8 
 
 r^ 
 
 CO 
 
Is Manitoba Right ? 
 
 A QUESTION OF ETHICS, POLITICS 
 FACTS AND LAW. 
 
 A Complete Historical and Contro- 
 versial Review of the Manitoba 
 School Question. 
 
 BY A. B. BETH UN E 
 
 Me INTYRE BROS., PRINTERS, WINNIPEG. 
 

PREFACE 
 
 
 Up till the time at which the first portion of this review was pub- 
 lished (about a year ago), no comprehensive or connected presentation of 
 this important question, .from .tha Manitoba standpoint, had been C 4 made. 
 The only statements- of the case professing to be exhaustive, which had 
 then appeared, were ex parte assertions and arguments made on behalf of 
 the so-called " minority," and which, to the mind of the writer, appeared 
 and still appear, inaccurate and misleading. It was with a view of contro- 
 verting the contentions of- the> writers of the publications referred to, and 
 of correcting any misapprehensions -which -might have been created by the 
 inaccurate or distorted statements of- fact which they contained, that the 
 first -part- of this work was written. -Since the time of its publication, 
 much controversy has been waged on the subject of Manitoba's schools. 
 The parliamentary discussion called forth by the effort of the Dominion 
 Government to procure the enactment of remedial legislation, has disclosed 
 the grounds and the arguments on which the government endeavors to 
 justify its course on this question., . These . grounds are examined, and the 
 arguments analyzed,. in the, second portion of this review. An effort has 
 been made .by the. writer .to. give a. full,, lucid .and connected statement of 
 the question in controversy, while at the same time avoiding the citation of 
 needless statistical matter or the .quotation .of irrelevant portions of legal 
 or other documents. If the writer shall succeed in conveying a more 
 accurate knowledge of the facts of the question, and a clearer apprehension 
 of the nature and importance of the issues involved, he will feel amply 
 repaid. 
 
 ALEX. B. BETHUNE. 
 
 Winnipeg, May 18, 1896. 
 
 M224385 
 
INDBX 
 
 FIRST PART. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Necessity for Public Education ] 
 
 Origin of Separate Schools. , 17 
 
 The Legal and Constitutional Questions . . k . 39 
 
 ' 
 
 SECOND PART. 
 
 Progress and Incidents of the Controversy. . 52 
 
 The Controversy in Parliament 02 
 
 The Question before the People . , 86 
 
 Conclusion , . .. 92 
 
 , 
 
 - '""^* 
 
 REFERENCES. 
 
 . PACE. 
 
 List of Rights No. 1 20 
 
 u No. 3 25 
 
 M No. 4. . . 25 
 
 British North America Act, Section 93 31 
 
 Manitoba Act, Section 22 . . 31 
 
 ' : 
 
 , 
 
 i 
 
Is MANITOBA RIGHT? 
 
 A Question in. Ethics, Politics, Facts and Law. 
 
 Necessity for Education in Self -Governing 
 Communities. 
 
 In a state in which the form of government is autocratic, as in Russia 
 at the present time, or aristocratic, as it was in England up till the 
 beginning of the present century, the safety of the form of government 
 does not demand a high average intelligence on the part of the masses. 
 Indeed in such cases the existing form of government is more easily 
 preserved, and the hold on power is much better secured to the autocrat 
 or the ruling class by the existence of a low average of intelligence in the 
 masses. In such states government is maintained and the laws of the 
 country are framed largely with a view to protecting or increasing the 
 privileges and power of the persons and classes who control the govern- 
 ment. 
 
 The function of the masses in countries governed in this way is to 
 supply by their toil the material resources from which all the power and 
 splendors of the rulers must be drawn, and to furnish by their arms and 
 their blood the military strength necessary to realize the schemes of 
 conquest and aggrandizement which those rulers may conceive, or to defend 
 these rulers in their privileges and possessions from the attacks of foreign 
 and 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 incidental. All 
 history shows that religious creeds and dogmas have been a powerful 
 instrument in the hands of rulers and privileged classes, in assisting them 
 to maintain their domination. It has' always been, and is at the present 
 time, easy to persuade, by the manipulation of religious sanctions, men 
 whose intellectual faculty 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 communities where the intelligence of the common people is low, 
 we have always autocratic or aristocratic government, and almost as 
 invariably 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 produc- 
 ed a constant spread of intelligence amongst the masses, notwithstanding 
 the hostility, more or less pronounced, of classes or individuals who have 
 been accustomed to regard 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 voice in 
 the government. In these communities, where the people as a whole, are 
 the most enlightened, the government is most democratic in form. 
 Democracy is the inevitable outcome of enlightenment on the part of 
 the people. It is a fact that no perfect democracy exists at present, 
 or ever has existed. But this is simply because the highest degree of 
 average intelligence which has ever been attained by any community has 
 been very far short of what may be and will be attained. On the other 
 hand there is hardly any nation in Christendom to-day, no matter how 
 autocratic in form its government may be, in which the people have not 
 some, and an increasing share in the control of public affairs. As demo- 
 cratic government presupposes a certain degree of intelligence on the part 
 of the whole people, it is obvious that, in order to maintain or increase its 
 success, careful provision must be made for the education of the people. 
 This necessity is so self-evident that it has been recognized in practice 
 by all the more enlightened and progressive peoples. Experience has 
 shown that the safety of a democratic state demands that it shall take 
 measures to insure to all its citizens at least the elements of a liberal 
 education. This can be efficient^ accomplished only by the establishment 
 of a system of education under the direct supervision or control of the 
 state. A little reflection will show the enormously increased efficiency in 
 the education of a people which may be secured when the arrangements 
 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 
 communities has been admitted even by those who, it is to be suspected, 
 on grounds of interest and inclination, would refuse to make the admission 
 but for the fact that the soundness of the proposition is self-evident. 
 Those individuals, or corporations, or classes, who enjoy exclusive 
 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 thought, or the exercise of independent judgment 
 by the mass. The modern movement in the direction of public education 
 under the supervision of the state, has been opposed and obstructed by 
 various interests and for various ostensible reasons. But in all countries 
 in which state superintended education has been introduced, the obstruct- 
 ion and resistance which have been found to be the most strenuous and 
 most formidable, have emanated from, and been inspired by, the ecclesias- 
 
tics of certain religious denominations, and of these the Church of Rome 
 has been, beyond all comparison, the most formidable, whether considered 
 from the point of view of the uncompromising attitude it assumes, or from 
 the solid homogeneousness of the body of citizens whose action it directs 
 and controls. It is unnecessary here to rehearse the reasons why in a self- 
 governing community, composed 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 
 denomination, it is impossible to permit of the teaching of any of the 
 distinctive denominational dogmas or doctrines in the public schools. 
 
 But the Roman Catholic Church declares that any system of 
 education, in which its distinctive 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 contentions of the Church of Rome are sound, and whether 
 they are supported by the facts of history or current 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 impossibility in a 
 community in which there are any Catholic citizens, if their contentions 
 are admitted. If Roman Catholics may claim exemption from the oper- 
 ation of any law of any state of which they are subjects or citizens, on the 
 ground that conformity on their part to the law would be incompatible 
 with certain conscientious convictions of theirs, may not the Jew, the 
 Quaker, or the Mormon claim with equal right a like exemption ? If the 
 soundness of the claim of the Roman Catholics is admitted, that of the 
 others cannot be reasonably denied. But if the general principle is 
 admitted, and all the sects should make the claim, it is clear that no 
 general system coul^ be instituted. It may be urged, as it has indeed 
 already been urged by implication, on behalf of the Roman Catholics, that 
 as a practical fact, the other sects do not make any such claims, and even 
 i they did, their claims would be based on mere "isolated or eccentric 
 opinion." The flimsiness of such an argument, however, is palpable, 
 because if conscience is admitted to be a reasonable basis of claim to 
 exemption, the number of any sect which may entertain the conscientious 
 objection to the law, obviously cannot be a factor in the case. 
 
 National Schools Specially required in Manitoba. 
 
 We have endeavored to make it clear why in a community in which 
 the people govern themselves, a system of state education is necessary. 
 Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy in name but is in fact a demo- 
 cracy and in some respects is the most advanced democracy that has ever 
 existed. The great autonomous colonies of Britain are also democracies. 
 In the mother land itself, where the population is mostly native to the soil 
 and speaking practically one language, state education has been found 
 imperative, and is making vast headway in face of the enormous aggres- 
 sive power and the great vis inertia of vested interests and traditional 
 custom. 
 
It* public education 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 population, and the great diversity of 
 intelligence and ideas which characterize its yet unassimilated elements. 
 Many of the foreign immigrants, apart from their ignorance, have had so 
 little opportunity in their previous experience, of acquiring any conception 
 of the rights, 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 offspring. 
 
 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 the province. The education provided for is entirely free from 
 sectarian religious teaching. The curriculum in the schools is under the 
 supervision of a department of education, which chooses the text books. 
 The schools are placed, for purposes of local administration, under boards 
 of trustees. It is optional with these trustees whether or not religious 
 exercises shall be performed in the schools. When it is deemed advisable 
 to introduce such exercises, their character is defined and their scope 
 clearly limited by the law. No scholar is obliged to participate in these 
 exercises, nor is he bound to make any declaration as to his reason for 
 non-participation. The exercises occupy an almost infinitesimal portion 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 encroached upon nor inter- 
 fered with. It is our view that even these exercises, short and neutral as 
 they undoubtedly are, should in the interest of absolute consistency, be 
 eliminated. It is contended that they have a great ethical value, and that 
 any doctrine involved is common to the religious creeds of the overwhelm- 
 ing majority, including Roman Catholics. There is the soundest reason 
 for doubting the ethical importance of the religious teaching given in the 
 schools at present, or at 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 positive objections 
 to the religious exercises as at present conducted, cannot certainly express 
 any approval of them. If these latter, however, claimed the use of the 
 schools for the instruction of their children in their own peculiar tenets, 
 it would manifestly be very difficult to accommodate them, and perhaps 
 even more difficult to furnish them with an adequate reason why they 
 should, if not accommodated, 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 
 positive dissatisfaction with, or objection to the present system, is the 
 Catholic Church. It does not object to the teaching on the score of 
 ineffiiciency in regard to secular training. As has already been stated, it 
 takes the arbitrary ground that any system of education which is not 
 under its control, in which its doctrines are not inculcated and in which 
 
its various claims and pretensions are not unquestioningly received, is 
 perilous to the eternal wellbeing of the scholar. 
 
 Let us see what the attitude of the Church of Rome involves and on 
 what it is founded. This church as we have already stated, contends that 
 it is the sole authorized interpreter of revealed truth to mankind. All 
 other forms of religious belief it asserts, are schisms or heresies, even 
 those in which the essential spiritual doctrines are identical with its own. 
 These other Christian bodies are branded as sects and heresies, because 
 they claim to have a knowledge of revealed truth obtained outside and 
 independently of the Church of Rome. The Pope, the head of the Church 
 of Rome, is asserted to be the Vicar of Christ and to hold his office as the 
 spiritual successor of St. Peter, by the direct authority of the Most-High, 
 He is ex cathedra an infallible arbiter in questions of faith and morals. 
 He claims to be, (indeed this claim is an inevitable corollary of the infalli- 
 bility doctrine,) above all princes and states. Although in these later 
 days the pretension to temporal supremacy has been only guardedly 
 asserted, it has never been withdrawn, and indeed it could not be with 
 any consistency, so long as the doctrine of papal infallibility is held. In 
 using the expression " temporal supremacy," we do not refer to the mere 
 political and civil government of the portion of Italy known as the Papal 
 States, but are using the expression in its widest sense. In a comparative- 
 ly recent encyclical the present Pope Leo XIII, declared that when the 
 obedience of the Catholic to the state is in conflict with his obedience to 
 the church, his first duty is to the church. How could it be otherwise ? 
 An infallible arbiter in faith and morals cannot restrict the application of 
 his decisions or injunctions to mere abstract philosophical or theological 
 problems. Faith and morals are interwoven with all the various practical 
 transactions, political, commercial and personal in which mankind are 
 engaged. There is no different kind or standard of morals for application 
 in the realms of theology from that which governs in the practical affairs 
 of men's lives. 
 
