, the province was 
 not called Asslniboia, but Manitoba. 
 
 But Mr. Ewart's method of argu- 
 ment suggests that he had adopted 
 the ethics of a certain much-abused 
 order of his clients' church. lie must 
 have known that there was a very 
 easy explanation for any variations 
 in regard to such trifling matters as 
 the senate and the name of the prov- 
 ince. He knew very well that the 
 delegates had full authority to mod- 
 ify the demands of the Bill of Rights 
 in these respects, and that in such 
 matters tlielr discretion was absolute. 
 
 In the letter of instructions, writ- 
 ten l)y Mr. Bunn as secretary of state, 
 of the provisional government, ad- 
 dressed to Judge Black, which was 
 given to the delegates with the Bill 
 of Rights, on their departure for Ot- 
 tawa, the following passage occurs: 
 
 "You will please observe that with 
 regard to the articles (in Bill of 
 Rights) numbered 1, 2, 8, 4, 6, 7, 15, 
 10 and 20, you are left at liberty, 
 in concert with your fellow commis- 
 sioners, to exercise your discretion, 
 but bear in mind that as you carry 
 with you the full confidence of this 
 people, it is expected that in the ex- 
 ercise of this liberty, you will do your 
 utmost to secure their rights and 
 pviviloges which have hitherto been 
 ignored. With reference to the re- 
 maining articles, I am directed to 
 inform you, that they are peremp- 
 tory." 
 
 Why Mr. Ewart left out this, 
 whilst embodying in his book almost 
 every other scrap of written matter, 
 however unneceseary, we do not un- 
 derstand. But those nutructions 
 make it quite clear, that the arrange- 
 ments as to a senate and change of 
 name of the province were (piite 
 within the discretionary power of 
 tlu^ delegates to modify, aiul they 
 therefore destroy Mr. Ewart's argu- 
 ment on that line. In Bill No. 4, 
 some of the articles which are left, 
 in the letter of instructions, to the 
 discretion of tho delegates, are made 
 very specific, whilst in No. a, they are 
 more general in their terms. it is 
 more in tho lino of probability, that 
 matters which were subject to modi- 
 fication would be st/ited in general 
 terms, than that minute partlculari- 
 satlon would be given. 
 
 Mr. i:wart says: "List No. 4 (par- 
 agraph 7) demands that tho schools 
 shall be seitarate, and clauses were 
 inserted to that end In the Manitoba 
 Act. List No. 3 Bays uothiug about 
 sclioolB." 
 
 'Nl 
 
 If I 
 
 wh| 
 
 thi 
 scln 
 tob;| 
 mo^ 
 
 COV(| 
 
 jud^ 
 
 Emil 
 
 Brit 
 
 ouIjI 
 
 It 
 
 thes 
 
25 
 
 "NO PROVISION FOR SEPARATE 
 
 SCHOOLS IN THE MANITOBA 
 
 ACT." . 
 
 If Mr. Ewart means by the some- 
 what equivocal expression, "clauses to 
 that end," to say that separate 
 schools are provided for in the Mani- 
 toba Act, all we can say ia, that the 
 most careful reader would fail to dis- 
 cover any such provision, as did the 
 judges of tlie highest tribunal in the 
 Empire. The INIanitoba Act, like the 
 British Nortli America Act, contains 
 only one section relating to education. 
 It will now be convenient to give 
 these sections of l)oth acts in parallel: 
 
 URITISH NORTH AMER- 
 ICA ACT. 
 
 93. In and fri each 
 province the legii^la- 
 ture may exclusively 
 make laws in relation 
 to education, pubji^ct 
 and according to the 
 following provipiona : 
 
 (1). Nothing in any 
 such law shall prejudi- 
 cially affect any right 
 or privilege with ro- 
 apect to denomination- 
 al schools which any 
 claasHof porsons have 
 by law in the province 
 at the union. 
 
 (•2) All the vomers, 
 pi'ivileges and duties 
 at the vnion by law 
 CO n^cn'ed a nd imposed 
 in Upper Canada on 
 the separate schools 
 and school trustees of 
 the Queen's Roman 
 Catholic subjects shall 
 be an.l the same arc 
 hereby extended to the 
 dissentient schools of 
 the Queen's Protestant 
 and Roman Catholic 
 sHltjects in Q.uebec. 
 
 (■tj fl'here in any 
 province a system of 
 se))nrntc or dissentient 
 sdwnis exists by law 
 at the union, or is 
 therefore cslablis h c d 
 by the IcyisUiture of 
 the proi'ince,M\ appeal 
 Khali lie to the Govor- 
 nnr-Qoncral-ln- Con noil 
 from any act or deciw- 
 ion of any provincial 
 authority atl'octing any 
 right or prlvilpgo of 
 the I'rotoHtant or Ro- 
 man Catholic minority 
 of tho (JiinonVKHhicotfl 
 in rolntion to onuca- 
 tion. 
 
 (4). In case any such 
 provincial law ns from 
 time to time ^eenn to 
 thn GovornorQonoral- 
 in-Councll rr(ini-ite for 
 the duo execution of 
 the provisions of this 
 
 MANITOBA ACT. 
 
 22. In and for th.) 
 province the said legi.'- - 
 laturo mayexclusively 
 make laws in relation 
 to education, subject 
 and according to tlic 
 following provision.- : 
 
 (1). Nothing in any 
 such law shall prejudi- 
 cially artect any right 
 or privilege with ri- 
 8pect to denomination- 
 al schools which any 
 class of persons have 
 by law or practice in 
 the province ut the 
 miion. 
 
 (2.) An appeal shall 
 lie to the Governor- 
 Gononil • in - Counril 
 from any act or deci- 
 sion of the leyislature 
 of the province, or of 
 any provincial author- 
 ity, atl'octing nnr right 
 or pri'ilogo of tho 
 l^roif Slant or Romim 
 Catbolio minority of 
 tho (Jimon'ri siihjocts in 
 relaliun to education. 
 
 0). In case any such 
 provincial law as from 
 time to li'iie soomi to 
 the Govcrimr General- 
 in - Council ri'(iuisite 
 forth) due execution 
 of the pruvibioDH of 
 
 section is not made, or 
 in case any decision of 
 the Governor-Gencral- 
 in-Coimcil on any ap- 
 peal under this section 
 is not duly execu'ed 
 by I he proper provin- 
 cial autliority in that 
 behalf, then and 1 h 
 every such case, and 
 so far only as the cir- 
 cumstancos of each 
 ca^e require, \ ho Par- 
 liament ot Canada 
 may make remedial 
 laws for the due exe- 
 cution of tho provis- 
 ions of 1 his section and 
 of any decli-iou of the 
 Governor-General • in- 
 ( 'ouncil undur LliU suc- 
 tion. 
 
 this section is not 
 made, or in case any 
 deciionof the Gover- 
 nor-Gener^lin Council 
 on any appeal under 
 this section is not duly 
 rxecuted by the pro- 
 per provincial author- 
 ity in that behalf, i hen 
 and in every such case, 
 and as far only n^ the 
 circumstanci s of each 
 case reciuiro, the Par- 
 liament of Canada 
 may make remedial 
 laws for the due exe- 
 cutioQ of the provis- 
 ions of this section, 
 and of any decision of 
 the Govtrnor-General- 
 in-Council n.iider this 
 koction. 
 
 It will be seen that the general pro- 
 visions of the B. N. A. Act in regard 
 to education are incorporated in the 
 Manitoba act. There is nothing in 
 this which might not have readily 
 been embodied in the ^Manitoba act 
 (which as far as it possibly could be 
 made to do so, followed the general 
 lines and employed tlie language of 
 the B. N. A. Act) without any "-lec- 
 ial stipulation on tlie part of the 
 delegates. If it had l>een intended to 
 adopt the extraordinary policy of 
 providing for a permanent system of 
 separate schools, what more easy 
 than to do so In express terms, as is 
 done by sub-section 2 of section 93 
 of the B. N. A. Act, quoted above, 
 In the case of Ontario and Quebec? 
 But while, despite Mr. Ewart's as- 
 sertion to the contrary, no provision 
 is made in the Manitoba act for 
 separate schools, as demanded by ar- 
 ticle 7 of Bill ot Rights No. 4, the re- 
 markable fact remains that the pro- 
 vision for the annual payment of 80 
 cents per liead by the Dominion to 
 tlie province, called for by article 7 
 of Bill No. a is actually embodied in 
 the Manitoba act. The significance 
 of this lies in the fact that no pro- 
 vision for tlie payment of such a sub- 
 sidy liy tlie Dominion appears in List 
 No. 4. Is it likely that the i»rovi- 
 sional government, In "superseding" 
 No. y, sliould leave out altogether an 
 item which was of such essential im- 
 portance to the province as tho 
 subsidy clause ? 
 
 BILL OF RKiHTS NO. 4 IS SPUR- 
 IOUS. 
 
 Much more could be said to refute 
 and rebut Mr. Ihvart's arguments and 
 evidence in favor of the authenticity 
 of Bill of lUglits No. 4. Now we shall 
 recapitulate the facts to which we 
 have already referred, which go to 
 
26 
 
 M 
 
 show that Bill of Eights No. 4 is 
 not the document which was given 
 by the provisional government to the 
 delegates and shall present a new cue. 
 
 In the first place tliere is no know- 
 ledge on the part of the public of the 
 existence of such a bill till Arch- 
 bishop Tache gave it in an incom- 
 I)lete form, (it then contained only 
 19 clauses) in the Free Press newspa- 
 per on December 27, 1889, nearly 
 twenty years after the original doc- 
 ument was written. 
 
 The only official record in existence 
 of any list of rights proposed by the 
 I'rovislonal government is the orig- 
 inal copy found in the papers of Mr. 
 Bunn, which lias already been alluded 
 to. That list is Bill of lilghts No. 
 3. Mr. Bunn was one of the chief 
 officers of the Provisional govern- 
 ment, and its secretary. He apparent- 
 ly transacted all the clerical worl£ 
 connected with the Bill of Rights, yet 
 no trace of the existence of any oth- 
 er list can be found amongst his doc- 
 uments, and no hint of the existence 
 of any other or later list is obtained 
 ed from his correspondence. 
 
 The original Bill of Rights No.3 
 found in Mr. Bunn's papers, is dated 
 March 23, 1870, the day on which the 
 delegates departed for Ottawa. It 
 would have been absolutely impossi- 
 h\e to have "supcrneded" this bill 
 and substituted a new one, which 
 coiild have been taken by these de- 
 legates. 
 
 On the same date (March 23) the 
 provisional government ir-suod for pub- 
 lication a copy of the instructions 
 given the delegates, printed in the 
 French language. This manifesto 
 tains a copy of Bill No. .*], and de- 
 clares that It contains the demands of 
 the provisional government on the 
 Dominion. 
 
 Mr. Begg, whom Mr. Ewart charac- 
 terises as a "careful and trustwor- 
 thy" lUstorlan, in his clear, fair, and 
 circumstantial account of the Red 
 river troubles, gives bill No. 3, as the 
 bill framed liy the Provisional Govern- 
 ment, and altliougli probably better 
 Informed, as a result of long residence 
 and intelligent research, In regard to 
 the affairs of the territory, tlian any 
 other man, he seems never to have 
 heard of the existence of any other 
 list than bill No. 3. 
 
 But the Htrongest evidence of the 
 fraudulent character of bill No. 4, and 
 of the authenticity of No. 3, Is yet to 
 be given. 
 
 Whilst the Red lUver troubles were 
 runtdng their course, the (Jovernor- 
 Qener/ii of Canada, Sir John Young, 
 (afterwards Lord Lisgar) was In 
 
 constant communication with the 
 Imperial Government. Besides giving an 
 account of the occurrences, he tran.s- 
 mitted all documents bearing on the 
 matter. 'These letters and docu- 
 ments were printed and i.ssued in 
 book form, by the Colonial Office of 
 the British Government, under the 
 title "Correspondence relative to the 
 "recent disturbances In the Red River 
 "Settlement." This correspondence 
 forms part of the archives of the Brit- 
 ish government. A copy of the book 
 Is al.so in the i)ossession of the Prov- 
 incial Librarian of Manitoba. 
 
 Amongst this mass of correspond- 
 ence and documents Is a letter from 
 the Governor-General to Earl Gran- 
 ville, then Coloidal Secretary, dated 
 April 29, 1870, containing informa- 
 tion as to the arre.st of the delegates, 
 who had been arrested as accomplices 
 or accessories in the murder of Thos. 
 Scott. In a postcript the Governor- 
 (ieneral says : "I think It right to 
 forward to Your Lordship a 
 copy of the terms and conditions 
 i>rought by the delegates of the 
 Northwest which have formed the 
 subject of conference." Tlion follows 
 a copy of the Bill of Rights, which 
 was thus transmitted to Lord Gran- 
 ville. Was it Bill of Rights No. 4, 
 which Father Rltchot says he took 
 to Ottawa, and which he says form- 
 ed the subject of conference ? Not at 
 all. It is a true and exact copy of Bill 
 of Rights No. 3 ! Now this letter con- 
 taining this copy of No. 3, was writ- 
 ten by the Governor-General on April 
 29. while the delegates were in Otta- 
 wa, and in conference with the Domi- 
 nion (lovernment. How did the Gov- 
 ernor-General come Into possession of 
 this "superseded" bill ? He must have 
 got It from the delegates, and un- 
 doubtedly Father Rlchot was the de- 
 legate who presented the bill to the 
 Dominion authorities, because, as 
 Mr. Ewart points out, he was the 
 "gentleman who took the leading part 
 In the negotiations." 
 
 Now the onus Is on Father Rltchot 
 to explain how Sir John Young came 
 to send Bill of Rights No. 3 to Eng- 
 land as a copy of "the terms and 
 conditions brought by the delegates 
 of the Northwest," while he (Father 
 Rltchot) at the trial of Leplno "pro- 
 duced list No. 4, and swore that It 
 was the list given to him as a dele- 
 gate." 
 
 There can be no doubt In the mind 
 of any man who reads the facts re- 
 cited, bearing on these Bills of Rights 
 (and they are facts which cannot be 
 <;\iestioned), that there was a dellln 
 erately conceived plan on the part of 
 some person or persons, to deceive and 
 
27 
 
 vith the 
 giving an 
 he tr.nns- 
 \K on the 
 lid docu- 
 ■isued in 
 Office of 
 ider tho 
 ■e to tlie 
 ied River 
 ipoiidence 
 the Brit- 
 the l)ook 
 'lie Prov- 
 
 "respond- 
 ter from 
 rl Gran- 
 y, dated 
 informa- 
 elegates, 
 ;onipllces 
 of Tlios. 
 iovernor- 
 •ight to 
 liip a 
 editions 
 of tlio 
 med tlie 
 1 foHowK 
 s, which 
 •d Gran- 
 s No. 4, 
 he tool£ 
 YH form- 
 Not at 
 y of Bill 
 ter con- 
 as writ- 
 on April 
 n Otta- 
 le Domi- 
 he Gov- 
 ssion of 
 st have 
 iiid un- 
 the de- 
 to the 
 i«e, MS 
 van tho 
 iig part 
 
 Ritchot 
 ig camo 
 to Eng- 
 1U8 and 
 li'gatcH 
 leather 
 o "pro- 
 ;hat it 
 dolo- 
 
 e mind 
 cts re- 
 Rights 
 not he 
 delilH 
 lart of 
 Ive and 
 
 mislead the Ottawa autliorities, and 
 to misrepresent the Provisional Gov- 
 ernment and the settlers of the North- 
 west. In view of the fact that Fa- 
 tlier Richot was, according to Mr. 
 Ewart, tlie delegate "who took the 
 leading part in the negotiations" at 
 Ottawa; in view of the fact tliat lie 
 mu.st liave transmitted to Sir John 
 Young, bill No. 3, as containing "the 
 terms and conditions brought by the 
 delegates of the Northwest;" in view 
 of the fact that lie is said by Mr. 
 Ewart to have, as a witness, at the 
 trial of Lepine, "produced list No. 4 
 and swore that it was the list given 
 to him as a delegate;" in view 
 of these and other facts, which con- 
 clusively show that list No. 4 was 
 uot the list given to him as a dele- 
 gate—much explanation is, as we 
 have already pointed out, due from 
 Rev. Mr. Ritchot. 
 
 There is an aroma of planned in- 
 trigue, and of methodical chicanery 
 hanging about this Bill of Riglits epi- 
 sode, whicli tends to produce a feel- 
 ing of discomfort, and which is not 
 lincharacteristic of the methods fre- 
 quently attributed to certain sacred 
 organizations in furthering their poli- 
 tical ends. 
 
 It is an unfortuaate fact, that the 
 official record of the existence of the 
 letter of Sir John Young to Earl 
 Granville, and of the copy of Bill No. 
 3 enclosed therein, was not known 
 about at tlie time the Roman Catho- 
 lic Appeal was argued before the im- 
 perial Privy Council. 
 
 PROOF OF AUTHENTICITY OF LIST 
 
 NO. 4 NECESSARY TO ROMAN 
 
 CATHOLIC CASE. 
 
 Frequent reference has been made 
 to Mr. I'lwart's publicatiosi, "The 
 ManJtoba School Question." We have 
 made some observations on Mr. i;w- 
 art's strained interpretations of cer- 
 tain facts, and his entire omission of 
 certain others. It should be stated, 
 however, that this book, or rather 
 compilation, of Mr. Ewart's, Is not n 
 history of the case, from an avowed- 
 ly impartial standpoint, and Mr. Ew- 
 art does not give it forth to the pul>- 
 iic as such. Mr. Ewart i.i the legal 
 representative of the Manitoba Ito- 
 man Catholics, and his book is, In 
 great part, a collection of the docu- 
 ments and evidence s>ippi)rtiiig the 
 Roman Catholic contentions before 
 the courts. It is, in fact, lils brief. 
 It is well, therefore, to make tlie ex- 
 planation that Mr. I'.wart Is, in his 
 book, au advocate and no. an histor- 
 ian. 
 
 He devotes about 60 pages of close- 
 ly printed matter to extracts, quota- 
 tions, and statements, describing the 
 troubles and events which led up to 
 the despatch of the delegates to Ot- 
 tawa with the Bill of Rights. If this 
 was not done for the purpose of eis- 
 tablLshing the authenticity of Bill No. 
 4, then tho object is inconceivable. For, 
 as we have already pointed out, there 
 is nothing at all in the nature of the 
 agitation, nor in the character of the 
 events themselves, to show that sep- 
 arate schools, or any other kind of 
 schools, were ever an issue in the 
 strifes and tumults of the time. The 
 sole and whole cause of the troi;.l>le 
 was the anxiety of the settlers as to 
 the security of their properties and 
 liberties. 
 
 Yet, after having with so much 
 elaboration, dwelt on the f.-icts bear- 
 ing on these agrarian disturbances, 
 Mr. ICwart goes on: "Enough has 
 been said about these different Lists 
 of Rights. The importance of the 
 controversy is not. to the mind of 
 the present writer, very great." 
 
 This seems to us to be a most ex- 
 traordinary attitude for the legal re- 
 presentative of the separate school 
 party to take. It is true, that even 
 the demonstrated genuineness of Bill 
 of Rights No. 4 would not have been 
 a matter of essential Importance to 
 the province of Manitoba, because, as 
 Ave shall see, the foundation of its 
 case is laid on principles so broad and 
 deep, that it would not be affected 
 by the demonstrated authenticity or 
 spuriousness of Bill of Rights No. 4. 
 
 But to the separate school advo- 
 cates, the authenticity of No. 4 is of 
 paramount and vital Importance, be- 
 cause they must base their claims, 
 not on the Inherent political, econom- 
 ical, or ethical soundness of the 
 claims themselves, but purely on their 
 vested right to peculiar privileges. 
 Even if they have proof that the pe- 
 culiar privileges, which they enjoyed, 
 were legitimately obtained, and con- 
 firmed by legislation, we maintain, 
 and shall endeavor to demonstrate, 
 that they are not entitled to the 
 continued enjoyment of these privil- 
 eges, unless they can show that their 
 continued enjoyment of them is con- 
 sistent with sound ethical and poli- 
 tical principles. Without such proof, 
 their cas(> simply falls to pieces. 
 
 Mr. Ewart argues: "The delegates 
 asked for several things, which, by 
 the Manitoba Act, were not accord- 
 ed. Suppose, then , that separate 
 schools and other things not demand- 
 ed were nevertheless made part of 
 the Act; the ?f!ect of this, so far as 
 
28 
 
 the settlers are concerned, is that the 
 offer of the settlers (taking the offer 
 as a whole) is rejected by Canada, 
 and Canada, by her Manitoba Act, 
 malces a counter propoHltion, which 
 counter proposition Is accepted by the 
 settlers. • • • • Wliether, there- 
 fore, the settlers aslced for separate 
 schools, or the idea came from Can- 
 ada, makes no difference as to the re- 
 sult. In either case the Manitoba Act 
 avas a treaty." 
 
 With a naivete wliicli is amnsinp; 
 and almost astounding, Mr. Ewart 
 goes on : "Whether list No. 4 is 
 authentic or not, it is clear that it 
 was the one used by tlie Rev. Mr. 
 liitchot; that it was tliat gentleman 
 who took the leading part in the ne- 
 gotiations; and that the idea of sep- 
 arate schools came from clause 7 of 
 list No. 4. Canada thought at all 
 events that separate sclioolo had been 
 demanded, acceded to that demand; 
 and the Provincial assembly agreed 
 to It, as shall presently appear." 
 
 The standards of political ethics 
 and the doctrines of government in- 
 volved in this line of argument, are 
 obviously of the most extraordinary 
 claaracter. Let us analyse the mean- 
 ing and consider the nature of this ar- 
 gument. 
 
 Before doing so It may l>e well 
 just here to comment a little on the 
 dramatic or rather theatrical acces- 
 sories which are employed to eke out 
 a case, which is certainly in much 
 need of all the extraneous aid wliicli 
 may be obtained. Mr. Ewart in his 
 capacity as lawyer has professionally 
 "bowed his head" and "felt the 
 shame" whicli lias been brought upon 
 liim by the perfidy of his whilom 
 fellow-partisans, and his heretical 
 co-religionists. For, strange as it 
 may appear, Mr. P^wart is a Protest- 
 ant. He pathetically and with infer- 
 ential regret, assures the judges, "in 
 tliat faith was I born and nurtured." 
 Now, it Is exasperating to think that 
 Mr. Ewart's super-sensitive and hy- 
 per-conscientious soul should have 
 been so wrung by shame and an- 
 guish, quite unnecessarily. The per- 
 fidy of the I'rotestants of Manltol)a 
 which has caused Mr. l-]wart so much 
 affliction (and incidentally brouglit 
 liim a fat case) Is entirely a creature 
 of his perfervid Imagination, 
 wlilch, by tlie way, seems 
 to 1)0 of tlie most inestimable service 
 to that gentleman, at these critical 
 and trying junctures, when common- 
 place fact fails to afford comfort or 
 support. Mr. Ewart has a whole 
 chapter on "Protcstaiit promises " 
 which on examination is found to 
 Uavo absolutely^ no bearing on tho 
 
 subject on which he is professedly 
 writing. There Is absolutely no 
 promise made l>y any body of Pro- 
 testants or of Manitol)ans, or by any 
 body with any authority to make 
 promises on their l)elialf, which has 
 been broken. 
 
 The writer is Inclined to think that 
 Mr. Ewart will not serve the cause 
 of his clients by offering wanton, un- 
 merited, and gratuitous insult to a 
 large body of people whose dosire Is 
 simply to do what Is absolutely fair 
 and just. 
 
 Mr. Ewart Indulges In much fine 
 ethical indignation at the spectacle of 
 the meek and unfortunate Koman Ca- 
 tholic ecclesiastics being ruthlessly 
 deprived of thler "vested rights" by 
 a dishonest and unscrupulous major- 
 ity. But here we have him, when he 
 is forced into an argument on the 
 ethical origin of these "vested rights" 
 taking the ground that it does not 
 matter l)y what means these riglits 
 were originally acquirpd,, "whether 
 list No. 4 is authentic or not it is 
 the one used by Father Ritchot." If 
 It was not authentic. Father Kitchot 
 must have perpetrated or l)een 
 a party to a fraud both 
 on the Ottawa and Red 
 River people, which his clients 
 now wish to take advantage of. Yet 
 that makes no difference. Ethical tests 
 must not be applied in an enquiry as 
 to the origin of the "vested rights." 
 No ma-:;ter how glaringly and how 
 dangerously inconsistent and unfair 
 these "rights" may be In themselves, 
 or how they have been acquired.thelr 
 entire reasonableness and justice is to 
 be assumed and from this starting 
 point only, ethical tests may be ap- 
 plied In the discussion. 
 
 The question now arises: How did 
 It happen that these separate state 
 schools were asked for, who wanted 
 them, and who was benefited by their 
 being granted ? It must be apparent 
 to every reader, who has followed the 
 course of the recital, that the Red 
 River settlers did not want them, had 
 apparently never thought of them, 
 possibly had never heard of them, and 
 certainly did not ask for them. It is 
 also reasonably certain that the Can- 
 adian government would not go wan- 
 tonly out of its way to suggest them. 
 In looking for the source of this de- 
 mand, we are compelled to turn our 
 attention to that ecclesiastical organ- 
 isation, of which Father Ritchot was 
 a priest, and it is not difficult, to 
 one who knows anything of Canadian 
 politics, to picture to his mind the 
 Intrigue and wire-pulling Avhich 
 doubtless was prevalent at Ottawa 
 lu coanectloa with this matter during 
 
29 
 
 professedly 
 iitely no 
 ly of Tro- 
 or by ;uiy 
 to make 
 which has 
 
 think that 
 the cause 
 anton, un- 
 iKult to a 
 e desire is 
 •lutely fair 
 
 uuch fine 
 pectacle of 
 ioman Ca- 
 ruthlessly 
 •iglits" by 
 3US major- 
 1, when lie 
 t on the 
 ed rights" 
 does not 
 ese rights 
 "whether 
 not it is 
 itchot." If 
 er Kitchot 
 or been 
 id both 
 id Red 
 s clients 
 ge of. Yet 
 hical tests 
 inquiry as 
 d rights." 
 and how 
 nd unfair 
 hemselves, 
 lired.their 
 stice is to 
 i starting 
 ly be ap- 
 
 How did 
 ate state 
 o wanted 
 d by their 
 apparent 
 lowed the 
 the Red 
 them, had 
 oi them, 
 ;hem, and 
 em. It is 
 the Can- 
 go wan- 
 est them. 
 this de- 
 turn our 
 al organ- 
 chot was 
 Ficult, to 
 Canadian 
 nind the 
 which 
 Ottawa 
 iv during 
 
 the days which the delegates were in 
 Ottawa before the negotlatio * be- 
 gan, and whilst the framing of the 
 Manitoba Act was in progress. How 
 interesting, indeed, it would be to 
 know just when the idea of a Bill 
 of Rights No. 4 was first conceived. 
 
 FIRST MANITOBA LEGISLATURE. 
 
 The Manitoba Act went into effect 
 and Manitoba became a province of 
 the Dominion on July 15, 1870. A 
 legislature was elected, and in 1871 
 it passed an "Act to establish a sys- 
 tem of education in the province." By 
 this time, it is to be remarked, that 
 certain politicians from Quebec had 
 arrived in the province and immedi- 
 ately'' began to interest themselves in 
 its public affairs. Two of them had 
 obtained seats in the new legislature. 
 
 To any one who knows the political 
 situation in Quebec, and the position 
 of the Roman Catholic hierarchy as a 
 factor in its politics, it is not diffi- 
 cult to understand how, with these 
 useful representatives in the legisla- 
 ture, a separate schools act was 
 put through in 1871. 
 
 The provincial education act of 
 1871 provided for a system of sep- 
 arate schools. There were two su- 
 perintendents of education and two 
 sets of schools. The legislative grant 
 was to be divided equally, and handed 
 over to the respective boards. In a 
 summary of the school legisaltion of 
 the province, Judge Dubuc says : "The 
 most noticeable change in the system 
 was that tlie denominational distinc- 
 tion between the Catholics and Prot- 
 estants became more and more pro- 
 nounced under the different statutes 
 afterwards passed." 
 
 The law of 1871 operated witli some 
 unessential modifications, till 1890, 
 when the now celebrated acts abol- 
 ishing separate schools, were intro- 
 duced by Mr. Martin, and passed 
 in the legislature by an overwhelming 
 majority. 
 
 Before going on to describe tlie 
 course of the litigation and discussion 
 Avhich has resulted from the passage 
 of these acts, it would be well to 
 consider the nature of the doctrines, 
 political and otherwise, involved in 
 the contention of the separate schools 
 party. 
 
 It has been said by the separate 
 schools counsel that the settlers 
 made a proposition to Canada which 
 Canada did not accept, but that 
 Canada made a counter-proposition 
 wiiicli was embodied in the Manitoba 
 act. The act was accepted by the 
 
 settlers, and thereby became A 
 treaty. Now, we have seen just 
 what sort of "treaty" the Manl- 
 Manitoba act is, but we shall as- 
 sume It to have been a treaty in 
 the legitimate meaning of the term. 
 The argument referred to has not 
 been carried to its inevitable con- 
 clusion, which is that the Manitoba 
 act being a treaty, its provisions 
 are binding on Manitoba for all time. 
 This is the clearly intended inference. 
 
 THE IRREVOCABLE LEGISLATION 
 
 THEORY. 
 
 It will be remembered that the set- 
 tlers really expressed no desire for 
 separate schools, although they ac- 
 cepted them, doubtless regarding the 
 matter with great indifference. The 
 Roman Catholic church, however, was 
 apparently very anxious that sep- 
 arate schools should be provided for. 
 The protection for separate schools 
 was, therefore, a "right and priv- 
 ilege" granted to the Catholic church. 
 