 If, then, the Pope is an infallible arbiter in faith and morals he ought 
 to wield a supreme authority 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 composing that majority have sufficient intelligence to rule them- 
 selves. This theory of government, however, is in direct conflict with the 
 pretensions and polity of the church of Rome, and is incompatible with 
 the doctrine of papal infallibility. If the claims and doctrines of the 
 Roman Catholic church are valid and sound, the principles of democratic 
 government are unsound. A loyal citizen of a democratic state can 
 acknowledge no other nor higher 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, in the last resort, be a loyal 
 citizen of a democracy. This is the conclusion which must be arrived at 
 by the application of the process of analytical reasoning to the claims and 
 doctrines of the church. And the accuracy of the deduction is demon- 
 strated by the history of the operation of the doctrines alluded to in ( 
 nearly every European State, 
 
History has shown that, in a state which contends for absolute free- 
 dom, the attitude and policy of the Catholic church have always been a 
 source of danger and apprehension. The history of England for several 
 centuries shows this in almost every page. The policy of the church of 
 Rome in England, as in every other European country, has been to throw 
 its influence into the scale in behalf of despots, or would-be despots, in 
 return for a promised acknowledgment of the church's pretensions 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 enfanchise- 
 ment of the masses, and of every movement calculated to improve the lot 
 of the proletariat. It is true that, within very recent years, it has been 
 the policy of the Pope and some of the leaders of the hierarchy to make 
 abstract and general protestations of sympathy with democracy, especially 
 in the United States. But in view of the claims and doctrines of the 
 church, such declarations may be accepted merely as an indication that the 
 hierarchy appreciates the growing power and the coming dominancy of 
 democracy. The idea of a Roman Catholic democracy is paradoxical. In 
 an autonomous republican community in which the large majority of the 
 people are Roman Catholic, the government is not a democracy. It is a 
 theocracy a government by the church, which is perhaps the most harras- 
 sing and unbearable sort of tyranny now known. Stagnation and unpro- 
 gressiveness, material and intellectual, or turbulence and revolution, or all 
 of them, are the distinctive characteristics of such communities. Quebec 
 and the South and Central American republics, ma^ be cited as illustra- 
 tions of the results of pseudo-democratic government with a church in 
 actual control. 
 
 The Church oi Rome and Tolerance. 
 
 It may be said that all these considerations might have weight in 
 other countries, and under different conditions, but that in this country 
 public intelligence is so high, the non-Cotholic majority so powerful, and 
 democratic institutions so firmly grounded, that there is not the slightest 
 danger of the church of Rome ever attempting to give practical enforce- 
 ment to the doctrines and pretensions alluded to. It may also be said 
 that any apprehension on this score evinces the spirit of the "Orange 
 bigot" or of the "zealot of the P. P. A." Just in this connection let it be 
 borne in mind that, while the leading spirits of the Catholic church (which 
 has ever had at the head of its administration men of great diplomatic 
 capacity) see the necessity for toning down and keeping in the back- 
 ground, those arbitrary dogmas and claims which are antagonistic to the 
 spirit of modern progress and popular government, not one of these claims 
 has been renounced or receded from. On the contrary, we see an un- 
 demonstrative, but incessant and uncompromising warfare, being carried on 
 by the church in the midst of the most enlightened and freest communi- 
 ties of to-day, against the institution which is the most essential to the 
 safety and continuance of government of the people by themselves. We 
 see also professing non-Catholics, under the plea of maudlin " tolerance," 
 and even in the name of " liberty," take up the advocacy and defenc eof 
 
the case of an organization whose doctrines and principles would render 
 tolerance on its part an inconsistent 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 Catholic church in 
 the United States, which are couched in conciliatory language, and are 
 calculated to produce the impression that these dignitaries are imbued 
 with the spirit of tolerance and of admiration for the principles of popular 
 government. 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 sus- 
 picion. Some of the minor clergy, however, are not so diplomatic, but are 
 more consistent. In an article in the Western W T atchrnan, a Roman 
 Catholic paper published in St. Louis, and edited by Father Phelan, the 
 following passage appeared recently : "We would draw and quarter Pro- 
 testantism ; we would impale it and hang it up for crows' nests ; we 
 would tear it with pinchers and bore it with hot irons ; we would fill it 
 with molten lead and sink it into hell-fire a hundred fathoms deep." 
 
 This chaste and peaceful passage is, as our readers may observe, redo- 
 lent of tolerance and calculated to promote that 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 following : 
 
 " No good government can exist without religion ; and there can be 
 no religion without an Inquisition, which is wisely designed for the pro- 
 motion and protection of the true faith." * 
 
 Now the reverend gentlemen who pen these morceaux, are doubtless 
 quite sincere, and are much more consistent than their superiors, but their 
 utterances could hardly be pronounced as exemplifying a high degree of 
 "tolerance." 
 
 No discrimination of any sort is attempted to be made against Catho- 
 lics in Manitoba by the legislation of 1890, but if such discrimination had 
 been attempted the province might have been able to give some color of 
 precedent and sanction for the attempt. By the constitution of Great 
 Britain a Roman Catholic cannot occupy the throne. Why this significant 
 discrimination ? History will show. The monarch of England must be a 
 Protestant, because he is the constitutional head of a state which asserts 
 its absolute supremacy in the control of its affairs. In view of the nature 
 of the pretensions of the church of Rome, it is recognized that no indivi- 
 dual who admits these pretensions, is fitted to loyally discharge the duties 
 of sovereign of such an empire as that of Great Britain. The history of the 
 Stuart dynasty in Scotland and England demonstrates the necessity for 
 such a provision in the British constitution. 
 
 * It is but fair to state that since this work was first published the editor of the "Pilot" has 
 denied that this originally appeared in that journal. The writer obtained the extract from an 
 article by a writer in a high class American review, who attributed its origin to the "Pilot." It 
 may be added that, although the writer of this accepts the statement of the Pilot editor, no ad- 
 mission of the inaccuracy has since appeared in the American review in question. 
 
Conscience not a Valid Plea for Exemption from Taxation. 
 
 It may be asked : what bearing has all this on the Manitoba school 
 question ? It has the most cogent bearing. For it is only on the assump- 
 tion of the soundness of these pretensions, that the hostility to the Manitoba 
 school legislation is attempted to be, or can be justified. This legislation is 
 admitted to be admirably adapted, in a social and economic sense, to the 
 conditions existing in the province. But considerations of economy or 
 of national progress or unity, count for nothing when the interests of the 
 Church are involved. In effect the Church simply says : "Neither our 
 authority nor our claims are recognized in this system of education ; 
 therefore we oppose it. We enjoin our communicants against counten- 
 ancing it, and as the church is the rule of conscience for Catholics 
 their objection is therefore a conscientious one. It is true that if you admit 
 the principle that the plea of conscience is a valid one, in support of a 
 claim for special privileges or exemptions, your system will become 
 impracticable. But that is no concern of ours. The dictum of the church 
 is the law of conscience for Roman Catholics and that is all there is about 
 it." Now let us carefully avoid being misled by the specious argument of 
 conscience. The mere fact that a man has a conscientious objection to any 
 law which the people deem advisable to enact in the common interest, 
 cannot, manifestly, be accepted as a valid reason for his exemption from 
 the operation of that law. What is the authority which is to determine 
 when a conscientious scruple becomes a mere fad or whim ? 
 
 We are informed on credible authority, that the Plymouth Brethren, 
 a religious sect who hold most of the essential tenets common to all 
 Christian denominations, do not believe in the payment of taxes at all, and 
 pay only because they must. These people, it is alleged, believe that the 
 total abolition of government, the reign of anarchy, would hasten the 
 advent of the millenium. They reason, we presume, that as it is very 
 wrong to do anything to postpone the millenium, the payment of taxes by 
 which governments are sustained, is sinful. The Plymouth Brethren are, 
 in their personal live* and conduct, a very moral and right-living people. 
 Their views on the question of taxation are, presumably, entirely consci- 
 entious. But so long as the majority still cling to mundane notions as 
 to the necessity of some sort of order, pending the arrival of the 
 millenium, it is probable that the Brethren will continue to pay taxes. 
 
 With special reference to the case of education in Manitoba, it may be 
 said, in short, that if conscience be admitted as constituting a full and 
 satisfactory ground for exemption from taxation for the support of the 
 schools, a provincial system of education would be an impossibility. The 
 necessary theory of monarchical government is that "the king can do no 
 wrong." For the purposes of a democratic state, that might be translated 
 "the will of the majority is always right. ' In the latter case the theory is 
 much more in accord with the practical results than in the former, 
 
The 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 realized. In Quebec we observe enormous 
 loss to the people through corrupt and incapable government, which, there 
 is too much reason to believe, is the indirect outcome of the church's 
 influence and policy. The landscape in that province is characterized by 
 the contrast of the frequent and stately ecclesiastical edifice, with the 
 mean and humble cot of the simple habitcm, out of whose toil and 
 sweat the grand and costly piles have been reared. Lavaleye, the cele- 
 brated Belgian economist, is quoted in a pamphlet recently published by 
 Dalton McCarthy, as follows : "Steady progress is very difficult in Catholic 
 countries, because the church aims at establishing her dominion 
 throughout, and the living energies of the people are almost exclusively 
 employed in repelling the pretensions of the clergy." While Lavaleye's 
 remarks had more especial reference to France and Belgium, it must strike 
 the reader with what aptness they fit the case of Canada. A mere 
 catalogue of the political disputes and troubles directly due to the 
 aggressive political action of the Catholic Church in Canada would till a 
 newspaper Column. Indirectly the policy of the church affects all Canad- 
 ian legislation. Nothing can be done if Rome obstructs. And she 
 obstructs often and effectively. What have been the so-called "politics" of 
 Quebec ? An unsavory mess of intrigue, corruption and extravagance. 
 What is the result of this nauseating network of intrigue and corruption ? 
 Whilst the average condition of the patient, frugal, and industrious 
 peasantry of Quebec is one not much removed from penury, the public 
 treasury is in a condition verging upon bankruptcy, due to the almost 
 incredible carnival of waste and dishonesty in which some of the political 
 proteges of the church have revelled, and of which extravagance the 
 church, in at least one instance, was a large beneficiary. But it is a 
 notorious fact that, whilst the province and citizens of Quebec are in a 
 condition of chronic poverty, the Roman Catholic church in that province 
 is, so to speak, rolling in wealth. What renders this state of matters 
 possible ? Simply a low degree of intelligence on the part of the masses, 
 whose toil must always and unfailingly pay for these extravagances, 
 robberies and accumulations. 
 
 Are the Church's Claims Justified by its Works? 
 
 It would be expected that a corporation which professes to be the 
 only authorized medium for the transmission of the truth of revelation to 
 mankind, and claims the right to control and direct education, would show 
 an excellence in the result of its work which would render comparison 
 with that of unauthorized bodies ludicrous. W 7 hat is the function of a 
 church ? Is the church an end in itself, or is it properly only the means 
 to an end ? If the latter, what is the end or object which churches exist 
 to attain ? Is it the inculcation of creed or dogma ? Manifestly not. 
 Creeds and dogmas are themselves only tools for the attainment of the 
 
10 
 
 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 Christian religions, 
 agree that the highest attribute of God, in whose image man is made, is 
 the perfection 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 development of those powers of reason and intelligence of which he 
 alone, amongst all terrestrial beings, 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 universe, whose 
 earthly head is endowed with the attributes of divinity, to the extent of 
 being infallible on questions of faith and morals, would naturally be 
 expected to show results in its efforts for the moral and spiritual regenera- 
 tion of mankind, beside which the performances of the heretical sects would 
 seem ridiculous. But what is the fact ? In every civilized country in 
 which the communicants of the Church of Rome form the mass of the 
 people, morals, material prosperity and intelligence are comparatively low. 
 In these countries the church has, or has had till within recent years, 
 practically absolute control of education. What is the result ? That the 
 percentage of illiteracy is very high, and (mark it well) the criminal 
 statistics of these countries show that crime and illiteracy are almost 
 invariably in an exact ratio. 
 