 Now we have seen that the legal 
 counsel of the Catholics does not con- 
 sider it a matter of essential impor- 
 tance whether se])ar ite scliools were 
 asked for or not. To the opponents 
 of separate schools it is a matter 
 of still less importance, but the rea- 
 sons for indiiference are widely apart 
 In the two cases. The Catholic Church 
 contends that separate schools hav- 
 ing. l>y liook or crook, once been prov- 
 ided for, they must l>e perpetually 
 maintained. The British Govern- 
 ment would not permit of the assump- 
 tion of control by Canada, over tlie 
 Northwest, unless the settlers were 
 satisfied and their rights respected. 
 Let us, however, carefully ascertain 
 what those rights were. As occupants 
 of the soil, they had undoubtedly tlie 
 well recognlsi'd squatter right to 
 possession of their Individual pro- 
 perties. They were also entitled to 
 a control of their own local govern- 
 ment and a voice In the general gov- 
 ernment. Those things they asked 
 for. Their Individual rights to the 
 secure possestslon of their properties, 
 and their collective right to their 
 own local government are Indisputa- 
 l)le. But the proposition that they 
 had any right to dictate and to fix ir- 
 revocably, legislation In regard to any 
 matter which should govern for all 
 time all geniTations living In the ter- 
 ritory, would 1)6 monstrous, if it were 
 not ridiculous. Moreover they never 
 claimed, and never contemplated ex- 
 ercising any such right. 
 
 Yet tlie contention of the separate 
 school party of a necessity Implies 
 
30 
 
 l!| 
 
 the soundness and the reasonableness 
 of this proposition. That indeed is 
 tlieir wliole ground. That ground 
 taken away, they have nothing to 
 stand upon. 
 
 As we liave seen, tlie population ot 
 tlie Northwest before the union with 
 Canada was 12,000. Of these, 10,000 
 were halfbreeda. It Is beyond doubt 
 that there were several highly intel- 
 ligent men in the community. The 
 clergy of the various denominations, 
 the Hudson's Bay Co."8 officers, and 
 such men as Mr. Bunn and Mr. Ban- 
 natyne and others, were men 
 fitted to comport themselves 
 with credit in any society. But 
 the overwlieimlng mass were 
 of an order of intelligence which in- 
 duced Lord Wolseley to refer to them 
 as "an ignorant and impressionable 
 people." 
 
 Now, as we have repeatedly point- 
 ed out, tliere was never any evidence 
 of a desire on the part of either the 
 enlightened few or the "ignorant and 
 impressionable" ten thousand, for 
 separate schools. BuL even had there 
 been such a desire, and had it found 
 expression and been complied with, 
 is it not a monstrous proposition, to 
 assert, in these days of democratic 
 government and the rule of the mn- 
 Jority, that this handful of people, 
 mostly quite unlettered, could acquire 
 the right to dictate under what con- 
 ditions ail the succeeding generations 
 of people who might live in these 
 lands, should govern themselves? Yet 
 this is the theory of "vested right" 
 which we are gravely asked to ac- 
 cept as a sound and reasonable one. 
 
 The inherent monstrosity and ab- 
 surdity of this doctrine are attempt- 
 ed to be justified by the argument 
 that it is involved in the constitution. 
 If that were the case it would not 
 make the doctrine, or the practice, 
 any more just or sensible. It would 
 only prove tliat the constitution was 
 in want of speedy amendment. But 
 fortunately there is not the slightest 
 ground for believing that this mon- 
 strosity lias been embodied in the 
 constitution. We shall come to that 
 aspect of tlie question later, however. 
 
 It is possible that under the condi- 
 tions existing in 1871, and on account 
 of the attitude of the Catholic church, 
 separate schools were the only prac- 
 ticable system, and It is certain that 
 the legislature instituted such a sys- 
 tem. The population was then 12,- 
 000, mostly half-breeds, "ignorant 
 and impressional)le." The population 
 Is now over 200,000, of a high aver- 
 age degree of Intelligence, to the 
 vast majority of whom separate 
 scUools are not only luconvenieut, but 
 
 distasteful. Yet it is contended that, 
 l)ecause the representatives of these 
 few thousand primitive people in 1871, 
 enacted legislation which suited their 
 circumstances, that legislation must 
 remain irrevocable and unalterable, 
 and must be accepted by the present 
 200,000, no matter how unsuitable to 
 their circumstances , or intelligence, 
 and shall still remain irrevocable and 
 unalterable, when the 200,000 shall 
 have become 2,000,000. This, it 
 seems to us, is abou'i as nearly the 
 reductlo ad absurdum of the wooden 
 and unreasoning apotheosis of "con- 
 stitutionalism" of which we liave had 
 occasion to observe sq mucii recently, 
 as It is possible to come. These "con- 
 stitutional" controversialists assume 
 some provision as being created by 
 the constitution, and then, quite re- 
 gardless of the possibly obvious in- 
 herent iniquity or absurdity of the 
 provision, they gravely argue for its 
 unalterable character solely because 
 of the "constitution." 
 
 Now, when a man owns property in 
 his own right, he can devise it, or it 
 becomes the property of his heir. But 
 here is claimed for these Red River 
 settlers (they never claimed it for 
 themselves) a vested interest in the 
 educational legislation of tlie prov- 
 ince of Manitoba for all time. 
 
 If these settlers had, on the ground 
 of their squatter-right claims as oc- 
 cupants of the country, asked for sep- 
 arate schools, or for Immunity from 
 any tax for public schools, this im- 
 munity, if it had been conceded on 
 that ground, would have applied to 
 them only during their lives and pos- 
 sibly to their children born before the 
 union. That is all they could have 
 claimed at the utmost. 
 
 These poor natives have nearly all 
 gone from the land (let us hope to 
 that peaceful country, where there 
 are no land-grabbing speculators, no 
 wire-pulling politicians, and no in- 
 triguing ecclesiastics). So also have 
 nearly all their descendants. But 
 their "vested rights" in the educa- 
 tional legislation of the province still 
 live. Who are the present possessors, 
 and how did they come by these 
 rights ? Have they any tracable 
 connection or relationship with the 
 original owners ? Have they acquir- 
 ed these vested rights by bequest or 
 legal inheritance ? No. They have 
 acquired thetai simply because they 
 are Roman Catholics, and because, 
 they say,as Roman Catholics they are 
 entitled to theso rights and privil- 
 eges by virtue of the "constitution." 
 
 Let uls clearly l>|Bar in mind that no 
 other denomination Is entitled to 
 such rights or privileges. According 
 
31 
 
 ided that, 
 of these 
 le ill 1871, 
 ited their 
 tion must 
 lalterable, 
 le present 
 uitable to 
 telllgence, 
 cable and 
 )00 shall 
 This, it 
 arly the 
 e wooden 
 of "con- 
 have had 
 recently, 
 hese "con- 
 assume 
 sated by 
 quite re- 
 ivious in- 
 of the 
 ue for its 
 because 
 
 :operty in 
 3 it, or it 
 
 heir. But 
 led River 
 d it for 
 5st in the 
 the prov- 
 e. 
 
 le ground 
 as as oc- 
 d for sep- 
 aity from 
 
 this ira- 
 eeded on 
 -pplied to 
 
 and pos- 
 jefore the 
 uld have 
 
 learly all 
 hope to 
 re there 
 ators, no 
 d no in- 
 ilso have 
 s. But 
 te educa- 
 ^ince still 
 ossessors, 
 by these 
 tracable 
 vith the 
 y acquir- 
 jquest or 
 hey have 
 ise they 
 because, 
 they are 
 id prlvll- 
 litution." 
 [ that no 
 ;itled to 
 according 
 
 to the highest tribunal In the realm, 
 no one of any of the Protestant de- 
 nominations can claim any such priv- 
 ileges. Neither could a Jew, nor a 
 Unitarian. Here, then, is a dis- 
 crimination in favor of one particular 
 religious denomination, the practical 
 effect of which would be (if it were 
 admitted) to give state aid to the 
 Iloman Catholic church. This would 
 be a distinct infraction of one of the 
 essential doctrines of our system of 
 government — the entire separation of 
 churcli and state. 
 
 As a recognition and as a settle- 
 ment of the rights of the lialfbreeds, 
 it was provided by the Manitoba Act 
 that every halfl)reed child born in the 
 province prior to July, 1870, should 
 be entitled to 240 acres of land. This 
 was a recognition of the rights of 
 the natives as individuals. But it was 
 not provided that every halfbreed 
 who might be born, or by accident or 
 from purpose come into the province 
 any time thereafter, should have 240 
 acres of laud merely because he was 
 a halfbreed. Nor was any author- 
 ity given to the iirovincial legislature 
 to distribute lands to halfbreeds as 
 such, or even to control the original 
 li.'dlvidual grants to the Bettlers,after 
 these had disposed of them. The 
 
 reader may say it is a waste of time 
 to conjure up liypotheses bo absurd 
 as such enactments would be. They 
 are certainly very absurd, but are 
 strictly analogous to, and not one 
 whit more innately preposterous than 
 the doctrine tliat those few thousand 
 settlers were to be given the unsought 
 but tremendous privilege of framing 
 educational legislation for all time, 
 for the province of Manitoba. 
 
 This theory of legislation which is 
 irrevocable by the body which enact- 
 ed it, is as uni(iue as it is monstrous. 
 Tliere is probably not another case 
 in history in wliich such a contention 
 has been made. If the principle which 
 it involves, namely, that what is, 
 must continue to be, liad been always 
 accepted, none of the great move- 
 ments, by which mankind liave 
 achieved the measure of freedom 
 they now possess, could have been 
 Inaugurated. How many instances 
 come up in which privileges enjoyed 
 by classes or individuals have been 
 swept away by the force of popular 
 indignation, prompted by the popular 
 sense of juKtice, because the privil- 
 eges, while enjoyed under the protec- 
 tion of existing laws, were inlierent- 
 ly unjust and Inequitable '? The tre- 
 mendous privileges of the landed class 
 111 England, received a staggering 
 blow when the Corn Law Repeal Act 
 was passed. The clergy of the An- 
 
 glican Church in Ireland were strip- 
 ped of all their privileges and endow- 
 ments, which they had possessed and 
 enjoyed by the sanction of the law, 
 simply because tht- sense of justice of 
 the members of the British Parlia- 
 ment forced them t(j declare that al- 
 tliough these privileges were "vested 
 rights," they were in reality unjusti- 
 fiable on ethical grounds. The slave 
 power was abolished In the United 
 States In the same way. In Canada 
 the Clergy Reserves question Is an- 
 ther case In point. 
 
 In all these cases the stock shibbo- 
 leths of robbery, persecution, "vested 
 rights," and so forth, were made use 
 of, just as they are now being made 
 use of In this Manitoba School Ques- 
 tion. But the great trll>unal of 
 public opliiloti has pronounced the acts 
 specified to be wise and just and com- 
 mendable. There Is no doubt that 
 the action of Manitoba will receive 
 the same endorsement and approval. 
 
 THK LEiiAL AXI> €OXSTS- 
 ilJTI<i>:^AL uiKsrioxs. 
 
 Having dealt with the general con- 
 siderations and with the historical 
 facts relating to this Manitoba school 
 question, we have now to consider 
 the legal and constitutional posi- 
 tion of the parties. It is In this di- 
 rection that the Roman Catholics 
 must look for their support and suc- 
 cess, as we think it Is tolerably clear 
 that neither sound political doctrine 
 nor historical fact would justify their 
 claims. 
 
 The Manitoba legislation of 1890 
 abolished denominational state 
 schools. 
 
 Although the population of the 
 province embraces persons of many 
 and greatly divergent creeds, no in- 
 dividual nor class of the community 
 so far as we know, has raised any 
 serious objections to the educational 
 system, with which that lej^lslation 
 replaced tlie archaic and Inefficient 
 system which had been in operation 
 previously, except the Roman Cath- 
 olics. The nature and origin of 
 their objections to the system are 
 now well known and have been al- 
 ready dealt witli. V'e have also 
 pointed out the importance of the 
 questions and issues which are in- 
 volved in the attitude and demands 
 of the Roman Catholic party. It is 
 now intended to consider the legal po- 
 sition of the question. 
 
 The Roman Catholics, or rather the 
 Roman Catholic hierarchy, (for It Is 
 
32 
 
 J-eally the source of the hostility to 
 the present educational system,) 
 took up the work of destroying the 
 system of public schools, in a method- 
 ical way, consistently with the pol- 
 icy adopted by them in the cases of 
 the provinces of New Brunswick and 
 Prince ICdward Island. Each of these 
 provinces established a public 
 school system subsequently to confed- 
 eration, and in each case was a de- 
 termined and persistent effort made 
 by the Roman hierarcliy to overturn 
 the system. In botli case^ how- 
 ever, the atteraijts were unsuccessful, 
 but the provinces only secured the 
 final victory after much waste of 
 money on litigation, and much loss 
 caused through the inability oY the 
 legislatures to attend to other ques- 
 tions of importance, while tliis atv- 
 sorbing question was en tapis. 
 
 FIRST STEP IN THE LITIGATION. 
 
 The first movement in tlie Roman 
 Catholic attack on the Manitoba pub- 
 lic school act of 1890 was in the shape 
 of an application made to the Mani- 
 toba courts by Mr. J. K. Barrett, a 
 Roman Catholic taxpayer, to have 
 quashed a by-law oi the city of Win- 
 nipeg, fixing a rate of taxation for 
 the support of the public schools. 
 This by-law had been e: i,cted by the 
 ■Winnipeg city council, in terms of the 
 new education laws which had just 
 l>eeu passed by the legislature. 
 
 Mr. Barrett's application was based 
 on the first sub-section of section 22 
 of the Manitobti Act, which section, 
 with its Kub-sections, has been al- 
 ready given in these pages. He con- 
 tended that Roumn Catholics,by vir- 
 tue of the sul)-Hection in question, 
 were entitled to exemption from tax- 
 ation for the support of any other 
 than Roman Catholic schools, and 
 that, therefore, the act which impos- 
 ed on them taxation for the support 
 of public schools was ultra vires of 
 the provincial legislature, and conse- 
 quently Ineffective. Justice Killain, 
 who heard the application, dismissed 
 the summons. "He held that no right 
 or privilege, which the Roman Cath- 
 olics possessed p-t the time of the 
 union had been prejudiced or affected 
 by the legislation In question. This 
 judgment was appealed n gainst, but 
 the full court bf the province sus- 
 tained Judge Killam's decision by a 
 imajority of 2 to 1, the dissenting 
 judge, Mr. Justice Dubuc.holdlng that 
 the legislation was ultra vires. 
 
 An appeal was carried by the Rom- 
 an Catholic party to Ottawa, where 
 
 tho judgment of the Manitoba court 
 was reversed by a unanimous judg- 
 ment of the Supreme Court of Can- 
 ada. 
 