 Some Instructive Facts and Figures. 
 
 A very active advocate of the separate school system in Manitoba, 
 Mr. Ewart, in an endeavor to show that the Catholic church is in no way 
 opposed to education, quotes the following figures from the Encyclopedia 
 Britannica, accompanying the extract with a somewhat sardonic remark to 
 the effect that statistics are proverbially misleading : 
 
 CATHOLICS. PROTESTANTS. 1,000 In 
 
 Switzerland ................. 1,084,400 1,577,700 155 
 
 German Empire ............. 14,867,500 25 600,700 152 
 
 Luxembourg ................ 197,000 400 142 
 
 Norway .................... 350 1,704,800 138 
 
 Sweden .................... 600 4,203,800 138 
 
 Netherlands ................. 1,313,000 2,198,000 136 
 
 Denmark ..... . ............ 1,900 1,865,000 135 
 
 France ......... ............ 35,388,000 610,800 131 
 
 Belgium .................... 4,980,000 15,000 123 
 
 Austria ................... 27,904,300 3,571,000 100 
 
 Great Britain ............... 5,800,000 25,900,000 83 
 
 Spain ...................... 16,500,000 82 
 
 Italy ....................... 26,750,000 35,000 70 
 
 This table shows a good average of school attendance in such Catholic 
 countries as Spain and Italy, when compared with Great Britain. But the 
 figures, which would have been more to the point, are those showing the 
 
11 
 
 relative efficiency and illiteracy in these countries. Here are some figures 
 bearing on this point, taken from the same authority as Mr. Ewart's statis- 
 tics, and which, 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 16,000,000 there are only about 60,000 Protestants. 
 It will be seen from the table quoted above that the school attendance in 
 Spain per 1,000 persons is about the same as that of Great Britain. What 
 is the result ? In the same article from which Mr. Ewart's statistics are 
 taken it is stated that in Spain 72 per cent, could neither read nor write, 
 and in another portion of the same authority it is stated that, in 1877, 
 75.52 per cent, of the population could neither read nor write. 
 
 In the article from which Mr. Ewart obtained his statistics, the fol- 
 lowing passage occurs : " That the clergy do not readily acquiesce in the 
 changes that diminish their influence is excusable, but at the same time 
 their demands have occasioned the most lamentable obstruction to educa- 
 tion." The reason why Mr. Ewart did not quote this sentence may be 
 readily inferred, and it may suggest a very good ground for his conclusion 
 that statistics are unreliable. He seems to have introduced the above 
 table, not because it has any bearing on the question under discussion, but 
 simply with a desire, perhaps not unnatural, to distract attention from the 
 very suggestive fact that the separate school advocates have not a vestige 
 of historical or statistical fact to justify their contentions. 
 
 The same advocate, who is a professed Protestant, calls for the admis- 
 sion of the Catholic claims for special privileges, in the name of tolerance 
 and liberty. Now, we have endeavored to show that the friend of toler- 
 ance and liberty must, if he fully understands the basis of the Catholic 
 claims, oppose them, because they are founded on doctrines which recog- 
 nize neither tolerance nor liberty. It may be objected that this is a mere 
 philosophic argument, dependent entirely on theory or abstract deduction. 
 Let us see whether practical experience justifies the deductions. Again, 
 referring to the same authority, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and 
 still on the subject of education and religion in Spain, we find the follow- 
 ing : " By the constitution of 1876 non-Catholics are permitted to exercise 
 their own forms of worship, but they must do so in private, and without 
 making any public announcement 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 1876, even the private exercise of any religious exercise other 
 than that of the Church of Rome, 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 opposition on the part of the clergy, that even 
 the above measure of "liberty" was attained. Spain was the theatre of the 
 operations of the Inquisition, that admirable device for the propagation of 
 liberty and tolerance, which some tolerant person would like to see estab- 
 lished in America at the present time. 
 
 Let us now turn briefly to Italy, that land of ancient splendors, the 
 very footstool of the church, and possessing the most homogeneous Catho- 
 lic population of any state in the world. Mr. Ewart's authority regarding 
 the state of education in Itlay, says : "As late as the census of 1861 it 
 wa.s found that in a population of 21,777,331 there was no less than. 
 
12 
 
 16,999,701 (nearly 80 per cent) 'analphabetes' or persons absolutely desti- 
 tute of instruction, absolutely unable to read. * While 59 per 
 cent, of the men married in 1866 were obliged to make their mark, 78 per 
 cent, of the women were in the same case. In the Basilicata (an Italian 
 province with a population of over half a million) the illiterate class com- 
 prised 912 out of every 1,000 inhabitants." It is true that since the con- 
 solidation of the Italian states, matters educational have improved greatly 
 in Italy, although the educational condition of the people is still deplorably 
 backward. Mr. Ewart refers to this improvement as an evidence of the 
 friendliness and eagerness of the Catholic church for the intellectual im- 
 provement of the people. But, unhappily for the force of Mr. Ewart's 
 argument, he evidently does not know (otherwise he would presumably 
 have mentioned the fact) that the great movement for popular education 
 was begun and carried on in the teeth of the most bitter and uncompromis- 
 ing hostility of the church, by the anti-Clerical and United Italy party. 
 A recent article by Monsignor Satolli, the representative of the Pope in 
 America, in the North American Keview, shows that while the church in 
 Italy has been whipped into competitive effort by the energetic action of 
 the civil power, it still regards the state education with an undisguised 
 repulsion, which, in view of the results of its own centuries of fruitless 
 control, seems positively fatuous. 
 
 Whilst we see the unsatisfactory educational or intellectual condition 
 of the masses in these countries whose interests in that regard have been 
 almost wholly under the control, or at the mercy of the Church of Rome, 
 what do we find when we look into the ethical results of its supremacy ? 
 In Spain and Italy, crime is prevalent, particularly crimes of violence. 
 According to a recent writer on this subject, there are, for every murder 
 committed in England, forty in Spain and two hundred in Italy. The 
 habits of the lower orders are semi-barbarous. The bull fight and ven- 
 detta are national institutions, and in Italy, up till the most recent years, 
 the profession of brigand had attained a respectability which drew to its 
 ranks not a few of the old nobility, who did honor to their ancient lineage 
 alike by the daring and thorough going character of their rascality, and by 
 their devout attention to their religious observances between atrocities. 
 The material condition of these nations corresponds with their educational 
 and moral condition. Each of these nations has been, in turn, the most 
 opulent and formidable power of the earth. To-day, Spain has gone hope- 
 lessly to the rear, and Italy owes its recent partial recovery of political 
 status to the fact that it has thrown off both the civil and intellectual 
 domination of the Church of Rome. Favored by nature with rich soils 
 and good climates, the peasantry and the proletariart of these countries 
 live in a condition of extreme, and, in some cases and localities, incredible 
 poverty ; their taxation is grindingly onerous, while their national revenues 
 are strained by the burden of heavy debts. 
 
 Thus we see three classes of phenomena which are, as a rule, found in 
 combination. Where we have a low average standard of education and 
 intelligence, we find a low degree of morality, and a low material con- 
 dition. The simultaneous existence of these three conditions is not mere 
 coincidence. The two last are the corollary and result of the first. 
 
13 
 
 Now, we have seen from the statistics that in these Catholic countries, 
 the average of school attendance has been fairly high. The very high 
 illiteracy cannot be due to want of opportunity for instruction. The 
 reasonable inference then is that it is the kind of instruction which is 
 at fault. Possibly, it might be said, so much effort is directed to moral 
 development, that the intellectual is neglected. This however, is not a 
 feasible explanation, because the moral nature can only be developed 
 through, and co-ordinately with the intellectual faculties. But again, we 
 do net need to rely on a merely theoretical explanation. We have 
 concrete facts. We know that the morality 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 
 instruction is neither calculated to improve the mind nor the moral nature. 
 The teaching imparted, it is to be inferred, is principally of that kind 
 which is called, or rather miscalled, "religious." It is composed largely of 
 dogmas and formulas and injunctions, calculated to imbue the learner with 
 the importance of the church, as an entity apart from all other considera- 
 tions or ends. The ethical objects, for which solely the church exists, or 
 ought to exist, are lost sight of. Mundane and political considerations 
 obscure the true object. The interest of the church, as a wealthy and 
 powerful corporation, becomes of more importance than the object for 
 which it was originally organized. The means becomes the end. Religion, 
 under such instruction, becomes an idolatry. It Decomes a worship of the 
 church, instead of the worship of God. 
 
 In those European and American countries where the majority of the 
 population is largely non-Catholic the education of the Catholic portion, 
 while always inferior to the Protestant, is still incomparably higher than 
 is the education in those countries where the population is almost exclu- 
 sively Catholic. The proximity and the example of Protestant vigor, and 
 intelligence, anc 1 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 population, it will be found that the former is 
 on the average much inferior to the latter, both intellectually and morally. 
 Take the case of Canada. The writer has not been able to learn of the 
 existence of any statistics showing the proportion of illiteracy, to religious 
 beliefs. But a reference to the official criminal statistics of the Dominion 
 for 1892 shows that all the principal religious denominations are represent- 
 ed amongst the criminals as follows : (The figures in regard to population 
 were obtained from the Dominion census reports of 1891.) 
 
 Population 1891. Percentage of 
 
 criminals 1892. 
 
 Roman Catholics 1,992,017 48.8 
 
 Methodists 847765 9.8 
 
 Presbyterians 755,326 7.1 
 
 Church of England 646,059 18.3 
 
 Baptist 303,839 2.6 
 
 An analysis of the figures in this table shows that the Roman Catholic 
 population of the Dominion furnishes 70 per cent more criminals than an 
 equal number of all the Protestant population. But analysis will also 
 
14 
 
 show the striking fact, that the proportion of criminals acknowledging 
 allegiance to the Church of England, is even greater than that of the 
 Roman Catholic Church. Several reasons might be given in explanation 
 of this remarkable fact. In the first place there is very large immigration 
 from England, of a very poor class, who are under special temptations 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 agencies with a view to reformation or reclamation, 
 which desirable ends ; it is to be feared, in many cases are not achieved. 
 But as we are citing the statistics we must abide by their showing, regard- 
 less 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 fully two and one-half times as great as the 
 Presbyterian, and nearly three times as large as the Baptist percentage. 
 The only admissible 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 monopoly of the authority to convey the will of God to man. It 
 also contends that its relationship with the Deity is so intimate that its 
 visible head is actually endowed with one of the essential attributes of 
 divinity. How incompatible are these pretensions with the results 
 achieved by the supervision of the church over the moral and educational 
 welfare of its proteges ! Judgment by results is the only sure test. " By 
 their fruits ye shall know them," is the dictum of an authority which even 
 the church will not refuse to recognize. 
 
 Much statistical matter has been adduced, and much more might still 
 be furnished, to show that the Roman Catholic church has failed to justify 
 its pretensions by its performances. The position of this church has been 
 especially dealt with not because of the existence of animus towards it as 
 an exponent of revealed or speculative spiritual doctrines, but because its 
 polity, which impels it to constantly interject itself 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 question." 
 
 It is far from being the intention of the writer to suggest that the 
 essential spiritual doctrines of the Roman Catholic church are wrong. It 
 is merely intended to show that the claims to exclusive authority, and the 
 consequent claims to exclusive privileges, have no basis, in so far as the 
 validity of these claims may be determined by the actual results of the 
 work of the Church. 
 
 Education in Secular Subjects a Moral Agent. 
 