 There is neither space nor motive 
 here to reproduce the deliverances of 
 the various Supreme court judges, 
 who rendered judgments, but a per- 
 usal of the judgments of at least two 
 of these distinguished jurists would 
 be interesting, as showing the effect 
 on the mind of legal training, In the 
 direction of renderlnr it prone to 
 seek for ingeniously intricate and 
 complex solutions, for problems whose 
 actual solution is very simple. 
 
 The province of Manitoba, in turn 
 appealed against the judgment of the 
 Supreme Court of Canadn, and the 
 case went to England, where- It was 
 argued at great length before the 
 Judicial Committee of the Privy Coun- 
 cil. This tribunal of last resort al- 
 lowed the appoal, reversed the judg- 
 ment of the Supreme Court of Can- 
 ada, and restored the judgment of 
 the Manitoba Court, thereby finally 
 affirming the constitutionality and 
 validity of the Manitoba legislation, 
 and declaring that this legislation 
 had not affected any rights which 
 any person, or class of persons, had 
 at the union of Manitoba with the 
 Dominion.. 
 
 THE "ANOMALOUS" CLAUSE 
 SORTED TO. 
 
 RE- 
 
 When it had become appa- 
 rent, from the judgment of 
 the Manitoba full court, which 
 upheld that of Mr. Justice Kil- 
 1am, declaring the School Act of 18'JO 
 intra vires, that there was a pos- 
 sibility, and even a probability, of 
 the validity of the act being ultim- 
 ately sustained, the Separate School 
 party at once began to work on their 
 next line of attack. It will be seen 
 that sub-section 2 of section 22 of 
 the Manitoba Act, gives a right of 
 appeal "to the Governor In Council 
 against any net lor decision of the le- 
 legislature of the province or of any 
 provincial authority affecting any 
 right or privilege of the Protestant 
 or Roman Catholic minority of tlie 
 Queen's subjects in relation to educa- 
 tion.'' In terms of this provision, a 
 petition was gotten up, slgrted by 
 Archbishop Tache and over 4,000 Ro- 
 man Catholics, in which the 
 grievances of the petitioners 
 Avere set out, and which 
 
 asked for a declaration from His Ex- 
 cellency in Council that the rights of 
 the Catholic minority had been pre- 
 
33 
 
 )ba court 
 ous judg- 
 t of Can- 
 
 )r motive 
 erances of 
 rt judges, 
 lit a per- 
 least two 
 its would 
 the effect 
 ng, in the 
 prone to 
 ^ate and 
 ras whose 
 )le. 
 
 I, in turn 
 lent of the 
 , and tlie 
 ro it was 
 fore the 
 rivy Coun- 
 resort al- 
 
 the judg- 
 •t of Caii- 
 gment of 
 ;by finally 
 ality and 
 legislation, 
 legislation 
 ;ht8 which 
 rsons, had 
 
 with the 
 
 ^USE RE- 
 
 le appa- 
 jment of 
 3Urt, which 
 ustice Kil- 
 \ct of 18U0 
 'as a pos- 
 labillty, of 
 eing ultim- 
 ate School 
 rk on their 
 v^ill be seen 
 bion 22 of 
 a right of 
 
 in Council 
 n of the le- 
 1 or of any 
 BCting any 
 Protestant 
 Lty of the 
 1 to educa- 
 rovision, a 
 sigrted by 
 f 4,000 Ro- 
 ivhicli the 
 
 petitioners 
 1 which 
 
 om His Ex- 
 le rights of 
 I been pre- 
 
 judicially affected, and also that 
 I)rovlslon be made for tholr relief. 
 
 8ir .John Thompson, who was then 
 Minister of Justice, decided tliat no 
 ai)peal to the (iovornor-Gerieral-in 
 Council could be heard, till the Im- 
 perial I'rivy Council had given judg- 
 ment In the Barrett case. 
 
 As soon as the decision of the Im- 
 perial tribunal (which as we have 
 seen, was unfavorabb? to the Separate 
 School party) was I'endered, a second 
 petition was presented to the (Jov- 
 ernor-Gent ral-in-Couiicll, praying for 
 relief. This secijnd petition 
 
 was referred to a sub-commltte > 
 of the Dominion cabinet. This ))ody 
 decided that, in so far as tlie peti- 
 tion asked the tiovernor-(Teneral-in- 
 Councll to declare that the act of 
 1890 prejudicially affected rights and 
 privileges held by tlie Catholics be- 
 fore the union, it could not be enter- 
 tained, as the Judicial Committee had 
 settled that point. With regard to 
 the question as to whether the Gover- 
 nor-General-ln-Councll could hear the 
 appeal, and in event of his doing so, 
 whether he should do anything in the 
 way of affording relief under the pro- 
 visions of sub-sections 2 and :i of 
 section 22 of the Manitoba Act, they 
 thought this should be further ar- 
 gued, and advised that a date be 
 fixed for that purpose. The sugges- 
 tions of the sub-committee were 
 adopted, and the case was argued on 
 January 21st, 1808, before the* Can- 
 adian Privy Council (nearly every 
 member of the cabinet being present) 
 by Mr. Ewart for the Roman Catho- 
 lic petitioners. Manitoba was not 
 represented. 
 
 After this argument the Council de- 
 cided, in order to clear up the un- 
 settled points of law, that the case 
 should be referred to the Supreme 
 Court. This reference was made un- 
 der the provisions of an act passed in 
 1891, by the Canadian Parliament, 
 the Immediate object of which was 
 to provide for the very contingency 
 which had thus arisen. 
 
 The questions referred were as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 1. Is the appeal referred to In the 
 said memorials and petitions and as- 
 serted thereby, such an appeal as Is 
 admissable by sub-section 8 of sec- 
 tion 98 of the British North America 
 Act, 1867, or by sub-section 2 of sec- 
 tion 22 of the Manitoba Act, 83 Vic- 
 toria (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 au- 
 thority of the sub-sections above re- 
 lerred to, or either of them ? 
 
 3. Does the decision of the Judicial 
 
 Committee of the Privy Council in 
 the cases of Barrett vs. the City of 
 Winnipeg, ana Logan vs. the City of 
 Winnipeg, dispose of ,or conclude, the 
 application for redress based on the 
 contenticjii that the rights of the Ro- 
 man Catholic minority which accru- 
 ed to them, after the union, under the 
 statutes of the province have been 
 Interfered with by the Btatutes of 
 1800, complained of in the said peti- 
 tionii and memorials? 
 
 4. Does sub-section 3 of section 93 
 of the British North America Act, 
 1867, apply to Manitoba? 
 
 5. Has His Excellency the Governor- 
 General-ln-Councll power to make the 
 declarations or remedial ordcio which 
 are asked for In the said memorials 
 and petitions, assuming the material 
 facts to be as stated therein, or has 
 His Excellency the Governor-General- 
 InCouncll any other Jurisdiction In 
 the premises ? 
 
 (6) Did the act.s of Manitoba relat- 
 ing to education, passed prior to the 
 session of 1890, confer on or continue, 
 to the minority, a "right or privil- 
 ege in relation to education," within 
 the meaning of sub-section 2 of sec- 
 tion 22 of the Manitoba Act, or es- 
 tablish a system of separate or dis- 
 sentient schools within the meaning 
 of sub-section 3 of section 93 of the 
 British North America Act, 1867, If 
 said section 93 be found to be applic- 
 able to Mapitoba; and. If so, did the 
 two acts of 1890 complained of, or 
 either of them, affect any right or 
 privilege of the minority In such a 
 manner that an appeal will lie there- 
 under to the Governor-General-ln- 
 Councll ? 
 
 By a majority of three to two the 
 Supreme Court answered all these 
 questtions, with the exception of No. 
 3, in the negative, one of the major- 
 ity, however, answering No. 3 also 
 in the negative. 
 
 "We have said that the judgment 
 of this distinguished tribunal In the 
 Barrett case furnishes curiously inter- 
 esting reading. But, even more curi- 
 ous are the judgments in this refer- 
 ence. It is exceedingly Interesting to 
 observe the very different and very 
 devious routes by which these learn- 
 ed judicial minds arrive at the same 
 (place. 
 
 The decision of the Supreme court 
 was, then, that an appeal of the Rom- 
 an Catholc minority to the Governor- 
 General-in-Council would not lie. 
 
 IMPERIAL PRIVY COUNCIL'S JDDG- 
 MENT. 
 
 The reference was then carried be- 
 fore the judicial committee of the Im- 
 
i I 
 
 34 
 
 perial Privy Council, A very elabor- 
 ate and exhaustive argument of the 
 caae was made from lioth sides. The 
 judicial committee again reversed the 
 decision of the Canadian Supreme 
 Court, thereby declaring that an ap- 
 peal of the Roman Catholic minority 
 to the Governor-General-ln-Councll 
 would lie. 
 
 Much misunderstanding and much 
 controversy has arisen as to the 
 scope and meaning of this decision, 
 and affecting, as it does, the Interests 
 of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. It 
 has had a profound, and, to the non- 
 partisan spectator, an even amusing, 
 Influence on Canadian party politics. 
 
 It Is argued by the Separatist par- 
 ty that the last judgment of 
 the Privy Council is not only a 
 declaration that the Governor-Gen- 
 eral-in-Council may hear the appeal, 
 but also an injunction as to how he 
 must deal with It. The attempt Is fur- 
 ther made to create the impression 
 that their lordships' judgment is an 
 expression of their opinion on the 
 moral merits of the case. Their lord- 
 ships are probably the best authori- 
 ties from whom to obtain reliable in- 
 formation as to the purport and scope 
 of their judgment, and we shall see 
 what they have said. 
 
 But first, It would be well to re- 
 call to our minds the exact issues 
 which were before them. These are 
 described in the questions referred to 
 the Supreme Court of Canada, by the 
 Canadian Privy Council, and which 
 are given above verbatim. The nega- 
 tive answer of the Canadian Supreme 
 Court to these questions was the 
 Immediate cause of the appeal to the 
 Judicial Committee. By reference to 
 these six questions It avUI be seen 
 that the essential point to be deter- 
 mined was whether under sub-section 
 3 of section 93, of the B. N. A. Act, 
 or sub-section 2 of section 22, of Man- 
 itoba act, and in view of the facts 
 and circumstances recited by the Ro- 
 man Catholic petition, there was any 
 right of appeal at all. The counsel 
 for the Roman Catholics argued that 
 the previous judgment of the Judi- 
 cial committee declaring the legisla- 
 tion Intra vires and constitutional, 
 did not affect the right of appeal to 
 the Governor-General-in-Councli. They 
 argued, Indeed, that this appeal, un- 
 der sub-section 2 of section 22 of the 
 Manitoba Act would only lie in case 
 the legislation which affected the 
 rights and privileges of the minority, 
 had been declarui to be constitu- 
 tional, as, U the legislation was 
 shown to have Infringed the provi- 
 sions of sub-section 1, It would be ul- 
 tra vires, and of no effect, and there- 
 
 fore no appeal against its provisions 
 Avould be necessary. 
 
 The counsel for the province of 
 Manitoba argued that the provin- 
 cial legislation of 181)0, having been 
 ascertained to be strictly within the 
 power of the legislature, no appeal 
 jigiiinst it could lie, as sub-sections 
 3 and -i of the Manitoba Act mere- 
 ly enforced the first or substantive 
 Bub-section. The nature of the Issue 
 before the tribunal may be clearly 
 shown by the following extract from 
 the proceedings In the argument be- 
 fore the Judicial Committee : 
 
 The Lord Chancellor— It Is not be- 
 fore us what should be declared, is 
 it? 
 
 Mr. Blake— No, what is before your 
 Lordships is whether there is a case 
 for appeal. 
 
 The Lord Chancellor— What is be- 
 fore us is the functions of the Gover- 
 nor-General. 
 
 Mr. Blake— Y§s, and not the methods 
 111 which he shall exercise them, not 
 the discretion wl^ich he shall use,but 
 whether a case has arisen on these 
 facts on which he has jurisdiction to 
 Intervene. That Is all that is be- 
 fore your Lordships." 
 
 Then there Is another passage : 
 The Lord Chancellor— The question 
 seems to me to be this : If you are 
 right In saying that the abolition of 
 a system of denominational education 
 which was created by post union le- 
 gislation, Is within the 2nd section 
 of the Manitoba Act, and the 3rd sec- 
 tion of the other, If It applies, then 
 you say there Is a case for the juris- 
 diction of the Gov.^rnor-General, and 
 that is all we have ^^ decide. 
 
 Mr. Blake— That io all your Lord- 
 ships have to decliie. What remedy 
 he shall propose to apply, is quite a 
 different thing. 
 
 In their judgment their Lordships 
 say: "The function of a tribunal is 
 limited to construing the words em- 
 ployed: It is not justified In forcing in- 
 to them a meaning which they can- 
 not reasonably bear. Its duty Is to 
 Interpret, not to enact." Further on 
 their Lordships observe: "With the 
 policy of these acts their Lordships 
 are not concerned, nor with the rea- 
 sons which led to their enactment. 
 It may be that as the population of 
 the province became more largely 
 Protestant, It was found increasingly 
 difficult, especially in sparsely popu- 
 lated districts, to work the system 
 Inaugurated in 1871, even with the 
 modification introduced in later years. 
 But whether this be so or not, is im- 
 material. The sole question to be 
 determined is whether a right or 
 privilege, which the Roman Catholic 
 
 I 
 
35 
 
 irovlsioQB 
 
 vince of 
 le provln- 
 ving been 
 vithin the 
 no appeal 
 
 Ivsections 
 Act mere- 
 abstantlve 
 
 the issue 
 be clearly 
 iract from 
 ument be- 
 e : 
 
 is not be- 
 eclared, is 
 
 efore your 
 is a case 
 
 lat is be- 
 the Gover- 
 
 le methods 
 them, not 
 all use.but 
 J on these 
 sdiction to 
 lat is be- 
 
 assage : 
 le question 
 If you are 
 Lbolition of 
 1 education 
 it union le- 
 nd section 
 ihe 3rd sec- 
 )plies, then 
 r the juris- 
 eneral, and 
 Lde. 
 
 your Lord- 
 hat remedy 
 , is quite a 
 
 Lordships 
 tribunal la 
 words em- 
 i forcing in- 
 i they can- 
 duty is to 
 Further on 
 "With the 
 ' Lordships 
 th the rea- 
 enactment. 
 pulation of 
 re largely 
 increasingly 
 rsely popu- 
 the system 
 1 with the 
 later years, 
 not, is im- 
 tion to be 
 , right or 
 an Catholic 
 
 minority previously enjoyed, has been 
 affected by the legislation of 18!)0. 
 Their Lordships are unable to see how 
 this question can receive any but an 
 affirmative answer." Again Lheir 
 Lordships remarlt: "Mr. Justice Tas- 
 chereau says tliat the legislation of 
 1890, having been irrevocably held to 
 be intra vires, cannot have "illegally" 
 affected any of the rights or privileges 
 of the Catholic minority. But the 
 word "illegally" has no place in the 
 sub-section in question. The appeal 
 is given if the rights are in fact af- 
 fected." 
 