 The denominations whose members and adherents behave themselves 
 best, are those which place little or no stress on the necessity of teaching of 
 religion in the schools. It is true that considerable sections of the clergy in 
 the Methodist and Presbyterian bodies believe in the necessity of religious 
 sanctions along with secular teaching for the development of moral 
 growth. But the difference between their position and that of the 
 ecclesiastics of the churches claiming exclusive "authority" is a great and 
 
15 
 
 essential one. The former contend that common Christian truth should 
 be taught, the latter that their distinctive doctrines are necessary. In 
 Scotland and Protestant Canada the illiteracy is comparatively small ; so 
 is the percentage of crime ; so is the proportion of religious teaching to 
 secular. In Italy and Spain and Mexico illiteracy is deplorably prevalent; 
 the percentage of crime is large, and dogma and formula have been taught 
 in the clerical schools to the almost entire exclusion of instruction which 
 would inform the mind and develop the judgment. What is the 
 inevitable conclusion from these facts ? Simply that the acquisition of 
 knowledge and the development of the intellectual faculties tend of 
 themselves to awaken and develop the moral nature. As a matter of 
 fact, true or high morality cannot co-exist with low intelligence. 
 
 In the Canadian parliamentary records of the statistics of crime for 
 1892, to which reference has already been made, the following table 
 appears : 
 
 Percentage of 
 Criminals. 
 
 Unable to read and write 20.3 
 
 Elementary 743 
 
 Superior 2.2 
 
 Not given . . 3.2 
 
 O 
 
 Now this table clearly shows that crime is largely the product of 
 ignorance. Persons unable to read and write form 20 per cent of the 
 criminal class, whereas a'll persons unable to read and write, who are of an 
 age 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 "elementary" education if he can read and write. It is 
 to be inferred, from the nature of the other figures in the table, that the 
 great bulk of the 74 per cent of persons having an elementary education, 
 were able to read and write, and beyond that were practically uninstruct- 
 ed. It is true that 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 synonymous 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 which has not yet been demonstrated. 
 
 This is not said with any idea of detracting from the value of 
 doctrines which enforce sound moral precepts, but in order to suggest that 
 a system of education in which neither doctrines nor creeds are taught is 
 not necessarily immoral and "godless." The most moral elements of the 
 people of Canada are the most intelligent, and they have been trained in 
 secular knowledge, in schools in which the "religious instruction" has been 
 almost infinitesimal in quantity, and has been confined to those general 
 subjects calculated to directly inculcate moral principles, rather than to 
 instil an appreciation of distinctiveness of creed. Is it straining the 
 credulity to ask one to believe that if these infinitesimal and perfunctory 
 exercises were entirely omitted, the present generation of scholars would 
 
16 
 
 not in their time be at least as moral as the present generation of adults ? 
 France and the Australasian colony of Victoria are cited as "frightful 
 examples" of the result of "godless" education. But, with all due respect 
 to the sincerity of the worthy men who think they see their conclusions 
 justified by the conditions in these communities, it must be asserted that 
 absolutely no evidence has yet been furnished which could be accepted as 
 proving that the unsatisfactory moral conditions which are said to exist in 
 these countries has any traceable connection with the secular educational 
 systems. 
 
 Enough has probably been said, to make a reasonably good case for 
 contention that schools in which articles of denominational creed are omit- 
 ted, are not "godless schools," and that, conversely, there is no especially 
 "godly" or desirable result to be attained by such instruction in the 
 schools. 
 
 In the face of the comparative results of so called "religious instruc- 
 tion" and of education which is practically secular, it seems almost incredi- 
 ble that honest and intelligent men who are satisfied with the present 
 system, can hold up their hands in horror when they contemplate the dire 
 results which they picture in their minds, would ensue from the abolition 
 of the present meagre and prefunctory religious exercises. It is true that 
 no system of education which really aims at the development of the indivi- 
 dual and the progress of the people is worthy of the name, if it fails to 
 ensure the awakening and development of the moral nature. Indeed, not 
 enough attention is given to this aspect of the educational problem in even 
 the most efficient educational systems of to-day. But in order to secure 
 progress in this direction it would be paradoxical to revert to methods 
 whose inefficacy has been amply demonstrated. The results produced by 
 the separate schools in Manitoba, prior to the act of 1890, were simply de- 
 plorable. When we consider that the adult native Roman Catholic popu- 
 lation of this province to-day is in a condition of pitiable and almost prim- 
 eval ignorance, when we are shown that the examination papers for a 
 person attempting 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 questions on trivial points of 
 deportment in addressing the clergy ; when we find grown men who are 
 so innocent of the necessary facts of civilized life, that they are ignorant 
 of the very names of the calendar months, and measure time by the fete 
 days of the saints (this is no hypothetical illustration) ; when we find such 
 results of .the prevalence of separate schools, controlled by the Roman 
 Catholic 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 Manitoba legislature was not amply justified, 
 if on no other ground than that of consideration for the Roman Catholic 
 children themselves, in ending this futile and pernicious system. 
 
Origin of Separate Schools irv Manitoba. 
 
 In the preceding pages we have dealt with the general ethical and 
 political questions involved in, and suggested by, the position of the Rom- 
 an Catholic church in this controversy. Trusting that we have succeeded 
 in furnishing the reader with a standpoint from which he will be able to 
 take a broad and comprehensive view of the case, and of the issues involv- 
 ed, 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 
 province of Canada. The Imperial sanction of Confederation, and the 
 recognition 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 
 negotiations carried on, of the arrangements 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 prov- 
 incial legislatures. Certain subjects of legislation are specifically named as 
 being within 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 powe*r not specifically 
 conferred upon local legislatures, is reserved to the Dominion. In this im- 
 portant respect the constitution of Canada differs from that of the United 
 States, which reserves to the states all legislative power not expressly con- 
 ferred on the federal authority. It is, to some extent, because of the limi- 
 tation of the local authority in the Canadian constitution, that the Mani- 
 toba legislation of 1890 has become a "question." 
 
 One of the subjects, declared by the British North America Act to be 
 exclusively within the power of the provincial authorities, is that of 
 education. This power is, however, given subject to restrictions. The 
 authority and its limitations are defined in section 93 of the British North 
 America Act. As this section, and its sub-sections, are the only portions 
 of that act having any immediate bearing on our subject, it will be quoted 
 in full further on in this paper. 
 
 Red River Just Before the Union. 
 
 When the federation of those older provinces was consummated, the 
 vast territory, of which the present province of Manitoba formed a portion, 
 was for the most part practically 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 nationalities. These, with the Indian tribes, practically corn- 
 
18 
 
 posed the population. Civilization was represented by the Hudson Bay 
 Company's officers, a few clergy of the Koman Catholic, Presbyterian and 
 Anglican denominations, and a handful of merchants and agricultural 
 settlers. 
 
 The territory was, of course, under the sovereignty of Great Britain, 
 but the only government which the country knew or needed (under the 
 then existing circumstances) was administered by the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany'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 
 understood in Canada, and because of the existence of this wealth, and for 
 other reasons of a political nature, it was deemed desirable to embrace the 
 great region in the Canadian confederation. An arrangement had been 
 made by the Canadian government, with the Hudson's Bay Company by 
 which the former was to pay the latter 300,000 as compensation for the 
 surrender of part of its lands and its magisterial jurisdiction. 
 
 The Settlers had Real Grievances. 
 
 It would seem that the Canadian government, having thus arranged 
 with the Hudson's Bay Company had considered that the work of annex- 
 ing the territory was virtually completed. It had forgotten about the 
 inhabitants of the country and their rights ; or it had calculated that, 
 these inhabitants being so few in nnmber, and of such primitive habits and 
 understanding, they probably did not themselves realize that they had any 
 rights, and that, if the matter required any consideration at all, it could be 
 postponed to a more convenient season. The government had forgotten 
 that the actual inhabitants the resident population of a country have 
 rights which are paramount to all other claims. 
 
 The population in the settled portion of the territory consisted about 
 the end of 1869, of 12,000 souls. Of these 5,000 were French half-breeds, 
 5,000 English half-breeds, the remaining 2,000 being white persons. Many 
 of the latter were Canadians, and appear to have been markedly character- 
 ized by the speculative, adventurous, fortune-hunting spirit which is the 
 distinctive trait of the individuals comprising the advance guard of civil- 
 ization in a new country. He who has dwelt in a frontier land, in the 
 early phases of its development, knows that the pioneer speculator is not a 
 person whose personal progress or prosperity is likely to be retarded to 
 any appreciable degree, by his fastidious sense of honor, or by the search- 
 ing scrutiny to which he submits his own commercial acts. He is gener- 
 ally admitted, indeed, to acknowledge very little moral restraint in 
 transactions involving considerations of meum and tuum. His ideal may 
 be summed up in the vulgar expression " get there," and if in " getting 
 there," it should incidentally happen that some other person had to be 
 over-reached, the enterprise would probably be all the more attractive, and 
 success all the more enjoyed on that account. 
 
 It would appear that, in the case of this new territory, even the offi- 
 cials of the Canadian government, had conducted themselves in such a 
 manner as to inspire the simple-minded natives with a feeling of anything 
 but confidence and security. The land-grabbing spirit was rampant. And 
 
19 
 
 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 undisguisedly contemptu- 
 ous treatment of the natives, and their apparent inability to comprehend 
 the possibility of these inhabitants having any rights which they were 
 bound to respect, filled the minds of the natives with resentment and 
 apprehension. 
 
 The 10,000 half-breeds who constituted five-sixths of the entire 
 population were, as we have seen, about equally divided as to nationality. 
 Of the French half-breed, Mr. Begg, the historian of Manitoba and the 
 Northwest, says : "The French half breed, called also Metis, and formerly 
 Bois Brule, is an athletic, rather good-looking, lively, excitable, easy-going 
 being. Fond of a fast pony, fond of merry-making, free hearted, open- 
 handed, yet indolent and improvident, he is a marked feature of border 
 life." It is this wild and intractable, but still attractive, child of the 
 plains who, we are asked to believe, was so calculatingly solicitous to 
 secure the permanency of Roman Catholic separate schools. "As different 
 as is the patient roadster from the wild mustang, is the English-speaking 
 half-breed from the Metis." This is a description of the other half of the 
 native population by the same authority. 
 
 The Canadian government, before it had acquired any territorial 
 rights or jurisdiction, sent a party of surveyors into the country, with 
 instructions to subdivide the very lands which these natives owned by the 
 right of occupation, and of squatter sovereignty, if by no other. These 
 simple and inoffensive people saw the lands which they had been always 
 accustomed to regard as their property, on which most of them were born, 
 and on which stood their homes (such as they were), dealt with by the 
 strangers, as if their rights in them were so flimsy that the strangers need 
 take no account of them. As the work of surveying went on, these 
 natives saw the speculative adventurer, to whom allusion has already been 
 made, acquire possession of the most desirable lands by the following 
 simple process : "When a lot was chosen by an individual he proceeded to 
 cut a furrow round it with a plow, and then drive stakes with his name 
 marked upon them into the ground here and there. This was considered 
 sufficient to give the claimant a right to the land, and in this way 
 hundreds of acres were taken possession of for the purpose of speculation. 
 It seemed, as soon as there appeared a certainty that Hon. Wm. McDougall 
 was to be governor, that the men who professed to be his friends in the 
 Red River made it a point to secure as much of the country to themselves 
 as possible. It is notorious that the principle one in this movement, the 
 leader of the so called Canadian party, staked off sufficient land (had he 
 gained possession of it) to make him one of the largest landed proprietors 
 in the Dominion. Can it be wondered at if the people looked with dismay 
 at this wholesale usurpation of the soil ? Is it surprising if they foresaw 
 the predictions of the very men who 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 the sinister 
 
20 
 
 methods and transactions, which have characterized all dealings with lands 
 in the new territories, by Canadian governments. The distribution of 
 the nation's natural resources amongst speculators and partisan heelers has 
 been the cause of incalculable cost to the people of Canada. It led to the 
 armed resistance to their encroachments by the poor Metis in 1870, and it 
 was the main cause of the later uprising on the Saskatchewan in 1885. It 
 has also been the cause of great direct loss to the country, quite apart 
 from the vast indirect loss, moral and material, resulting from the fact 
 that considerable portions of the proceeds of these misappropriated 
 resources have been used to debauch and corrupt the electorate. It is to 
 be feared that the evil is far from being extinct. 
 
 The Beginning of the Troubles. 
 
 The chief of the surveying party, Colonel Dennis, communicated to 
 the government at Ottawa the probable results of perseverance in the 
 survey without an arrangement with the natives ; but to no purpose. 
 Under the peremptory instructions of the Canadian Government the 
 survey was continued till the resistance of the Metis rendered the work 
 unsafe, and indeed, impossible. 
 
 Who shall say that the action or the attitude of the Metis, in 
 resisting the usurpation of authority over them, and the confiscation of 
 their properties by a government which had no rights of either treaty or 
 conquest, was not justified ? When they found that the government was 
 being transferred from the Hudson's Bay Company to the Dominion of 
 Canada, without any consultation with them ; when they saw the 
 emissaries of the Canadian government, even before this transfer had been 
 consummated, parcelling out their lands and disdainfully ignoring their 
 existence, is it wonderful that, as Lord Wolseley (then Col. Wolseley) points 
 out, the impression should have obtained amongst these people, that they 
 "were being bought and sold like so many cattle." Lord Wolseley adds : 
 "With such a text the most common-place of democrats (he doubtless 
 meant demagogues) 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 been aroused by it." 
 
 They were aroused. They organized themselves for resistance to the 
 assumption of authority by the Canadian government, till proper terms 
 had been made with them. The French element, organized under Louis 
 Riel, elected twelve delegates, and invited the English natives to elect 
 other twelve. The invitation was responded to. The twenty-four 
 delegates met on November 16th, 1869, and adjourned because of their 
 inability to agree as to the proposal to constitute a provisional govern- 
 ment. On December 1st they re-assembled, and formulated the first Bill 
 of Rights, which is as follows : 
 
 List of Rights. 
 
 1. That the people have the right to elect their own legislature. 
 
 2. That the legislature have power to pass all laws local to the 
 territory over the veto of the executive by a two-thirds vote, 
 
21 
 
 3. That no act of the Dominion parliament (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 elected by the people. 
 
 5. A free homestead and pre-emption 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 guaranteed to connect Winnipeg by rail with the 
 nearest line of railroad within a term of five years ; the land grant to be 
 subject to the local legislature. 
 
 8. That for a term of four years all military, civil and municipal 
 expenses 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 
 legislature and courts; and all public documents and acts of the legislature 
 be published 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. 
 
 13. That we have a fair and full representation in the Canadian 
 parliament. 
 
 14. That all privileges, customes and usages existing at the time of 
 transfer be respected. 
 
 This is the first of the three Bills or Lists of Rights which were 
 admittedly 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 beyond the slight reference in clause 6. 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 understanding 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. Wm. McDougall, who had been appointed by the 
 Ottawa Government Lieutenant-Governor of the Territory, had been at 
 Pembina, on the boundary, since October 30th, preparing to make his 
 formal entry, as soon as the transfer should be consummated. The 
 proceedings of the inhabitants had rendered this impossible. 
 
 History of Bills of Rights. 
 
 Three commissioners were then sent by the Canadian Government to 
 endeavor to pacify the inhabitants, and effect a settlement. These were 
 Very Rev. Grand Vicar Thibault, Colonel De Salabery and Sir (then Mr.) 
 Donald A. Smith. These commissioners met the settlers in a mass meeting 
 on January 19th, 1870, The meeting, a very large one, was held in the 
 
open air, and so intense was the interest that, although the thermometer 
 registered 20 degrees below zero, it lasted over five hours. Mr. Smith's 
 commission was read and explained. The election of a council of forty 
 was decided upon "with the object of considering Mr. Smith's commission, 
 and to decide what would be best for the welfare of the country." Pursu- 
 ant to this decision the forty representatives were elected, twenty by the 
 French, and twenty by the English settlers. They assembled on January 
 26th, and elected Judge Black chairman. Sir Donald Smith, who seems to 
 have taken the most prominent part in all these transactions, delivered an 
 address at the opening. He also assisted in the discussion of the second 
 Bill of Rights, 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 points to be discussed in dealing with 
 Canada, had received much consideration in the meantime. Like the first 
 list, it contemplated the entry of the Northwest into the Canadian confed- 
 eration as a territory and not as a province. It made much more specific 
 financial stipulations than the first bill did, and took great pains to guard 
 the right of self government and the autonomy of the territorial legisla- 
 ture. 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 appropriated for schools, roads and bridges." 
 
 Sir Donald requested the Council to send delegates to confer with the 
 Dominion government at Ottawa, with a view to a proper understanding 
 by that government of the " 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 invitation, Rev. Father Ritchot, Judge 
 Black and Mr. Alfred H. Scott, were appointed delegates. The provisional 
 government, of which Riel was then head, and which had taken possession 
 of Fort Garry, was endorsed and continued 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 unwise 
 acts of the provisional government, and partly owing to the imperfect 
 nature of the means of communication and travel then in existence. A 
 number of the Canadians were taken as prisoners by Riel, whose conduct 
 on the whole seems not to have been immoderate, when his origin and 
 training are taken into account. He however lost control apparently both 
 of himself and his followers, 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 sentence 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 connection with our subject, 
 we shall leave him here. He seemed to have been a born agitator, not 
 altogether destitute of good qualities. His intellectual endowment and his 
 capacity for command have been extravagantly overestimated in some 
 quarters. Want of balance and stability 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 vanity im- 
 pelled him to assume, and led ultimately to his tragic end. He was 
 apparently devoid of executive capacity, does, not peern to have been over- 
 
courageous, and was in temperament of that peculiar combination, half- 
 ecstatic, half-charlatan, which so readily obtains influence over the minds 
 of a semi-civilized people. 
 
 The elections, which had been ordered by the Council of Forty, were 
 held on Feb. 26, 1870. The first meeting of the twenty-four members of 
 the new assembly was held on March 9. A resolution was adopted, declar- 
 ing the unaltered loyalty of the Northwest to the British crown. A con- 
 stitution was also adopted, and the provisional government confirmed and 
 declared to be the only " existing authority." 
 
 Delegates Leave for Ottawa. 
 
 According to the arrangements made by the Council of Forty, the 
 delegates 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 properly representative capacity till mat- 
 ters had 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, us we have 
 seen, Rev. Father Ritchot, Judge Black and Mr. A. H. Scott. Their in- 
 structions were embodied in the list of rights drawn up by the Council of 
 Forty, which was Bill of Rights No. 2. This list, however, was not taken 
 to Ottawa by the delegates. Much discussion having doubtless taken place 
 in the assembly, and the desires and the requirements of the settlers more 
 fully ascertained, the provisional government drew up a new Bill of Rights 
 which was given to the delegates, and which they took to Ottawa. 
 
 The delegates left Red River for Ottawa with the Bill of rights 
 entrusted 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 the identity of the Bill of Rights which was actually 
 committed to their care, which forms the very centre of the battleground 
 in what we have termed the historico-legal phase of the school question. 
 
 Before dealing with the very important question of the identity of 
 the genuine Bill of Rights, let us consider the nature and causes of the 
 occurrences which had taken place at Red River. Mr. Ewart, the legal 
 counsel of the Catholics, dwelt at great length on this early history. Now, 
 we could understand, for reasons which we shall presently explain, why 
 these events should be described and cited in support of the contention 
 that the Catholic party in this dispute is wrong, but it is impossible 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 Northwest was, 
 as we have seen, of a purely agrarian character. It arose, as we have also 
 seen,*and was maintained, solely on account of the manner in which the 
 Canadian officials and the Canadian adventurers were dealing with the 
 
24 
 
 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, after 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 actual legal 
 authority. Now, Mr. Ewart has gone to much trouble to show the arbit- 
 rary character of the bearing and actions of the Canadians, and has 
 expressed much well-merited indignation at their conduct. But we are at 
 a loss to understand why he has devoted 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 some 
 bearing upon, the claims of the Roman Catholics in the present dispute. 
 This is far from being the case. In all the agitations, disputations and 
 demands, the subject of education was hardly thought of, and separate 
 schools are not so much as mentioned. In all the numerous testimonies, 
 cited almost ad nauseam by Mr. Ewart, there is not one word about schools, 
 nor do we find in the records of any of the three representative bodies, 
 whose proceedings we have referred to, any account of any discussion of 
 the subject. On the two occasions in which it is mentioned in the Bills of 
 Rights it is mingled with " roads and bridges," thus showing the impor- 
 tance attached to it. Even the last Assembly, which was in session when 
 the delegates departed for Ottawa, seems not to have considered the 
 question at all. Let us be clear, therefore, as to the origin and character 
 of the agitation, and the demands of the people. 
 
 The Bills of Rights. 
 
 Now, as to the Bills of Rights. There has been much dispute as to 
 the provisions which were contained in the Bill of Rights entrusted to the 
 delegates by the provisional government, or to put it perhaps more clearly 
 and accurately, there has been much dispute as to the identity of the bill 
 which was actually entrusted to the delegates by the provisional govern- 
 ment. There was a list of rights prepared by the provisional government 
 as to the authenticity of which there is no doubt nor dispute. This list, 
 which is Bill of Rights No. 3, it is contended by the province of Manitoba, 
 is the only list which the provisional government ever drew up, and is the 
 one which was given to the delegates. The Roman Cafcholic party, how- 
 ever say that still another list (No. 4) was prepared by the provisional 
 government, and that it superseded No. 3. We shall present the evidence 
 for each side. 
 
 Bills of Rights Nos. 3 and 4 contain each twenty clauses. We repro- 
 duce the first seven clauses of these bills, in parallel form. It may be 
 remembered that Bills of Rights Nos. 1 and 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 government, and also 
 Bill of Rights No. 4, whose origin is still a mystery, both stipulate for the 
 provincial status. 
 
25 
 
 LIST NO. 3. 
 
 I. That the territories heretofore known as 
 Rupert's Land and Northwest shall not enter 
 into the Confederation, except as a province, 
 to be styled and known as the Province of 
 Assiniboia, and with all the rights and privi- 
 leges common to different provinces of the 
 Dominion. 
 
 2. That we have two representatives in the 
 Senate, and four in the House of Commons of 
 Canada, until such time as an increase of 
 population entitles the province to a greater 
 representation. 
 
 3. That the Province of Assiniboia shall 
 not be held liable at any time, for any portion 
 of the public debt of the Dominion contracted 
 before the date the said province shall have 
 entered the Confederation, unless the said 
 province shall have first received from the 
 Dominion the full amount for which the said 
 province is to be held liable. 
 
 4. That the sum of $80,000 be paid annu- 
 ally by the Dominion government to the 
 legislature of the province. 
 
 5. That all properties, rights and privileges 
 enjoyed by the people of this province up to 
 the date of our entering into the Confederation 
 be respected, and that the arrangement and 
 confirmation of all customs, usages and privi- 
 leges be left exclusively to the local legislature. 
 
 6. That during the term of five years, the 
 Province of Assiniboia, shall not be subject to 
 any direct taxation, except such as might be 
 imposed by the local legislature for municipal 
 or local purposes. 
 
 7. That a sum equal to eighty cents per 
 head of the population of this province be 
 paid annully by the Canadian government to 
 the local legislature of the said province until 
 such time as the said populatiion shall have 
 increased to 600,000. 
 
 LIST NO. 4. 
 
 1. That the territories of the Northwest 
 enter into Confederation of the Dominion of 
 Canada as a province, with all the privileges 
 common with all the different provinces in the 
 Dominion. 
 