 Again: "Their Lordsliips have de- 
 cided that the Governor-General has 
 jurisdiction, and that the appeal la 
 well founded, but the particular 
 course to be pursued must be deter- 
 mined by the authorities to whom It 
 has been committed by the statute." 
 
 Two things are clear. Their Lord- 
 ships were not required to, could not, 
 and did not, impose any restraint on 
 the Governor-General-in-Council in the 
 exercise of his jurisdiction. Nor did 
 they, nor could they, offer any opi- 
 nion on the ethical bearing of the le- 
 gislation In question. Their Lord- 
 ships could not instruct nor advise 
 the Governor-General how he should 
 exercise his functions, because such 
 instruction or advice was not asked 
 for, and could not be given by them, 
 and if given need not be attended to, 
 as even the liighest legal tribunal in 
 the realm is limited in its decisions 
 by the scope of the questions which 
 are submitted to it. If it were 
 otherwise the Judicial Committee 
 would not be a judicial tribunal but 
 a bureaucracy or rather "judocracy" 
 somewhat analogous to the Star 
 Chamber of malodorous memory, an 
 institution not quite in lieeping with 
 our ideas of government. 
 
 The Imperial Privy Council could 
 not instruct the Governor-General-in- 
 Council what decision he should give. 
 The idea of an appeal to a tribunal 
 whose decision and answer are 
 necessarily a foregone conclu- 
 sion, contains an element of 
 the absurd. Let us see how it 
 works out in this instance. The legis- 
 lature has passed legislation, which 
 has been declared by the highest au- 
 thority to be valid and constitution- 
 al. But by the same constitution an 
 appeal is provided to a political au- 
 thority, against this legislation. The 
 political authority (so the separatists 
 allege), is bound to annul the legis- 
 lation. The legislation, therefore, 
 which, according to the constitution, 
 is valid, is, also according to the con- 
 stitution, such legislation as must be 
 made null and void. This see-saw 
 
 process seems bo peurlle that the 
 mere description of it appears to par- 
 take of silliness. Yet, in spite of their 
 Lordships' statement of the scope of 
 their dtHJislon, and in spite even of 
 the definition of the Issue by the 
 counsel of the Roman Catholics them- 
 selves (Mr. Blake), we are told, in all 
 seriousness, that the judgment of the 
 Privy Council was literally an Injunc- 
 tion to the Governor-General-in-Coun- 
 cll to restore separate schools. 
 
 FUNCTIONS OF THE JUDICIAL 
 COMMITTEE NOT UNLIMITED. 
 
 And this unwarranted interpreta- 
 tion of the judgment is persisted In, in 
 face of the fact that the issuance of 
 a mandate to the Governor General 
 In Council was entirely beyond the ju- 
 risdiction of the Judicial Committee. 
 That tribunal had as much author- 
 ity to instruct or advise the Gover- 
 nor General in Council to order the 
 restoration of Separate Schools, as 
 it has to direct him to abandon the 
 policy of protection. We shall, how- 
 ever, a little later see the reason for 
 such an Interpretation or father mis- 
 interpretation of their Lordships' de- 
 cision. 
 
 It has also been contended that, be- 
 cause their Lordships have decided 
 that an appeal would lie, and that 
 the rights and privileges of the Cath- 
 olic minority have been affected.there- 
 fore the legislation which has affect- 
 ed these rights, is morally unsound 
 and unjust, or at least chat this Is 
 their Lordship.s' opinion. This also is 
 an entirely unwarrantable contention. 
 An opinion as to the moral merits 
 was not, and could not, be asked for, 
 as the Judicial Committee Is not a 
 l)oard of consulting casuistical phil- 
 osophers. We have seen thebr own 
 definition of their position. "The 
 function of a tribunal is limited to 
 construing the words employed." Had 
 they been obliged to deal with the 
 moral merits or the political ethics of 
 the case, they would have required to 
 begin with an examination of the na- 
 ture of the "rights and privileges" 
 themselves, with a view to ascertain- 
 ing whether such rights and privil- 
 eges had any moral claim to exist- 
 ence. It is obvious that the moral 
 status of the legislation which abol- 
 ished these rights, depends altogeth- 
 er on the question whether their ex- 
 istence could be defended on ethical 
 grounds. If the rights were natural 
 or common rights, tlie withdrawal of 
 which would place the persons who 
 had enjoyed them In a position of 
 
nfi 
 
 dieadvnntngo ns compared with any 
 othor soctions of the community, then 
 the U'frlslnturo was wrong In abol- 
 Isliinj? them. 
 
 But is this tlie e;isi> ? Tlie leu.isl;i- 
 tlon of lSi)C) accords to tio section of 
 the community any i)rivile!;es w liicli 
 tiro denied to any other section. All 
 lire treated al>sohitely alike, aiid spec- 
 ial provision is made for avoidance of 
 offence to susceptibilitie-; of every de- 
 scription. The Kouiau Catholics, how- 
 ever, s;iy that these ciinal privileues 
 are not enouKh for them, that their 
 couvscience impels them to demand 
 more, ami that fortunately 
 
 for them, their conscience Is 
 re-lnforced l>y a provision of 
 the constitution. We h;ive already 
 dealt with the fallacious and iii.ade- 
 quate reasoniiii; whicli attempts to 
 (Show tiiat a mere .assertion of con- 
 scientious conviction, should ojjcrate 
 to jtrocure any iiuUvldual or class 
 a special privileu-e, or an exemption 
 from a common iMilrden. 
 
 Tliere is nothing- so speciously mis- 
 leadlu)^ in arj;uiuetit which pretends 
 to he conducted on scientific lines, ;ih 
 the u.se of nu^tapluu-, which is not 
 nnalouy. This is a d(>vice fre(imMit- 
 ly resortetl to by the separatist .ad- 
 vocates. As an ex.ample of this nu'tlioil 
 Me (piote from the arxuuient of the 
 counsel of th;it ])arty, bcfiu'e the (lOV- 
 ernor-tJeneral-in-council, .as it has .a, 
 bearinu' on tliis phase of the (iuesti(Ui; 
 He says: "In fact, to use a simile, 
 Protestants say to (.'atholics. we must 
 eat toji"ether, and we both like por- 
 ridge. Tlie ("atliolics .answer: ^ fs, 
 but iu)t witl\out vs,'iit in it; ;in(l i'rot- 
 ostants, with un.answerable lo!;ic,and 
 without a shadow of a smile, reply: 
 Vovy well, you can take the s.Mlt tui 
 Sundays, at home or elsewhere, as it 
 pleases you." To the thiiikinu,' reader 
 the i)ali»able absence of analou.v in 
 the *'«iu\ile" and the suji'u-est ion of 
 tawilry "smartness" in the i>resent.a- 
 tlon of it, would at oiu'e discredit it. 
 But all readers are not refhn'tive, It 
 mi^ht be well to tinker this "sinille" 
 into a shape in which it w(uild al'-o 
 be an an i';u);;y. We do iu)t n\ake use 
 of It bec;i-.!se of its cl.assic.al concep- 
 tion, but 8iiuply to Illustrate the et- 
 roueous conclusions which ma.v be ar- 
 rived at by the influence of mls»ai>- 
 plled metaphor. 
 
 The legislature of Manitoba, re- 
 presenting" the iieople (not merely the 
 "Protestants") u\ight be iniajiined 
 us replyiuf?: "We do not ask you to 
 eat porridge wltljout salt. I'orrldge Is 
 not the bone of contention Of we ma.v 
 also be perndtted to ndx our nu'ta- 
 phors). The Hltuation is sonu>what 
 like thl«. The people of Manitoba 
 
 ns .1 whole are agreed that it is the 
 duty of the state In order to secure 
 its safet.v, to see that all its cltl.''.ens 
 have the ojjportunlt.v of partaking of 
 a plain but whi>lesome nuMital dii't- 
 ar.v. The bill of fare sujiplied b.v 
 the province end)faces jiU articles of 
 food mH'ess;iry for mental develop- 
 nuMit, ^vllirh are un(pu'stionin,!;ly a('- 
 mltted as contalnlni:: the essentl.al eU'- 
 ments of nutrition. These articles in- 
 clude, pin-rllge, ndlk. bread, meat and 
 vegetables. The porridge contains 
 salt, and it and all thi> other articles 
 are prepared and presented In such 
 form that they meet the demands of 
 ^('il>ntifie nuuital hygiene, I>ut you 
 sa.v : 'It is a matter of conscience 
 \\ ith us that In addition to these 
 wi' have beer .and wine, and tt'a. and 
 coffi>e. Moreover, we may not safe- 
 ly eat in the sanu» room as the rest,' 
 Now we are not i)repared to admit 
 the necessit.v for the diluents and 
 stimul.ants j-ou Imlieate, although 
 we ;ire not prep.ired to assert that 
 t!n\v may not be useful or beneficliU. 
 The supply of these Is, however, not 
 within the sj)here of ina- duty nor 
 our i)ower. Xeither do we see. nor 
 are we jirepa-ed to admit, that you 
 will be In any way Injureil or endan- 
 gered by eating In the common refec- 
 tory. If, however, you believe that 
 Injury will result to you, you are per- 
 fectly at liberty to .adoi>t any dietetic 
 system you pli>as(>, and to provide 
 yourselves with .a salle ;< manger 
 \ov your own exclusive use. But as tt) 
 rtMieving you from your share of 
 what you aduut to be a common 
 duty, because of your exclusive no- 
 tions, that Is a proposition we can- 
 mit think for one nu)nu'nt of consid- 
 ering. We thus refuse, not only 
 because you have not the slightest 
 color of justification for asking such 
 an extraonlinary cot\cesslon, on siu'h 
 extraordinary grouiuls, but because If 
 we once adndtted the principle on 
 which you claim exemptUui. the per- 
 formance of what you ailndt to be a 
 necessary function of the state, would 
 be imposslhle." 
 
 Till'. nit>t,iphor will, we Ihitdt, bo 
 .i(lmit;ed to he also jin analogy. Pho 
 >ep:ir,itis'. "shulle" is not. 
 
 Tin: "IMlKSKClTlON" S()|<IimM. 
 
 Sonu> good j)eoi>le whose Instincts 
 impel them to recoil from • anything 
 In the natnrt> of injustlee, even should 
 tliey ihemselves bt> the beiu'fld.aries, 
 have become une.isy In regard to (his 
 (pu'stlon on account of the Last deci- 
 sion of the .ludiclal ("on>ndttee,wlilch, 
 
 a s 
 
3 
 
 It l8 the 
 I sociirP 
 
 l'itl7.lMlS 
 
 taking; of 
 
 tal (lii't- 
 >lit'(l by 
 •tlrlt's of 
 (lovtiop- 
 n.ul.v mi- 
 nt l;i I olo- 
 tlcU's iii- 
 n»';vt nnd 
 contJilnH 
 .'irtiiics 
 in siu'h 
 m.-inds of 
 liiit you 
 )iis('it'nro 
 to thoso 
 1 ti'M, ;inil 
 not safo- 
 tlu' rost..' 
 o admit 
 'nts anil 
 altliouj^'h 
 ort that 
 H'nofii'ijil. 
 oviM', not 
 "liity nor 
 ist't'. nor 
 that you 
 or endnn- 
 hon roft'c- 
 icvt' that 
 II aro pt'r- 
 ly diott'tic 
 
 l)l'OVi(lo 
 
 1 ninngiM" 
 But aw to 
 iiiar*> of 
 
 oonuuon 
 usivo no- 
 \ w t> can- 
 of oonsiil- 
 not only 
 
 NJiKl'ti'Ht 
 klnjj; Huch 
 I, on such 
 bi'i'ause If 
 cipU' on 
 , till' por- 
 t to bo a 
 ato, would 
 
 :hitik, bo 
 ony. Plio 
 
 )rilTSM. 
 
 Instliii'tH 
 • aiiytlilnjji: 
 '(Ml should 
 u'f Ilia fit's, 
 rd to thlH 
 lant docl- 
 teo.wlilclj, 
 
 
 thoy havo boon told, is oquivaloiit to 
 a proiiouui't'nioiit that by boliiu,- do- 
 privoii of thi'ir "liiilits and prix ilo.nos" 
 llu' KoMiaii C"a t lioli: > havf boon siili- 
 ji"i toil '.o "i»t'i-st>('ut ion."' Notlri;^ 
 rouhl Ih' nii.i-o al)su;-d, as u c havo 
 SITU, than suiii an iuii)rossion. Tho 
 IJouiau CathollL's havo no. boon i\i^- 
 privi'd of any rif;-ht and privilo^o 
 wliirli tho o.lior sootii.iis of tho ooni- 
 niuiiity on joy. Thoy havo siuijily 
 lu'ou plaioil on ;iu oipiality wi'.h those 
 oMuM- .-octioiis, thoy haviiii;- provioiis- 
 ly onjoyod "rli^ht^ ami i)riviU'.>ios*' 
 whioli iiouo of tho othors possossod. 
 
 If tho withdrawal of poruliar and 
 uuoarnod lights and privilouos I.s 
 "poi.sooution," then Manitoba iias 
 imdoubtodly boon guilty of it. Lot 
 us just look o.irofuUy .ag-aln a', that 
 ronia rk.iblo sub-sootion 2 of soraoii 
 22 of tho :\[anr.ob;i .ii't. It says: 
 
 "An appo.il ishall lio to tho (iovonioi-- 
 I lonof.il-lnConnoil from ,iny ;ii't or lio- 
 oisioii of tho loiiislat uro of tho prov- 
 liu o, or of any pi-oviii,i;ii auihoi-i;y, 
 affoitiii.n' .any riuht or prlvilono of t iio 
 riotos.int or UoMiaii (".atholir uiin- 
 oiUy oi ;ho cjuoon's suhjorts in I'oia- 
 lioii ;o oducatioii.' 
 