 That this province be governed : 
 
 1. By a Lieut. -Governor, appointed by the 
 Governor-General of Canada. 
 
 2. By a Senate. 
 
 3. By a legislature chosen by the people 
 with a responsible ministry. 
 
 2. That until such time as the increase of 
 population in this country entitles us to a 
 greater number, we have two representatives 
 in the senate, and four in the house of com- 
 mons of Canada. 
 
 3. That in entering the Confederation, the 
 Province of the Northwest be completely free 
 from the public debt of Canada ; and if called 
 upon to assume 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 
 allotted by the Dominion of Canada to the 
 legislature of the provinces of the Northwest. 
 
 5. That all properties, rights and privileges 
 enjoyed by us up to this day be respected, and 
 that the recognition and settlement of cus- 
 toms, usages and privileges be left exclusively 
 to the decision of the local legislature. 
 
 6. That this country be submitted to no 
 direct taxation except such as may be imposed 
 by the local legislature for municipal and 
 other local purposes. 
 
 7. That the schools be separate, and that 
 the public money for schools be distributed 
 among the different religious denominations 
 in proportion to their respective population 
 according to the system of the province of 
 Quebec. 
 
 It will be seen by glancing at the first six clauses of both lists, that 
 substantially the same demands are made in each bill, and in the same 
 consecutive order, although there is a variation in the words in which the 
 demands are stated. In the case of clauses 8 to 18 of both bills, inclusive, 
 the same thing could be noticed agreement in substance, but difference 
 in phraseology. In clauses 19 and 20 the words are the same in each bill. 
 It will also be seen that there is no reference in the seven clauses of No. 3 
 which are given above, nor in the first six clauses of No. 4, to education 
 nor schools. Neither is there any reference in the thirteen clauses of both 
 bills which we have not reproduced. The reasons for the omission of these 
 clauses are, that they are rather lengthy, have no relevancy to our sub- 
 ject, and are not in themselves of absorbing literary or historic interest. 
 
26 
 
 It will be noted that the essential difference between the two lists 
 occurs in clause 7. In list No. 3, clause 7 provides for the payment of a 
 subsidy to the province by the Dominion. In that list there is no refer- 
 ence whatever to schools or education. In list No. 4, clause 7 provides for 
 separate schools ; and it contains no stipulations whatever for the pay- 
 ment of a subsidy. This important provision 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 shall 
 give the explanation of the striking difference in clause 7 of the two lists, 
 supplied by Mr. Ewart, the legal representative of the Manitoba Roman 
 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 provisional 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 papers 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 sufficient to show that it had actual 
 existence. It is no evidence, [of course, that it was not superseded (as 
 already two others had been superseded) ; and Mr. Begg, although careful 
 and trustworthy, may have been misled through not having heard of a 
 subsequent list. 
 
 " The best and only direct evidence that has been adduced upon the 
 subject, is the sworn testimony of the Rev. Mr. Ritchot (himself one of the 
 delegates), who was called as a witness 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 character, may be added : After 
 much consultation with Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George Cartier, on 
 the one hand, and the Rev. Mr. Ritchot and Judge Black on the other, a 
 draft bill was submitted to the delegates as that which the government 
 was prepared to concede. The Rev. Mr. Ritchot made observations in 
 writing upon all the clauses in the draft and sent them to the ministers. 
 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 rneme que celle de 1'Acte de VAmerique 
 Britannique du Nord, confere, je 1'interprette ainsi, comme principe funda- 
 mental, le privilege des ecoles separees dans toute la plentitude et, en cela, 
 est conforme a 1'article 7 de nos instructions." 
 
 (This clause being the same as the British North America Act, confers, 
 so I interpret it, as fundamental principle, the privilege of separate schools 
 to the fullest extent, and in that is in conformity with article 7 of our 
 instructions.) 
 
27 
 
 " 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 prov- 
 ince, and a senate was granted, although the expense of it was much 
 objected to. List No. 3 says nothing 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. List No. 3 says nothing about 
 schools. It would be strange if both these points could have got, by 
 chance, into the Manitoba Act an act which, as we shall soon see, was the 
 result of elaborate negotiations with the delegates. It may be added that 
 list No. 3 asks that the province shall be " styled and known as the prov- 
 ince of 'Assiniboia.' " List No. 4 suggests no name. It is inconceivable 
 that the Dominion should have deliberately refused to adopt the name 
 Assiniboia had it been asked, 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 language 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 judg- 
 ment, 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 
 No. 2 (that formulated by the Council of Forty) was the basis of negotia- 
 tions, although the list No. 2 undoubtedly embodied the demands of the 
 people. Mr. Ewart's only conceivable object in thus stating facts which 
 nobody has thought of contradicting, would seem to be to impart to the 
 somewhat flimsy and far-fetched argument, and rather dubious facts, 
 which he has mixed up with the undisputed ones, an air of soundness and 
 respectability, which he must feel they sadly lack, standing alone. 
 
 Regarding " the official copy found in the papers of Thomas Bunn 
 (now deceased), secretary of Riel's government," there is not the slightest 
 doubt about its authenticity, as Mr. Ewart admits. Indeed, there is the 
 best reason to believe that this document is the original Bill of Rights 
 formulated by the provisional government, of which, be it observed, Mr. 
 Bunn was the secretary. There is very little wonder that " Mr. Begg(who 
 published his book in 1875) should give this bill (No. 3) as the true one," 
 because he never knew nor had cause to suspect that any later bill existed. 
 
 Mr. Ewart is forced to admit that this Bill of Rights No. 3 had an ex- 
 istence, but he says there u is no evidence that it was not superseded (as 
 already two others had been superseded), and Mr. Begg, although careful 
 and trustworthy, may have been misled through not having seen a subse- 
 quent list." 
 
 This is an absurd and most disingenuous argument ; so much so indeed, 
 as to suggest that Mr. Ewart felt this phase of his case to be a very 
 unsatisfactory one. In the first place, there is no analogy between the 
 abandonment of the first two Bills of Rights, arid the assumed abandon- 
 ment of the third. Mr. Ewart himself supplies reasons for the abandon- 
 ment of Bills No, 1 and 2, but he does not, and cannot, supply any reason 
 
28 
 
 for the abandonment of Bill of Rights No. 3. Under the circumstances, 
 the onus is not on believers in Bill No. 3, to show that it was not 
 "superseded," but on Mr. Ewart's clients to show that it was. Mr. Ewart 
 adroitly endeavors to shift the onus. Whilst not under obligation, by the 
 rules of argument, to do so, the opponents of separate schools may safely 
 undertake to prove that No. 3 was not "superseded." 
 
 Now, the Bill of Rights No. 3, found amongst Mr. Bunn's papers, was 
 dated March 23rd, 1870, or the very day 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 "superseded" and 
 the substituted list still be presented at Ottawa by the delegates, who left 
 on the day the supposedly "superseded" one had been completed ? Why 
 should it have been "superseded" by the Provisional Government, none of 
 of whose members did at any time express the slightest concern about 
 separate schools ? 
 
 Powerful evidence (although not the most conclusive that will be 
 produced) that the bill was not "superseded," is presented by the fact that 
 the Provisional Government on the day the delegates left, printed in 
 French, and circulated amongst the French speaking people a copy of the 
 instructions given to the delegates, and of Bill of Rights No. 3, as the list 
 of the demands which were being made by the delegates on behalf of the 
 Provisional Government and the people of the Northwest. Is it credible 
 that this body would have circulated as as official document, a list of rights 
 which had been "superseded," whilst saying not one word about the 
 substitute ? Printed copies of the bill, published by the Riel government, 
 are in existence, and are in possession of the Librarian of the Province of 
 Manitoba, as is also the original document found amongst the papers of 
 Mr. Bunn. 
 
 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 have been misled through not having 
 heard of a subsequent list." How could he have heard of a subsequent 
 list, when no member of the public, or of any government or legislature of 
 Manitoba, knew of the existence of such a list, till December 27th, 1889, 
 when the late Archbishop Tache referred to it in a letter to the Free Press 
 of Winnipeg. 
 
 Mr. Ewart says : "the best and only direct evidence * * * is the 
 sworn testimony of Rev. Mr. Ritchot, etc.," 
 
 Mr. Ritchot's part of this most mysterious episode, has yet to be 
 explained. He must know a great deal more than 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. Ritchot produced list No. 4, and swore 
 it was the list given to him as a delegate. 
 
 Now it is a very remarkable fact that the document which Mr. 
 Ritchot did produce at Lepine trial is not anywhere to be found. It is riot 
 on file with the papers in the case. It has been lost or stolen frcm the 
 records of the court. This is a most unfortunate, as well as mysterious 
 and suggestive circumstance. If the document which Father Ritchot 
 
29 
 
 produced at the 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. 8, 
 in the handwriting of Mr. Bunn, the secretary of the provisional govern- 
 ment ; if it were signed by the president 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 document written or signed by the provis- 
 ional government officers, but a mere copy which might have Deen made 
 up anywhere, and at any time, it would have been very unpleasant 
 for certain parties. But that document is non est Whither it has 
 disappeared, and who or what was the cause of its disappearance, nobody 
 knows, at least nobody who cares to tell. 
 
 Mr. Ewart argues that no one could have any object 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 Rights 
 for that which the provisional government drew up, the same reason would 
 obviously have existed at the time of Lepine's trial, for keeping up the 
 deception. 
 
 Mr. Ewart draws attention to the fact that Sir John A. Macdonald 
 and Sir George Cartier submitted to Messrs. Ritchot and Black, a draft 
 bill containing a clause regarding education, identical with the British 
 North America Act clause, on which Mr. Ritchot made written comments. 
 Mr. Ewart regards this as evidence "of very strong character." We consider 
 it to be, on the contrary, extremely flimsy, and shall 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 throws no light upon the time 
 or place. Equally flimsy is the "internal evidence" which Mr. Ewart 
 adduces. 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 that given to the delegates. Item 1 of 
 list No. 3 is more general in its terms, "but all rights and privileges 
 common to the different provinces of the Dominion," might be presumed to 
 cover this, as all the provinces in 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 "Assiniboia," stated in item 1 of 
 Bill 3. was not adopted is evidence that No. 4 was the true bill. He says 
 "it is inconceivable that the Dominion should have deliberately refused to 
 adopt the name 'Assiniboia' had it been asked." W 7 hy is it inconceivable ? 
 The fact that another portion of the territories was subsequently called 
 Assiniboia, instead of making it "inconceivable," why that name should 
 not have been 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 which we shall presently see, probably considered of no 
 importance by the delegates. If there was any general desire in Red River 
 for the name of :< Assiniboia," the delegates certainly knew of its existence. 
 Now let us assume that Bill No. 4 was the basis of negotiations at Ottawa. 
 When the question of the name of the province came up, the delegates 
 would certainly state the feeling of the people on the point. In that case 
 
30 
 
 the "inconceivable" must have happened, because, as we know, the 
 province was not called Assiniboia but Manitoba. 
 
 But Mr. Ewart's method of argument suggests that he had adopted 
 the ethics of a certain much-abused order of his clients' church. He 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 province. 
 He knew very well that the delegates had full authority to modify the 
 demands of the Bill of Rights in these respects, and that in such matters 
 their discretion was absolute. 
 
 In a letter of instructions, written by Mr. Bunn as secretary of state, 
 of the provisional government, addressed to Judge Black, which was given 
 to the delegates with the Bill of Rights, on their departure for Ottawa, the 
 following passage occurs : 
 
 "You will please observe that with regard to articles (in Bill of 
 Rights) numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 15, 19 and 20, you are left at liberty, in 
 concert with your fellow commissioners, 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 exercise of this liberty, you will do your utmost 
 to secure their rights and privileges, which have hitherto been ignored. 
 With reference to the remaining articles, I am directed to inform you that 
 they are peremptory." 
 