 Now, ohsoi-vi' tho roni.irkablo divi- 
 sion of till' population. Tho •'KoiiMii 
 l\itho'ii' luinoiity" is siiocii'iod .is .a 
 sop.ar.ito and pooullar entity. All tlio 
 I'o.st of till' popul.ition is thrown into 
 riio oonnioiiH'r.iti' lio.ai), anil libolli'd 
 "I'rotostant." althouiili it oont.ilns 
 soiuo oh'iiionts whoso t lioolo^ioal ten- 
 ets, and whoso foruiul;is ;iro niuoli 
 closer lo thosi' of tho Koniaii (."atlio- 
 lics th.'in to those of any others In 
 bhoir own lio.ap, while ;ig-,iln other 
 olonioiits of tho "I'rotostant" rosi- 
 nuuni h.avo no views In ooiumon with 
 those either of the othor eoiuiiononts 
 of the "lieai»," or of the Koiuan Ca- 
 tholios. Thus Koui.'in ("at holies ;is 
 
 a soot, by this l.iw obtained a roi'Ofi'- 
 nitlon !ind wore sot .ap.irt .'ind dls- 
 tlngailshoi! from all the other soots 
 and doiiomin.itions of the I'onunuiilty. 
 Every thinu: wliiiii is not Koui;iii Ca- 
 tholic Is Trotostant. The Cliureh of 
 i;ii>;lanil, for Instaiiee, is fifty per 
 cent greater In tlio nuiubers of its ad- 
 herents In liio la'inlnoo of ^'.lidt ol>;i. 
 than the Uoiu.an Cat holies. Its chief 
 dignitary h;is ,i strong loaning In 
 favor of separ.ito sehools for \nuilefin 
 ehlldren, under tho eontrol of his 
 ehuroh. Hut could tho t'hureh of 
 
 Kiiglaiid doni.iii'l Hop.ar.ite schuols or 
 tho ground of eonstienc,' '.' Assuredly 
 not. .\s their Lorilships ob o.ve.th.at 
 church would havo no "loeiiH i-tandi" 
 In making such .a duiuand. 
 
 Thoy are only a portion of the 
 "heap." Let tholr eoiiHcloiico pro- 
 test till t-pliltual lii-y.. HKi- 
 
 vene, they would still have no tltlo 
 to redress, as they havo no "ooustltu- 
 tlon.il" rights and prlvllogoB. They 
 ;iro not a "minority." They are only 
 a jiortio', of the unfortun.ato m.ajor- 
 ity aid must >t:\y in the "heap" who- 
 they they like It or not. 
 
 'I'lio sects may Impulsively s.iy : Ah 
 well, if th.it is the case, lot all of ua 
 have si'p.irati' rights and prlvllegeH. 
 <)ne objection to this, outside of 
 the f.ict th.it such an oqu.al dlvldliiK 
 up would be "uneonstltution.ar' Is, 
 tliat if tliese rights were tiiken ad- 
 v.mtage of. there would thee !)o no 
 efficient educatloii. ami we would bo 
 back again precisely at the point 
 above whkii the odueatloii.al legisla- 
 tion was designed to carry us, and at 
 whieh, no doubt tho chief advocates 
 of sop.ir.ito .sehools would much pre- 
 fer to see us ronutlii. 
 
 Now. a.s wo have said, tho .ludlci;,! 
 Committee had not the mor.al merits 
 of tho case under considor;ition. If It 
 h.ad been neeoHsary to consider the le- 
 gislation from .Mil etlilc.il st:i ndpoint, 
 wo have sron wh.it the jmliits .are, 
 whleh would liavo li.ad to bo consid- 
 ered. Hut thiir Lordships h.ad Kim- 
 ply to decide whether the elrcumstaii- 
 ces were such in this case, that tho 
 Ileal to the Covernor C.onoral In Coun- 
 cil pr )vldeil for In suli-soetlon L'.wouhl 
 lie. In order to decide this, they had 
 to ascert.aln whether the rights ami 
 privileges were affected. It was, an 
 their Lordsldps remarked, not i\ 
 (luestion as to whether those .are un- 
 justly affected, or Illegally .affected, 
 but simply whether "the rights aro 
 l!i fact affecteir' and tli.it v. itliout ro- 
 g.ird to any other consideration. It 
 was entirely ji case of strict con- 
 structii'ii. The moral. ocononilc,an(l 
 other consider;! tioiis wore left by 
 their Lordshl])s to "the a iithorltlcH to 
 whom they wen' committed by the 
 statute." We sh.ill soo pri'sently who 
 these authorities aro. 
 
 WHAT IS TlllMU LOUnsiUPH' 
 CdMNlON ? 
 
 It Is probably unfor i.nate that wo 
 could not have had a doflnitoly stat- 
 ed opinion on the broad oth'.cal a!id 
 political issues involv»'d, iinito jipart 
 from the te«'hlcnal log.al qucAtioiiH, 
 from a body of men so well (pmlified 
 by their le;i ruing, their eapaelt y,t heir 
 Integrity and Imleponilenco, a's this 
 same .liidici.al Committee. Such an 
 opinion, of course, could not be. and 
 was not given, but some suggestioiiH 
 as to wh.'it it would havo been, hatl 
 It been permi.sslblo to state It. may bo 
 gathered from jiassagos In tho ]\n\g- 
 moutt*. lu tho lii-st judgiutMit, their 
 
38 
 
 Lordships point out and correct a 
 misr.pprenension to the effect that 
 one of the effects of the lesiwlation of 
 1890 was to confiscate Catholic prop- 
 erty. Thpy show that, on the con- 
 trary, the Ca <l>olics were placed, in 
 regard to th»^£r school properties, in 
 a better position than the rest of 
 the community. Their lordships pro- 
 fceed: "Notwithstanding tlie Public 
 Schools' Act of 1S90, Ko nan Catho- 
 lics, and members of ever^- otlier body- 
 in Manito'^-a, are free to establish 
 Bc' jols throughout the province; they 
 are free to maintain their schools by 
 scliool fees or voluntary subscriptions; 
 they are free to conduct their school* 
 according to their own religious ten- 
 ets, without molestation or interfer- 
 ence. No child is compelled to attend 
 a public school. No special advantage 
 other than the advantage of a free 
 education in schools conducted under 
 public management, is held out uo 
 those who do attend. But then, it is 
 said that it is impossible for Roman 
 Catholics, or for members of the 
 Church of England (if their views are 
 correctly represented by the Bishop 
 of Rupert's Land, who has given evi- 
 dence in the Logan case), to send 
 their children to public schools, wheru 
 the education is not superintended 
 and directed by the authorities of 
 their church, and that, therefore, 
 Roman Catholics and members of the 
 Church of England, who are taxed for 
 public schools, and at the same time 
 feel themselves compelled to support 
 their own schools, are in a less fav- 
 orable position than those who can 
 take advantage of the free education 
 provided by the Act of 1890. That 
 may be so. But what r'^rht or privil- 
 ege Is violated or prejudicially affect- 
 ed by the law ? It Is not the law 
 that Is In fault; It Is cAvlng to relig- 
 ious convictions, which everybody 
 must respect, and to the teaching of 
 their church, that Roman Catholics 
 and tht members of the Church of 
 England find themselves unable to 
 partake cl the advantages which the 
 law offert to all alike." 
 
 Their Lordships here put their fin- 
 ger on ^ he vital spot. The law offers 
 advan+ages Tio all alike. It dlscrim- 
 lnat'^.» neither In favor of, nor against, 
 any person or class of persons. If any 
 persons feel themselves i)laced at a 
 disadvantage, "it Is not the law that 
 Is In fault." The source of the dis- 
 advantage Is within themselves. It 
 may entitle them to respect, as their 
 Lordships observe, but not to 
 exemption or other favorable discrim- 
 ination. In regard to a much dls^ 
 puted point, on which the separatists 
 lay much «tre«s, their Lordships say: 
 
 "They cannot assent to the view 
 which seems to be indicated by one of 
 the members of the Supreme court, 
 that public schools under tli > Act of 
 1890 are in reality Protestant 
 .schools." 
 
 'Then, glancing at the economic and 
 political aspect of the question tliey 
 say : (and let the Governor General in 
 :<.'ouncil and the politicians generally 
 closely follow this pronouncement) 
 "With the policy of the act of 1890 
 their Lordships are not concerned. But 
 they cannot help observing that, If 
 tlio views of the respondents (the Ro- 
 man Catliolics) were to prevail. It 
 would be extremely difficult for the 
 I'rovincial Legislature, whicli has 
 been entrusted with the exclusive 
 I)ower of making laws, relating to 
 education, to provide for the educa- 
 tional wants of the more Bpars"ly In- 
 habited districts of a country as 
 large as Great Britain, and that the 
 powers of the legislature, whicli on 
 the face of tiie act appear so large, 
 would be limited to tlie useful hut 
 somewhat humble office of making 
 regulations for the sanitary condi- 
 tions of school I uses. Imposing rates 
 lor the support of denominational 
 scIk ols, enforcing the compulsory at- 
 tendance of sehblars, and matters of 
 that sort." 
 
 '"'■'here is a very strong suggestion 
 of sarcastic Immor in tlie later words 
 just (luoted. Their Lordships were 
 evidently struck witli the essential 
 al)8urdlty of the whole situation, and 
 have gone as nearly to ex- 
 pressing tlieir sense of jocul- 
 arity In these words, as such 
 an august Jbrlbunal could afford 
 to go, consistently with Its dignity. 
 The Idea of a legislature, wliose ju- 
 rlsdlctiov is defined by a statute 
 which impres-lvely commences by say- 
 ing that tlie legislature shall "exclus- 
 ively make laws," being reduced bo- 
 fore the section is completed, to the 
 "useful bul somewhat humbl ■'' func- 
 tions of a municipal council, seems to 
 hav(> (Struck tluir Lordships as an ex- 
 ceedingly huuiofous conception. They 
 were (loubthss also struck witii the 
 doctrine wlilcli Is gravely involved in 
 the contentions of the yeparntltn, 
 that the few sinipl. -minded natives o' 
 Red liiver In 1870 had acquired a 
 rlglit to legislate for the Province of 
 Manitoba for all time. And no won- 
 der. Tlie innate preposterousness 
 and absurdity of the political doc- 
 trines Involved in tlii> case of the Hep- 
 aratlsts, taken In connection with the 
 seriousness wltli which tliey are urg- 
 ed. Is enough to upset the gravity of 
 even a more solemn body than their 
 Lordships, It any such exists. 
 
39 
 
 le view 
 y one of 
 court, 
 ' Act of 
 
 otestant 
 
 )nuc iind 
 
 io[i they 
 
 eiicral in 
 
 ;iMier;illy 
 
 K'omciit) 
 
 of 1890 
 
 rued. But 
 
 hat, if 
 
 (the Ro- 
 
 vail, it 
 
 for the 
 
 ich huH 
 
 exclusive 
 
 atiiig to 
 
 e educa- 
 
 irsely in- 
 
 iitry as 
 
 that the 
 
 vhich on 
 
 Ko large, 
 
 cful but 
 
 making 
 
 y condi- 
 
 ing i-atoH 
 
 inutioiial 
 
 Isory at- 
 
 atters of 
 
 igge.stion 
 er words 
 lipH were 
 
 eHsential 
 tlon, and 
 
 to ex- 
 f jocul- 
 
 as Kuch 
 ,d afford 
 
 dignity, 
 vhoi^e ju- 
 Htatute 
 s l)y say- 
 1 "exclus- 
 luced bo- 
 ll, to the 
 •1 ■" func- 
 
 tseeuis to 
 as an ex- 
 on. They 
 with the 
 volvod iti 
 laratl-ts, 
 iiativi'H o' 
 inlri'd a 
 (Mince of 
 
 no won- 
 I'rousneHH 
 ileal doc- 
 
 tln' Scj)- 
 
 with the 
 
 are urg- 
 ravity of 
 lan their 
 
 tH. 
 
 It may be and, has Jjeeu charged, 
 that the last judgment of the Judicial 
 Committee is inconsistent with their 
 first. But this charge is not borne 
 out on comparison of the two judg- 
 ments, and on a fair and careful and 
 common sense reading of the later one. 
 While their lordships keep closely to 
 their Junctions of strictly construing 
 the words of the statute, they do not 
 leave any doubt an to the Impression 
 which the statute itself created in 
 their minds. They say: "It may be 
 said to be anomalous tha^ : i!ch a re- 
 striction as that in question should 
 be imposed on the free action of a 
 legislature, but Is it more anomalous 
 then to grant to a minority who are 
 aggrieved by legislation, an o,ppeal 
 from the legislative to the executive 
 authority? And yet tills right is ex- 
 pressly and l>eyond all doubt confer- 
 red." Uiitdoubtedly their lordships' 
 astonishment had good grourdo, lor 
 there is probably no other case in all 
 the records ol parliamentary govern- 
 ment,in which a legislative body is 
 prohibited from repealing its own 
 acts, and In which valid and consti- 
 tutional legislation can be appealed 
 against to an executive authority. 
 Moreover, we venture to assert that 
 such a provision Is contrary to the 
 principle and spirit of government of 
 the people by themselves. 
 
 Whilst the whole text of the later 
 judgment tshows that their lordships 
 clearly defined their own function to 
 be that ot construing the words of the 
 statute, and whilst they declare that 
 the course to be pursued must be de- 
 termined by the authorities to whom 
 it has been committed by the statute, 
 the last or rather the penultimate pa- 
 ragraph of their judgment is couched 
 in language which the Sep.aratists 
 contend give the judgment the effect 
 of a mandate. This paragraph 
 reads : "It is certainly not es- 
 sential 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 emliodied In 
 the Acts of 1890, no doubt com- 
 mends Itself to, and adequately sup- 
 plies 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 fotinded,and 
 were modified so far as might be ne- 
 cessary to give effect to these provi- 
 sions." 
 
 Now, In the first place, It Is as well 
 to note that the "grievance" to 
 which thoir lordships refer is uot a 
 
 real or moral grievance, but merely 
 a statutory one. The only griev- 
 ance that the Roman Catholics have 
 consists in the fact that certain 
 "rights and privileges" which were 
 conferred upon them by a provincial 
 statute, and which they alone en- 
 joyed to the exclusion of all other 
 sects and classes of the community, 
 were withdrawn by the same author- 
 ity which granted them, leaving them 
 in a position of exact equality 
 with all other classes. In 
 the extract we have already 
 given from their Lordships' first judg- 
 me(nt, it is very conclusively shown 
 that ill their Lordships' opinion the 
 Eomaoi Catholics have no real or 
 moral grievance on account of the 
 operation of the laws of 1890. 
 
 The expression "grievance," then, as 
 used by their Lordships, is purely a 
 legal-technical one. Now, it Is rather 
 difficult to conceive of provisions be- 
 ing made to remove a grievance re- 
 sulting from legislation, unless that 
 legislation should be repealed or some- 
 thing done which would have an 
 equivalent effect. We confess that we 
 are at a loss to reconcile the first 
 with the last sentence of the para- 
 graph just quoted. Only two possible 
 explanations occur to us. The first Is 
 that their Lordships are hinting at, 
 and paving the way for, a comprom- 
 ise, of the acceptability of which to 
 the separatists they have In all prob- 
 ality had an intimation. In this case 
 their remarks are, of course, of a 
 necessity merely suggestive and ad- 
 visory, and not imperative. The sec- 
 ond possible explanation is that, as 
 the grievance complained of is not a 
 moral grievance, but merely a statu- 
 tory one, it could be entirely removed 
 by the repeal of 'the statutory provis- 
 ion on which it is based. This sugges- 
 tion Is commended to the considera- 
 tion of the "authorities" to whom 
 the question has now been committed. 
 Whether It Is the one which their 
 Lordships Intended to make or not, 
 it Is obviously one that should be 
 followed in the circumstances. The 
 entirely "anomalous" character of 
 the provision. Its essential Injustice, 
 its repugnance to the principles ot 
 representative government, and the 
 pernicious Influence which It exerts on 
 Canadian politics, form strong reasons 
 for its abolition. 
 