 Why Mr. Ewart left out this, whilst embodying in his book almost 
 every other scrap of written matter, however unnecessary, we do not 
 understand. But these instructions make it quite clear that the arrange- 
 ments as to senate and change of name of the province were quite within 
 the discretionary power of the delegates to modify, and they therefore 
 destroy Mr. Ewart's argument on that line. In Bill No. 4, some of the 
 articles which are left, in the letter of instructions, to the discretion of the 
 delegates, are made very specific, whilst in No. 3 they are more general in 
 their terms. It is more in the line of probability, that matters which were 
 subject to modification would be stated in general terms, than that 
 minute particularization would be given. In fact, instead of Mr. 
 Ewart's "internal evidence" proving that Bill No. 4 was the basis of the 
 Manitoba Act, it is calculated to suggest the suspicion that Bill of Rights 
 No. 4 was compiled after the Manitoba Act had been passed, and that the 
 variations on Bill No. 3 had been made with the provisions of the Act in 
 full view of the author of No. 4. 
 
 Mr. Ewart says : "List No. 4 (paragraph 7) demands that the schools 
 shall be separate, and clauses were inserted to that end in the Manitoba 
 Act. List No. 3 says nothing about schools." 
 
 "No Provision for Separate Schools in the Manitoba Act. 
 
 If Mr. Ewart means by the somewhat equivocal expression, "clauses 
 to that end," to say that separate schools are provided for in the Manitoba 
 Act, all we can say is, that the most careful reader would fail to discover 
 any such provision, as did the judges of the highest tribunal in the empire. 
 The Manitoba Act, like the British North America Act, contains only one 
 section relating to education. It will now be convenient to give these 
 sections of both acts in parallel : 
 
31 
 
 BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT. 
 
 93. In and for each province the legisla- 
 ture may exclusively make laws in relation to 
 education, subject and according to the follow- 
 ing provisions : 
 
 (1). Nothing in any such law shall prejudi- 
 cially affect any right or privilege with respect 
 to denominational schools which any classes of 
 persons have by law in the province at the 
 
 (2). All the powers, privileges and duties at 
 the union by law conferred and imposed in 
 Upper Canada on the separate schools and 
 school trustees of the Queerts Roman Catholic 
 subjects shall be and the same are hereby extend- 
 ed to the dissentient schools of the Queen's 
 Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects in 
 Quebec. 
 
 (j). Where in any province a system of 
 separate or dissentient * schools exists by law at 
 the union, or is therefore established by the leg- 
 islature of the province an appeal shall lie to 
 the Governor-General-in-Council from any act 
 or decision of any provincial authority affect- 
 ing any right or privilege of the Protestant or 
 Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's 
 subjects in relation to education. 
 
 (4). In case any such provincial law as 
 from time to time seems to the Governor- 
 General-in-Council requisite for the due execu- 
 tion of the provisions of this section is not 
 made, or in case any decision of the Governor- 
 General-in-Council on any appeal under this 
 section is not duly executed by the proper 
 provincial authority in that behalf, then and 
 in every such case, and so far only as the cir- 
 cumstances of each case require, the Parlia- 
 ment of Canada may make remedial laws for 
 the due execution of the provisions of this 
 section and of any decision of the Governor- 
 General-in-Council under this section. 
 
 MANITOBA ACT. 
 
 22. In and for the province the said legis- 
 lature may exclusively make laws in relation 
 to education, subject and according to the 
 following provisions ; 
 
 (1). Nothing in any such aw shall prejudi- 
 cially affect any right or privilege with respect 
 to denominational schools which any class of 
 persons have by law or practice in the prov- 
 ince at the union. 
 
 (2). An appeal shall lie to the Governor- 
 General-in-Councilfrom any act or decision of 
 the legislative of the province i Q\ of any prov- 
 incial authority, affecting any right or privi- 
 lege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic 
 minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to 
 education. 
 
 (3). In case any such provincial law as 
 from lime to time seems to the Governor- 
 General-iri-Council requisite for the due execu- 
 tion of the provisions of this section is not 
 made, or in case any decision of the Governor- 
 General-in-Council on any appeal under this 
 section is not duly executed by the proper 
 provincial authority in that behalf, then and in 
 every such case, and as far only as the circum- 
 stances of each case require, the Parliament of 
 Canada may make remedial laws for the due 
 execution of the provisions of this section, and 
 of any decision of the Governor-General-in- 
 Council under this section, 
 
 It will be seen that the general provisions of the B. N. A. Act in 
 regard to education are incorporated in the Manitoba Act. There is noth- 
 ing 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 gen- 
 eral lines and employed the language of the B. N. A. Act) without any 
 special stipulation on the part of the delegates. If it had been 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 assertion to the 
 contrary, no provision is made in the Manitoba Act for separate schools, as 
 demanded by article 7 of Bill of Rights No. 4, the remarkable fact remains 
 that the provision for the annual payment of 80 cents per head by the 
 Dominion to the province, called for by article 7 of bill No. 3 is actually 
 embodied in the Manitoba Act. The ^significance of this lies in the fact 
 that no provision for the payment of such a subsidy by the Dominion 
 appears in list No. 4. It is likely that the provisional 
 
 government, in 
 
32 
 
 " superseding " No 3, should leave out altogether an item which was of 
 such essential importance to the province as the subsidy clause ? 
 
 Bill of Rights No. 4 is Spurious. 
 
 Much more could be said to refute and rebut Mr. Ewart's arguments 
 and evidence in favor of the authenticity of Bill of Rights No. 4. Now 
 we shall recapitulate the facts to which we have already referred, which go 
 to show that Bill of Rights No. 4 is not the document which was given by 
 the provisional government to the delegates and shall present an additional 
 one. 
 
 In the first place there is no knowledge on the part of the public of the 
 existence of such a bill till Archbishop Tache gave it in an incomplete 
 form, (it then contained only 19 clauses) in the Free Press newspaper on 
 December 27, 1889, nearly twenty years after the original document was 
 written. 
 
 The only official record in existence of any list of rights proposed by 
 the provisional government is the original copy found in the papers of Mr. 
 Bunn, which has already been alluded to. That list is Bill of Rights 
 No. 3. Mr. Bunn was one of the chief officers of the provisional govern- 
 ment, and its secretary. He apparently transacted all the clerical work 
 connected with the Bill of Rights, yet no trace of the existence of any 
 other list can be found amongst his documents, and no hint of the existence 
 of any other or later list is obtained 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 impossible to have " superseded " this bill and 
 substituted a new one, which could have been taken by these delegates. 
 
 On the same date (March 23) the provisional government issued for 
 publication a copy of the instructions given the delegates, printed in the 
 French language. This manifesto contains a copy of Bill No. 3, and 
 declares that it contains the demands of the provisional government on the 
 Dominion. 
 
 Mr. Begg, whom Mr. Ewart characterizes as a ''careful and trust- 
 worthy" historian, in his clear, fair and circumstantial account of the Red 
 River troubles, gives bill No. 3, as the bill framed by the provisional 
 government, and although probably better informed, as a result of long 
 residence and intelligent research, in regard to the affairs of the territory, 
 than any other man, he seems never to have heard of the existence of any 
 other list than bill No. 3. 
 
 But the strongest evidence of the fraudulent character of bill No. 4, 
 and of the authenticity of No. 3, is yet to be given. 
 
 Whilst the Red River troubles were running their course, the Governor- 
 General of Canada, Sir John Young, (afterwards Lord Lisgar) was in 
 constant communication with the Imperial government. Besides giving an 
 account of the occurrences, he transmitted all documents bearing on the 
 matter. These letters and documents were printed and issued 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 
 
33 
 
 British government. A copy of the book is also in the possession of the 
 provincial librarian of Manitoba. 
 
 Amongst this mass of correspondence and documents is a letter from 
 the Governor-General to Earl Granville, then Colonial Secretary, dated 
 April 29, 1870, containing information as to the arrest of the delegates, 
 who had been arrested on their arrival in Ontario, as accomplices or 
 accessories in the murder of Thomas Scott. In a postscript the Governor- 
 General says : " I think it right to forward to Your Lordship a copy of the 
 terms and conditions brought by the delegates of the Northwest which 
 have formed the subject of conference." Then follows a copy of the Bill 
 of Rights, which was thus transmitted to Lord Granville. Was it Bill of 
 Rights No. 4, which Father Ritchot says he took to Ottawa, and which he 
 says formed the subject of conference ? Not at all. It is a true and exact 
 copy of Bill of Rights No. 3 ! Now this letter containing this copy of No. 
 3, was written by the Governor-General on April 29, while the delegates 
 were in Ottawa, and in conference with the Dominion government. How 
 did the Governor-General come into possession of this " superseded " bill? 
 He must have got it from the delegates, and undoubtedly Father Ritchot 
 was the delegate 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 Ritchot to explain how Sir John Young 
 came to send Bill of Rights No. 3 to England as a copy of "the terms and 
 conditions brought by the delegates of the Northwest," while he (Father 
 Ritchot) at the trial of Lepine " produced list No. 4, and swore that it was 
 the list given to him as a delegate." 
 
 There can be no doubt in the mind of any man who reads the facts 
 recited, bearing on these Bills of Rights (and they are facts which cannot 
 be questioned), that there was a deliberately conceived plan on the part of 
 some person or persons to deceive and mislead the Ottawa authorities, and 
 to misrepresent the provisional government and the settlers of the North- 
 west. In view of the fact that Father Ritchot was, according to Mr. Ewart, 
 the delegate "who took the leading part in the. negotiations" at Ottawa ; in 
 view of the fact that he must have 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 he is said by Mr. Ewart to 
 have, as a witness at the trial oi 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 conclusively show that List No. 4 was not the list given 
 to him as a delegate much explanation is, as we have already pointed 
 out, due from Rev. Mr. Ritchot. 
 
 It is an unfortunate 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 at the time the Roman Catholic 
 Appeal was argued before the Imperial Privy Council, 
 
34 
 
 Proof of Authenticity of List No. 4 Necessary to 
 Roman Catholic Case. 
 
 Frequent reference has been made to Mr. Ewart's publication, "The 
 Manitoba School Question." We have made some observations on Mr. 
 Ewart's strained interpretations of certain 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 a history of the case, from an impartial 
 standpoint, and Mr. Ewart does not give it forth to the public as such. 
 Mr. Ewart is the legal representative of the Manitoba "Roman Catholics, 
 and his book is, in great part, a collection of the documents and evidence 
 supporting the Roman Catholic contentions before the courts. It is, in 
 fact, his brief. It is well therefore to make the explanation that Mr. 
 Ewart is, in his book, an advocate and not a historian. 
 
 He devotes about sixty pages of closely printed matter to extracts, 
 quotations and statements, describing the troubles and events which led 
 up to the dispatch of the delegates to Ottawa with the Bill of Rights. If 
 this was not done for the purpose of establishing the authenticity of Bill 
 No. 4, then the 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 separate 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 trouble 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 facts bearing 
 on these agrarian disturbances, Mr. Ewart goes on : "Enough has been 
 said about these different Lists of Rights. The importance of the contro- 
 versy is not, to the mind of the present writer, very great." 
 
 This seems to be a most extraordinary attitude for the legal represen- 
 tative 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 we 
 see, the foundation of its case was laid on principles so broad and deep, 
 that it would not be effected by either the demonstrated authenticity or 
 spuriousness of Bill of Rights No. 4. 
 
 But to the separate school advocates, the authenticity of No. 4 is of 
 paramount importance, because they must base their claims, not on the 
 inherent political, economical or ethical soundness of the claims themselves 
 but purely on their vested right to peculiar privileges. Even if they have 
 proof that these peculiar privileges 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 privileges, 
 unless they can show that their continued enjoyment of them is consist- 
 ent with sound ethical and political principles. Without such proof their 
 case simply falls to pieces. 
 
 Mr. Ewart argues : "The delegates asked for several things, which, by 
 the Manitoba Act were not accorded. Suppose, then, that separate schools 
 and other things not demanded were nevertheless made part of the Act ; 
 
35 
 
 the effect of this, so far as the setblers 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, makes a counter proposition, which counter 
 proposition is accepted by the settlers. * * * Whether, therefore, 
 
 the settlers asked for separate schools, or the idea came from Canada, 
 makes no difference as to the result. In either case the Manitoba Act was 
 a treaty. 
 