 THE JUDGMENT NOT A MANDATE. 
 
 The quoted paragraph of their 
 Lordships' judgment Could, we think, 
 hardly be construed as a mandate. If 
 it iB a mandate, what does it direc^t 
 
40 
 
 should be done ? But, even if it had 
 mapped out some specific line of ac- 
 tion, to be followed, by the Governor- 
 General-in-Councll, It need not have 
 been followed because the issuance of 
 such directions was not involved in, 
 or necesK/ary to, a decision of the 
 case before the court. 
 
 Mr. Dalton McCarthy deals with 
 this point In his argument for the 
 province before the Governor-General- 
 In-Council. He says: "Now, there is 
 a well-kmown rule, that if a court 
 of law goes beyo.nd what is necessary 
 for the decision of a case, the decis- 
 ion Is not binding; It is what Is called 
 obiter. They have no more right to 
 affect the Interests or rights of par- 
 ties, by going beyond the question it- 
 self, than a mere stranger has. The 
 court Is limited In its decision, and 
 tills has a binding character only so 
 long as It is confined to the questions 
 which were submitted." Judging by 
 Mr. McCarthy's "Bmlnence as a 
 lawyer, as also by the fact 
 that his statement was not called 
 In question, this seems to be 
 Nound law. By a coincidence which 
 unfortunately is not by any means 
 an unvarying one, sound law in this 
 case, also happens to be sound sense. 
 Their lordships themselves defined 
 the scope of their inquiry to be as to 
 whether an appeal to the Governor- 
 General would lie. Anything in their 
 Judgment, therefore, not bearing on 
 the validity of the appeal would be 
 obiter, and of non-effect. 
 
 THE FUNCTIONS OF THE GOVEH- 
 NOU-GENERAL-lN-COUN(^IL. 
 
 The Judicial Committee of the Im- 
 perial Privy Council have decided 
 that the Roman Catholic minority of 
 Manitoba have a right of appeal to 
 the Governor-General-in-Counc'il. That 
 Is all that tribunal has decided or 
 could decide. The Governor-General- 
 in-Council is, in other words, the Do- 
 minion government, which liolds its 
 power by virtue of the support of a 
 majority of the members of the Do- 
 minion or Federal parliament. It is, 
 therefore, a political body, and In 
 tills matter Is sitting In a political 
 capacity, according to the admission 
 of Sir Mackenzie Bowell, the presi- 
 dent of the council. Now, a judicial 
 tribunal in hearing a case, Is merely 
 called upon to explain or construe 
 the terms of a statute. Any deci- 
 sion of a judicial tribunal on the 
 facts or n srits must be In accordance 
 with, and within the lim- 
 itations Imposed by the statute 
 or statutCH,whlch bear upon tht» (jues- 
 
 tion submitted to them. A political 
 tribunal In a case like the present, 
 is not bound by the terms of any sta- 
 tute. Considerations of public expe- 
 diency and pul)lic well-bein;j: and 
 sound policy must be taken into ac- 
 count by it, and all the brond and 
 general ethical and politictil factors, 
 must also bo considered. Such a 
 body may not, of course, take any 
 step which would have the effect of 
 contravening the provisions of any 
 existing statute. But in discrotioii- 
 ary matters such as the present, it is 
 to be guided solely by the facts and 
 circumstances, the right .and wrong 
 of the case, as these shall be ascer- 
 tained, after careful and conscienti- 
 ous Investigation and discussion. 
 
 Ah there Is not, so far as we are 
 awi."?, .'iny precedent for the "anoma- 
 lous" situation with which we are 
 !iow confronted, there are no rules of 
 procedure ready made. The proce- 
 dure has, therefore, to be determined 
 by the requirements of the case. Al- 
 ready copious citations have been 
 made from th;* judgment and from the 
 statements of the lloman Catholic 
 counsel in his argument, to show that 
 nothing has been, or could be, done 
 to fetter the action of the Governor 
 General in Council in decidin,'^ as to 
 what he should do in disposing of the 
 appeal. The statute which provides 
 for the anpeal, does not specify the 
 course whicli the (Jovernor Geiu^ral in 
 Council shall take after he has heard 
 the appeal. It does not even indi- 
 cate that he need do anything. His 
 discretion is of the very widest. This 
 was most clearly recognized not only 
 by the judges of the Judicial Commit- 
 tee, but by the counsel for the Roman 
 CatliolU's tlieraselves. As we have 
 already seen, the Lord Chancellor, 
 addressing Mr. Blake, says 
 "then you say llii're is a case for the 
 jurisdietlofi of the governor general 
 and that is all we have to decide." 
 To which Mr. Blake answers: "That 
 Is all your lordnhips have to decide. 
 What rem.'ly he shnil purpose tf) ap- 
 ply is quite a different thing." 
 
 Mr. i:wart, Mr. Blake's junior couTi- 
 sel in the case, s'lys in the course of 
 his argument: "We are not asking 
 for any deeltratlon as to the extent 
 of the i-ellef to bo given by the gover- 
 nor general. We merely ask that it 
 sliould bi' held tlia' he has jurisdiction 
 to heir our pr.iycM-, AND TO (Jlt.\.\T 
 
 I's soMi; R!:lii:f, if he thinks 
 
 I'K()I'i;il TO DO so." 
 
 Yet, if we mistake not, Mr. lOwart 
 is oiu^ of those who iujw publicly con- 
 t.'iid that the judgment of the .Vudic- 
 I'tl Committee is of necessity a com- 
 mand to the Canadian government 
 
 ' 
 
41 
 
 and parliament to restore separate 
 schools. 
 
 Mr. Ewart again says in the same 
 argument: "The power given of ap- 
 peal to the government, and upon re- 
 quest of the governor, to the Legisla- 
 ture of Canada, seems to be wholly 
 discretionary in both." 
 
 We should think there could be 
 very little doubt as to the discretion 
 of the Governor General in Council. 
 
 THE REMEDIAL ORDER. 
 
 The Judgment of the Imperial Privy 
 Council has been interpreted by the 
 Governor General in Council as a man- 
 date to him to demand of the Mani- 
 toba legislature the restoration of 
 separate schools. If such were the 
 correct interpretation it would seem 
 to the ordinary observer that any- 
 thing in the nature of a further trial 
 would be somewhat of a farce. Ye*, 
 the Governor- General in Council evi- 
 dently thought that a further trial 
 was necessary, and notified the parties 
 that they would be heard. A most 
 elaborate argument was made, last- 
 ing four days. On March 21, 1S'.)5, 
 the Governor General issued an order 
 In council in which is reiterated, almost 
 verbatim, the peculiar penultimate pa- 
 ragraph of the judgment of the Im- 
 perial Privy Council, which we have 
 quoted, and he declares "that it seems 
 requisite that the system of educa- 
 tion embodied in the two acts of 18i)0 
 aforesaid, shall be supplemented by a 
 provincial act or acts which will re- 
 store to the Roman Catholic minority 
 the said rights and privileges, of 
 which such minority has been depri- 
 ved as aforesaid." 
 
 This is virtually an order by His 
 Excellency in Council to the province, 
 to reinstate separate schools, and go 
 back to the conditions which existed 
 prior to 1890. The Governor in Coun- 
 cil has obviously not availed himself 
 of his discretionary power. In the 
 Remedial Order, the poli.ical or eth- 
 ical factors which the (Jo\ernor In 
 Council was entitled, and bound In 
 duty, to take Into consideration, are 
 notKo much as alluded to. Tlio very 
 important (luestion of the Houndnoss 
 from an ethical, poli'lcU o- cconoinic 
 I)oint of view, of the present system, 
 1*^ not considered by iIl-« I^xcellency In 
 Council. Neither Is ilio still more Ini- 
 portai!t consideration of the nature 
 and the bearing <mi the freedom of our 
 political Institutions, of sub-sectlotis 
 2 and ii of the Manitoba art. The or- 
 der is a mere recital of the statutory 
 pro\lslons, and an account of the pro- 
 ceedings In the litigation. The 
 
 Judgment of the Imperial Privy 
 Council, which is merely a 
 declaration that the Iloman 
 Catholic minori.y have a ri[;ht of ap- 
 pL\il, has been Interpreted by the Gov- 
 ernor In Council, as a mandate to 
 answer the appeal In a certain way. 
 The Remedial Order was transmit- 
 ted "o the Manitoba Government and 
 is still under consideration, but it is 
 almost certain that the answer of 
 the Manitoba legislature will be a 
 respectful but firm refusal to comply 
 with it. 
 
 PARTISANSHIP THE TOOL OF THE 
 CHURCH. 
 
 Let us briefly review the political sit- 
 uation In Canada with a view of as- 
 certaining the present position of the 
 province of Manitoba In this matter, 
 and also. If posislble, of discovering 
 the reason oi' the very apparent an- 
 xiety of the (Jovernor in Council, to 
 construe the Imperial judgment as a 
 mandate. 
 
 Instead of taking the position of an 
 Independent and responsible tribunal 
 of the widest discretion, the Governor 
 in council has virtually assumed the 
 somewhat humble office of a sheriff's 
 officer or bailiff, for the execution of n 
 misinterpreted conception of the judg- 
 ment of the Privy Council. 
 
 It is not our intention to go Into 
 an alistr.ict dissertation on the ethics 
 of party politics, and it is our desire 
 to avoid any reference which could 
 btt justifiably construed as an evi- 
 dence of partisanship. It Is also our 
 desire that this matter should be 
 dealt with in the careful, impartial 
 and uiiinii)aBsioned spirit, which the 
 importance of the principles and Is- 
 sues involved, demands. 
 
 It will probably be generally admit- 
 ted that, previous to the last judg- 
 ment In th" school case by the Impe- 
 rial J'rlvy Council, the overshadowing 
 Issue in Catiadlan politics was the na- 
 tional fiscal policy— the question of 
 Proiectlon versus Free Trade or Ta- 
 riff for Revenue. Owing to circum- 
 stances and causes not altogether 
 connected with Its present fiscal pol- 
 icy, the financial and commercial con- 
 dition of the country, had become far 
 from satisfactory. The people were 
 not as a wlioU prospering, and tliey 
 were consMiuently discontented. They 
 were thus brought Into a frame of 
 mind 111 which many even of those 
 Conservatives who. from the Inten- 
 sity of nartisan feeling, h'd prevl- 
 nusly refused even to hear any argu- 
 juent which professv'd to Impeach the 
 Huuudueuu of the only really distinct- 
 
42 
 
 Ive doctrine which their party held, 
 were now disposed to listen and con- 
 sider. 
 
 It win probably be undisputed that 
 the feeling of the country was veer- 
 ing? strongly In the direction of a freer 
 trade policy. From this and other 
 causes which are pretty generally un- 
 derstood, the chances of the Ottawa 
 government l>elng returned to power 
 after the general elections.had begun 
 to appear very dubious, and the ac- 
 tions of the government disclosed the 
 fact th<at no section of the commun- 
 ity was more cognizant of the 
 unpromising nature of the outlook 
 than the government Itself. 
 
 Whilst matters were in this posi- 
 tion the judgment of the Imperial 
 l>rlvy Council was delivered. The 
 necessity for action by the Governor- 
 General-in-Council, In the appellate 
 capacity, immediately transformed 
 the Manitoba school question into an 
 issue in Dominion politics, and, as It 
 concerned the interests of the lloman 
 Catholic hierarchy, it at once took 
 the position of foremost Issue. 
 
 As we have already endeavored to 
 show, the fundamental doctrines of 
 the Roman Catholic church involve Its 
 Interference in civil politics, and we 
 know that this deduction has been 
 amply justified by historical experi- 
 ence. When the interests of the 
 churcli become a polltic.il Issue, there 
 Is very little room left for doubt as 
 to the attitude which will he taken 
 by Koman Catholics as a body. The 
 exceptional individual cases, in which 
 Catholics attempt to exercise their 
 own private judgment in such circum- 
 stances, are so rare, tliat they need 
 scarcely be considered. All the nmchin- 
 cry and paraphernalia of eccl siastlcal 
 influence, both open and occult, are 
 brought into play to quell and repress 
 anytliing in the nature of Independent 
 thouglit or action in such cases, and 
 we have seen In tliis very matter, how 
 the force of social ostracism, and even 
 the threat of religious disqualifica- 
 tion, have been freely used to discour- 
 age anything in the nature of indepen- 
 dence. In short, in any political mat- 
 ter Involving the Interests of the hier- 
 archy, lloman Catholics may be said 
 to act as a solid mass, not in their 
 capacity of citizens of the community, 
 but as children '>f the church. All 
 divisions and dL.drences on other is- 
 sues are dropped out of slight, and 
 they become united in hostility to the 
 persons, or party, who may oppose 
 the InterBsts of the hierarchy, or in 
 support of those who will further 
 those Interests. 
 
 The non-Catholic population Is 
 marked by no tfucb cluiracierlstlc. The 
 
 members of the great Protestant de- 
 nominations do not own any allegi- 
 ance to, nor do they allow themselves 
 in any way to be influenced by, the 
 clergy of tlieir delnominatlons in any 
 political matter, further than they 
 would be influenced by any lay speak- 
 er or writer. In other words, the 
 citizens of the Protestant denomina- 
 tions are not under ecclesiastical dom- 
 ination. In political matters they al- 
 low no interference from any source, 
 with the exercise of their Individual 
 judgment. 
 
 Partizanship is strong in Canada, 
 and fealty to party is, unfortunate- 
 ly carried to an unreasoning and per- 
 nicious degree. The Protestant pop- 
 ulation Is, of course, divided between 
 the two parties. The population of 
 Canada is approximately five mil- 
 millions, of which two millions are 
 Roman Catholics and three millions 
 Protestants. 
 
 With these facts and these figures 
 before us. It Is very easy to under- 
 stand the disquietude and the discon- 
 certment of the politicians when an 
 issue of vital interest to the Roman 
 Catholic hierarchy is obtruded into 
 the sphere of practical politics. The 
 solid machine of two million votes 
 under perfect control, becomes a 
 very Imposing and commanding figure. 
 The three million Protestants do 
 not vote as Protestants, but accord- 
 ing to their Individual judgments, 
 and for a great variety of reasons 
 and motives. Let us assume, how- 
 ever, that the Protestant (or more 
 properly non-Catholic) population will 
 be fairly evenly divided as to party, 
 and it Is very clear that the hands 
 that hold the lever which moves the 
 solid two-milUon-power machine, con- 
 trol the situation. In the presence of 
 this power we have seen In the past 
 that partisans and party leaders 
 have been prepared to stifle prin- 
 ciple, and to consider only a sordid 
 expediency. The most sacred and im- 
 portant principles of free government 
 have been sacrificed or set at naught 
 and the really essential and Import- 
 ant business and interests of the coun- 
 try have been neglected or held in 
 abeyance at great cost to the com- 
 munity till the ecclesiastical Cerberus 
 has had his sop. 
 
 The experience of the province of 
 Manitoba In the present question adds 
 only one more to the already numer- 
 ous practical Illustrations of our 
 theoretical contention that a man 
 who subscribes to the doctrines and 
 claims of the Roman Catholic church 
 cannot be in the fullest sense a 
 loyal citizen of a self-governing com- 
 munity, although Roman Catho- 
 
 
43 
 
 Jnt de- 
 
 (allegi- 
 iselves 
 the 
 m any 
 they 
 |speak- 
 Ls, the 
 )mina- 
 [l doni- 
 ley al- 
 source, 
 Ividual 
 
 lies may be, and many of them are, 
 honorable and amiable In their indiv- 
 idual spheres, and creditable and 
 useful to the community on account 
 of their personal good qualities. But 
 collectively, as a "solid vote"— as a 
 weapon which may be, and is, used to 
 further ecclesiastical ends, the Roman 
 Catholics as a political force form a 
 standing menace to the safety and 
 integrity of our institutions. 
 
 WHAT WAS THE MOTIVE OF THE 
 REMEDIAL. ORDER. 
 
 Now is it not intended to aBsert 
 that the course of the Dominion gov- 
 ment in issuing the Remedial Order 
 was taken with a view to securing 
 for Itself the support of the two mil- 
 lion power machine, and, as a result 
 of this support a renewed lease of 
 power. Whatever may have l)een the 
 motive of the Government's action, 
 that will undoubtedly be the result, 
 unless some hitch or unforseen factor 
 In the situation sliould develop, which 
 l>y the way, is not at all improbable. 
 All that we wisli to charge the Gov- 
 ernment witli, Is its failure to consider 
 the whole merits (political and moral) 
 of the question, and the great ultimate 
 principles whicli are involved. This 
 It was obviously the right and the 
 duty of the Government to do. It has 
 not done so, nor has it made any de- 
 claration of its reasons for the omis- 
 sion. It takes the ground that the 
 Imperial judgment was a mandate, 
 and a mandate which it was bound 
 to obey. 
 
 In view of the facts already stated 
 wo cannot but come to the conclus- 
 ion that this is either a grave and 
 culpable misconception on the part 
 of the government, or that Its In- 
 terpretation of the judgment is mere- 
 ly a subterfuge designed to disguise 
 the real motive of its action, which 
 must in this case, have been taken at 
 the dictate of mere partisan exped- 
 iency. 
 
 Several of the newspapers which 
 support the Government, have, since 
 the Issue of the Remedial Order, made 
 the most strenuous efforts to make 
 the facts and etliics of tlie case square 
 with the action of the Government. 
 Their motives are quite as apparent 
 as are the weakness of tlieir argu- 
 ments and their ignorance of tlie es- 
 sential facts and Issues of the ques- 
 tion. 
 
 MANITOBA'S LEGISLATURE CAN- 
 NOT COMPROMISE. 
 
 The remedial order is now before 
 the legislature and the governraent of 
 
 Manitoba for their consideration. The 
 members of these bodies must nolens 
 volens decline to comply with its 
 demands; In the first place, because 
 they know the mind of the over- 
 whelming majority of their constit- 
 uents, and have no authority to over- 
 ride their wishes; in the second place, 
 because,having in their minds all the 
 facts, conditions and considerations 
 bearing on the case, they cannot be- 
 lieve that compliance would be either 
 desirable or proper. 
 
 The Dominion government has no 
 means of enforcing its order. It must 
 apply to the Canadian Parliament. 
 Those even who have contended that 
 the Governor in Council had no dis- 
 cretion, are constrained to admit 
 that the Canadian Parliament poss- 
 esses the fullest discretionary power. 
 Its authority is paramount. On it, 
 then, must ultimately rest the re- 
 sponsibiiity of doing justice in the 
 premises. If the Canadian Parlia- 
 ment believes that the laws of 1890 
 are wise laws in themslves; If it be- 
 lieves that they give all classes of cit- 
 izens equal rights and that they dis- 
 criminate neither in favor of, nor 
 against any class; if it believes that 
 the laws are peculiarly suited, in an 
 economic sense, to the conditions in 
 view of which they were enacted; if 
 it believes that the system which the 
 present one displaced, was neither a 
 suitable nor efficient one; if it be- 
 lieves that that system involvd spec- 
 ial privileges, based on sectarian dis- 
 tinctions, wlilch were Inequitable and 
 unjust in themselves; if the Domin- 
 ion Parliament believes these things, 
 then it is under every obligation to 
 refuse to Interfere with the Manitoba 
 legislation. It cannot offer the 
 judgment of the Privy Council as a 
 roa-^on for overriding the Manitoba 
 enactments. That judgment is not a 
 mandate, and even if it were, the 
 Imperial Privy Council cannot issue 
 any mandate in this matter which 
 the Parliament of Canada need re- 
 gard. 
 
 if that parliament, however, be- 
 lieves that the the Roman Catholic 
 ••grievances" are real grievances; if It 
 hellevcB that the separate scliool sys- 
 tem is a good system In Itself, and Is 
 calculated to build up and unify the 
 elements of our heterogeneous popula- 
 tion; if It believes that the principle 
 ol government Involved In the conten- 
 tloa of the Roman Catholics, that a 
 few persons of primitive liabits and 
 Intelligence, who had an undoubted 
 squatter right claim to Individual 
 properties and to equal rights, have 
 also as a corollary of these squatter 
 Claims, a vested right to legislate Ir- 
 
44 
 
 revoccably for all time, for an unlim- 
 ited number of persons of different or- 
 der of intelligence, and living under 
 different conditions — is a Hound one; if 
 it believes that the statutory provi- 
 sion witlulrawing from a j)rovince the 
 right to repeal its own legislation on 
 any matter is a wise or s;ifo one, or 
 even that it is in accord with common 
 83nse; if the parliament of Canada be- 
 lieves th'so things, then it should, In 
 the conscientious discharge of Its re- 
 sponsibility, compel Manitoba to re- 
 peal the legislation 1890. 
 
 But it must so coerce Manitoba 
 because it holds these »iew8 itself, 
 and not on the plea that it has no 
 discretion and that its course hns 
 been dictated or defined by the Impe- 
 rial Privy Council. If It should be- 
 lieve, aft T full and Independent con- 
 sideration of all the facts, that Mani- 
 toba has inflicted a wrong on the 
 Roman Catholic minority, it must 
 furnish very clear and convlncin.G: ar- 
 guments in support of Its conclusions, 
 if it wishes the people of Manitoba to 
 bellevi' that its decision is the re- 
 sult of conviction and not of a mere 
 partisan expediency. 
 
 It is to be lioped that the atten- 
 tion of parliament wh mi tin matter 
 comes befoiv^ it, may be speclallj di- 
 rected to the following significant 
 passage in the Ilemedial Order : "The 
 Committee tli' refor.^ recommend that 
 the Provincial Legislature be 
 reciuested to coii.-ider whether 
 its action upon the dt'ci^ion of Your 
 Excellency In Council should 
 be permitted to be such, as while re- 
 fusing to redress a grievance, which 
 the highest court in the Empire has 
 declared to exist, may compel parlia- 
 ment to give relief, of which, under 
 the constitution, the Frovificlal Legis- 
 lature is the proper ami prinmry 
 source, thereby, aCiCording to this 
 view, permanently divesting itself in 
 a very large measure of its authority, 
 and so establishing In tlie province 
 an educational system which, no mat- 
 ter whJit changes may take place in 
 the circumstances of the country or 
 the views of the people, cannot be al- 
 tered nrr re(pealed.'' 
 
 This sentence!. In so, far as It has 
 ftti intelligible meaning, Is a most 
 pregtuint one. It obviously inenaces 
 the Manitolxi legislature with the 
 jiosslble permanetit loss of its jurisdic- 
 tion, in event of tion-compliance with 
 the terms of the order. "The coin- 
 nilttee," liowever, with considerable 
 lack of (iMt iiteaieKH, evidently over- 
 looked the fact that if the Manitoba 
 legislature should coini)ly with the 
 demands of the order, Its compliance 
 would huvn precisely the same effect 
 
 in deipriving it of Its jurisdiction, as 
 would its refusal to comply. The 
 committee, apparently, had forgotten 
 for the mome;nt the efieicb of the pro- 
 visions of the "anomalous" sub-sec- 
 tions 2 and .3 of section 22, of the 
 Manitoba Act. 
 
 Manitoba prefers to take its chances 
 of preserving its jurisiaction by refus- 
 ing rather than by complying. 
 
 The committee evidently fancy, or 
 wish to make the Manitoba legisla- 
 ture believe, that if the legislaiture 
 compiled with the order, and thereby 
 retained its jurisdiction, it >voul(l, 
 «4omehow or other, l>e able, at some 
 future time, to legislate In such a 
 way as to meet the requirements 
 which might be created by a change 
 "in the circumstances of the country 
 or the viewkS of the people." t^uch 
 changes have already taken place, 
 and the legislature re'pealec^ the laws 
 which had become unsuitable because 
 of these changes, and enacted new 
 ones to suit the changed circuinstan- 
 ces and views. But the Committee 
 declares that the laws which the It- 
 gislature has repealed, pr.ictically 
 "cannot be altered or rep.'aled," and 
 that the laws which It enacted are 
 inoperative. What jurisdiction, in 
 
 these circumstances, can the 1 gl la- 
 ture imperil, by refusing to comply, 
 or what can It 8:ive by complying ? 
 
 If any private or commercial com- 
 mittee had Issued a manifesto con- 
 taining any such lnconFe(iuent argu- 
 ment or statement, as that which we 
 are now considering, It is probable 
 that It would be branded as non- 
 sense. 
 
 Then the Committee should have ex- 
 plained why the refus.il of Manltol>a 
 to comply with the order should 
 "compel parliament to give the re- 
 lief, etc." Where is the compulso- 
 ry factor? Surely not the refusal of 
 :Maidtoba to legislate at the hehest 
 of the Ottawa government f Is this 
 phrase an involuntary and uninten- 
 tional expression of the government's 
 belief that it has such control over 
 parliament, that, If It submits legis- 
 lation, that legislation will be passed 
 not on its merits, but because It 
 subndts It ? Or is the Commlttt\e 
 making a delicate allusion to the 
 compulsory influence of the "solid 
 vote' to which we have elsewhere re- 
 ferred ? It Is very certain that the 
 .:ndu,nient of the Judicial Committee 
 do 's not, and could not, compel the 
 Can,;di;in parllameut to deprive the 
 legislature of Manitoba of Its power 
 to legislate In regard to education. 
 ulthiii the limits of the constitution. 
 And It Is e(iually clear th.at there Is 
 nothlnjj In the educational legisla- 
 
 / 
 
 t 
 
4f) 
 
 (- 
 
 tioii which Manitoba has enacted 
 which would compel the Canadian 
 ])arll,iine;it, from considerations of 
 justice and of sound policy, to annul 
 Ihat lep,i>latio;i .-Mid dc'iJi-ivc the prov- 
 ince of the power to legislatf on the 
 subject of education. 
 
 As for the people of Manitoba, they 
 have made up tlieir minds. They re- 
 cogidze the factor.s in the situation 
 which operate as a menace to their 
 constitutional rights. But they will 
 not compromise. This, not because of 
 any bitterness or obstinacy, but sim- 
 ply because there is nothing? to com- 
 promise. If the fundamental doc- 
 trines, religious and political, on 
 which tlie Roman Catholic claims are 
 based, are sound, tlien the Roman 
 Catholics are entitled to all they ask, 
 and Manitoba does not desire to 
 -«"ithhold any portion of it. But if 
 these claims are not well grounded, 
 tlien the Roman Catholics have al- 
 ready all that they are entitled to, 
 that is, all the rights and privileges 
 enjoyed by an other sections of the 
 community. Tlie people of Manitoba 
 are in thorotigh agreement with His 
 Grace of St. Boniface as to the Im- 
 possibi.lty oi compromise. They have 
 listened w'th patience and with very 
 little in the Avay of retort, to the fre- 
 quent and occasionally violently ex- 
 pressed chaiges of bigotry, fanati- 
 cism and intolerance. Their resent- 
 ment at the entire groundlessness of 
 these chargf s, and at the distortion 
 and misrepresentation Avitli which 
 they li". re been usually accompanied, 
 ha/S been tempered very large- 
 ly by amusement, when they 
 contemplated the source of these 
 charges, and considered the incon- 
 gruity involved in the emanation of 
 such charges from such a source. 
 There is in Manitoba but little of 
 that rancour which is engendered by 
 difference of religious views. There 
 is proi)ably no community anywhere 
 to-day, in which sectarian animosity 
 Is so conspicuous by its absence. This 
 (luestion is not with the people of 
 Manitoba, one of the relaj.ive super- 
 iority or Inferiority, of the various 
 forms of religious belief. It is a 
 question of the soundness or unsound- 
 ness of the doctrine that tlie recog- 
 nition by the state, of any denom- 
 
 inational dogmas is inconsistent with 
 the principles on which our form of 
 government rests. It is a question 
 also of the admission of the principle 
 that a legislature \L\ay be prohibited 
 from repealing its own acts— a ques- 
 tion obviously of the most far-reach- 
 ing importance. 
 
 The people of Manitoba are not 
 in tids matter acting in any spirit 
 of bravado. They are keenly alive 
 to the fact that their interests are 
 In the liands of the Canadian Parlia- 
 ment, and that the power of this par- 
 liament is great. But because they 
 know that l)y reason of tlie greatness 
 of that power, and of their own nu- 
 merical weakness, they may be sup- 
 pressed or coerced, it does not follow 
 that they will recede from their posi- 
 tion, In order that the coercion may 
 be made less complete or less humil- 
 iating. 
 
 If, in face of all the facts which have 
 been here presented and all the con- 
 siderations Avhlch have been stated, 
 the Dondnion Parliament will deprive 
 the province of Manitoba of constit- 
 tutional autonomous rlgiits, the crime 
 against constitutional government 
 must he consummated without either 
 the compli"i'.y or consent of Manitoba. 
 It will he no party to the outrage, 
 even if its conidvance should have 
 the effect of making its punishment a 
 little less .severe. 
 
 But Manitoba is hopeful that, when 
 the Donunion parliament is hrought 
 face to face with the grave responsi- 
 bility of depriving the prov- 
 ince of its constitutional powers, the 
 sense of duty and patriot- 
 ism of its memliers will en- 
 able them to rise superior to more 
 considerations of party, and to deal 
 witli this matter with the care and 
 conscientiousness which the vital im- 
 portance of the issues involved de- 
 mands. Tlie legislation of Manitoba 
 should be left as it is, and the "anom- 
 alous" sub-sections 2 and ."{ of section 
 L'2 of the Manitoba Act should be 
 wiped off the statute book. All rights 
 and privileges which any section of 
 the community ought to possess, are 
 fullj' gu.irded by the first sub-section, 
 and they are fully respected in Mani- 
 toba's school legislation.