 With a naivete which is amusing 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 the Rev. Mr. Ritchot ; that it was that gentleman who 
 took the leading part in the negotiations, and that the idea of separate 
 schools came from clause 7 of list No. 4. Canada thought at all events 
 that separate schools had been demanded, acceded to that demand, and 
 the provisional 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 
 character. Let us analyse the meaning and consider the nature of this 
 argument. 
 
 Before doing so it may be well just here to draw attention to the 
 dramatic or rather theatrical accessories which are employed to eke out a 
 case, which is certainly in much need of all the extraneous aid which may 
 be obtained. Mr. Ewart in his capacity as lawyer has professionally 
 " bowed his head " and " felt the shame " which has been brought upon 
 him by the perfidy of his whilom fellow-partisans, and his heretical co- 
 religionists. For, strange as it may appear, Mr. Ewart is a Protestant. He 
 pathetically and with inferential regret, assures the judges, "in that faith 
 was I born and nurtured." Now, it is exasperating to think that Mr. 
 Ewart's super-sensitive and hyper-conscientious soul should have been 
 so wrung by shame and anguish, quite unnecessarily. The perfidy of the 
 Protestants of Manitoba which has caused Mr. Ewart so much affliction 
 (and incidentally brought him a fat case) is entirely a creature of his per- 
 fervid imagination, which, by the way, seems to be of the most inestimable 
 service to that gentleman, at these critical and trying junctures, when 
 commonplace fact fails to afford comfort or support. Mr. Ewart has a 
 whole chapter on " Protestant promises " which on examination is found to 
 have absolutely no bearing on the subject on which he is professedly writ- 
 ing. There is absolutely no promise made by any body of Protestants or 
 of Manitobans, or by any body with any authority to make promises on 
 their behalf, which have been broken. 
 
 The writer is inclined to think that Mr. Ewart will not serve the 
 cause of his clients by offering wanton, unmerited and gratuitous insult to 
 a large body of people whose desire is simply to do what is absolutely fair 
 and just. 
 
 Mr. Ewart indulges in much fine moral indignation at the spectacle of 
 the meek and unfortunate Roman Catholic ecclesiastics being ruthlessly 
 deprived of their "vested rights" by a dishonest and unscrupulous 
 majority. 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 by what means these rights were originally acquired, " whether 
 Jist No, 4 is authentic or not it is the one used by Father Ritchot." If it 
 
36 
 
 was not authentic, Father Ritchot must have perpetrated or been 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 matter how glaringly and how dangerously inconsistent and 
 unfair these "rights" may be in themselves, or how they may have been 
 acquired, their entire reasonableness and justice is to be assumed and from 
 this starting point only, ethical tests may be applied in the discussion. 
 
 The question now arises : How did it happen that these separate 
 state schools were asked for, who wanted them, and who were benefited 
 by their being granted ? It must be apparent to every reader, who has 
 has followed the course of the recital, that the Red River settlers did not 
 want them., and 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 Canadian government would not go wantonly out of its 
 way to suggest them. In looking for the source of this demand, we are 
 compelled to turn our attention to that ecclesiastical organization, of 
 which Father Ritchot is a priest. How interesting, indeed, it would be to 
 know just when and under what circumstances 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 May, 
 1871 it passed an "Act to establish a system of education in the province." 
 
 The provincial education act of 1871 provided for a system of separate 
 schools. There were two superintendents 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 subsequent school legisla- 
 tion of the province, Judge Dubuc says : " The most notable change in the 
 system was that the denominational distinction between the Catholics and 
 Protestants became more and more pronounced under the different statutes 
 afterwards passed." 
 
 The law of 1871 operated with some unessential modifications, till 
 1890, when the now celebrated acts abolishing separate schools, were intro- 
 duced by Mr. Martin, and passed in the legislature by an overwhelming 
 majority. 
 
 Before going on to describe the course of the litigation and the discus- 
 sion which has resulted from the passage of these acts, it would be well to 
 consider the nature pf 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 which 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 Manitoba act is, but we shall 
 assume it to have been a treaty in the legitimate meaning of the term. 
 The argument referred to has not been carried to its inevitable conclusion, 
 which is that the Manitoba act being a treaty, it provisions are binding on 
 Manitoba for all time. This is the clearly intended inference, 
 
37 
 
 The Irrevocable Legislation Theory. 
 
 It will bo remembered that the settlers really expressed no desire for 
 separate schools. The Roman Catholic church, however, was apparently 
 very anxious that separate schools should be provided for. The protection 
 for separate schools was, therefore, a " right and privilege " granted to the 
 Catholic church. 
 
 Now we have seen that the legal counsel of the Catholics does not 
 consider it a matter of essential importance whether separate schools were 
 asked for or not. To the opponents of separate schools it is a matter of 
 still less imporance, but the reasons for indifference are widely apart in the 
 two cases. The Catholic church contends that separate schools having, by 
 hook or crook, once been provided for, must be perpetually maintained. 
 The British government would not permit of the assumption of control by 
 Canada, over the 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 the well recognized 
 squatter right to possession of their individual properties. They were also 
 entitled to a control of their own local government and a voice in the 
 general government. These things they asked for. Their individual 
 rights to the secure possession of their properties, and their collective right 
 to their own local government are indisputable. But the proposition that 
 they had any right to dictate and to fix irrevocably, legislation in regard 
 to any matter which should govern for all time all generations living in 
 the territory, would be monstrous, if it were not ridiculous. Moreover 
 they never claimed, and never contemplated exercising any such right. 
 
 Yet the contention of the separate school party of a necessity implies 
 the soundness and the reasonableness of this proposition. That indeed is 
 their whole ground. That ground taken away, they have nothing to 
 stand upon. 
 
 As we have seen, the population of the Northwest before the union 
 with Canada was 12,000. Of these, 10,000 were half-breeds. It is beyond 
 doubt that there were several highly intelligent men in the community. 
 The clergy of the various denominations, the Hudson's Bay Co.'s officers, 
 and such men as Mr. Burin and Mr. Bannatyne and others, were men fitted 
 to comport themselves with credit in any society. But the overwhelming 
 mass were of an order of intelligence which induced Lord Wolseley to refer 
 to them as " an ignorant and impressionable people." 
 
 Now, as we have repeatedly pointed out, there 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. But 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 gov- 
 ernment and the rule of the majority, that this handful of people, mostly 
 quite unlettered, could acquire the right to dictate under what conditions 
 all 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 accept as a sound and reasonable one. 
 
38 
 
 The inherent monstrosity and absurdity of this doctrine are attempted 
 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 that the constitution was in 
 want of speedy amendment. But fortunately there is not the slightest 
 ground for believing that this monstrosity has been embodied in the con- 
 stitution. We shall come to that aspect of the question later, however. 
 
 It is possible that under the conditions 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 
 system. The population was then 12,000, mostly half-breeds, " ignorant 
 and impressionable." The population is now over 200,000, of a high 
 average degree of intelligence, to the vast majority of whom separate 
 schools are not only inconvenient, but distasteful. Yet it is contended that 
 because the representatives of the 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 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 about as nearly the reductio ad 
 absurdum of the wooden and unreasoning apotheosis of "constitutionalism" 
 of which we have had occasion to observe so much recently, as it is pos- 
 sible to come. The "constitutional" controversialists assume some pro- 
 vision as being created by the constitution, and then, quite regardless of 
 the inherent iniquity or absurdity of the provision, they gravely argue for 
 its unalterable character solely because it is in the constitution. 
 
 Now, when a man owns property in his own right, he can bequeath 
 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 the province of Manitoba for all time. 
 
 If these settlers had, on the ground of their squatter-right claims as 
 occupants of the country, asked for separate schools, or for immunity from 
 any tax for public schools, this immunity, if it had been conceded on that 
 ground, would have applied to them only during their lives and possibly 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 intriguing ecclesiastics). So also have 
 nearly all their descendants. But their "vested rights" in the educational 
 legislation of the province still live. Who are the present possessors, and 
 how did they come by these rights ? Have they any traceable connection 
 or relationship with the original owners ? Have they acquired these 
 vested rights by bequest or legal inheritance ? No. They have acquired 
 them simply because they are Roman Catholics, and because, they say, as 
 Roman Catholics they are entitled to these rights and privileges by virtue 
 of the " constitution." 
 
 Let us clearly bear in mind that no other denomination is entitled to 
 such rights or privileges. According to the highest tribunal in the realm, 
 no one of any of the Protestant denominations can claim any such privi- 
 
39 
 
 leges. Neither could a Jew, nor a Unitarian. Here, then, is a discrimina- 
 tion in favor of one particular religious denomination, the practical effect 
 of which would be (if it were admitted) to give state aid to the Roman 
 Catholic church. This would be a distinct infraction of one of the essential 
 doctrines of our system of government the entire separation of church 
 and state. 
 
 This theory of legislation which is irrevocable by the body which 
 enacted it, is as unique as it is monstrous. There is probably not another 
 case in history in which such a contention has been made. If the principle 
 which it involves, namely, that what is, must continue to be, had been 
 always accepted, none of the great movements, by which mankind have 
 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 justice, because the privi- 
 leges, while enjoyed under the protection of existing laws, were inherently 
 unjust and inequitable ? The tremendous privileges of the landed class in 
 England received a staggering blow when the Corn Law Repeal Act was 
 passed. The clergy of the Anglican Church in Ireland were stripped of 
 all their privileges and endowments, which they had possessed and enjoyed 
 by the sanction of the law, simply because the sense of justice of the 
 members of the British Parliament forced them to declare that although 
 these privileges were " vested rights," they were in reality unjustifiable on 
 ethical grounds. The slave power was abolished in the United States in 
 the same way. In Canada the Clergy Reserves question is another case 
 in point. 
 
 In all these cases the stock shibboleths 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 Question. But the great tribunal of public 
 opinion 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. 
 
 Th,e Legal and Constitutional Questions. 
 
 Having dealt with the general considerations and with the historical 
 facts relating to this Manitoba school question, we have now to consider 
 the legal and constitutional position of the parties. It is in .this direction 
 that the Roman Catholics must look for their support and success, as we 
 think it is tolerably clear that neither sound political doctrine nor histori- 
 cal 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 individual or class of the community so 
 far as we know, has raised any serious objections to the educational sys- 
 tem, with which that legislation replaced the archaic and inefficient system 
 
40 
 
 which had been in operation previously, except the Roman Catholics. The 
 nature and origin of their objections to the system are now well known 
 and have been already dealt with. We have also pointed out the impor- 
 tance of the questions and issues which are involved in the attitude and 
 demands of the Roman Catholic party. It is now intended to consider the 
 legal position of the question. 
 
 The Roman Catholics, or rather the Roman Catholic hierarchy (for it 
 is really the source of hostility to the present educational system,) took up 
 the work of destroying the system of public schools in a methodical way, 
 consistently with the policy adopted by them in the cases of the provinces 
 of JSew Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Each of these provinces 
 established a public school system subsequently to confederation, and in each 
 case was a determined and persistent effort made by the Roman hierarchy 
 to overturn the system. In both cases, however, the attempts were 
 unsuccessful, but the provinces only secured the final victory after much 
 waste of money on litigation, and much loss caused through the inability 
 of the legislatures to attend to other questions of importance, while this 
 absorbing question was en tapis. 
 
 First Step in the Litigation. 
 
 The first movement in the Roman Catholic attack on the Manitoba 
 public school act of 1890 was in the shape of an application made to the 
 Manitoba courts by J. K. Barrett, a Roman Catholic taxpayer, to have 
 quashed a by-law of the city of Winnipeg, fixing a rate of taxation for the 
 support of the public schools. This by-law had been enacted by the 
 Winnipeg city council, in terms of the new education laws which had just 
 been passed by the legislature. 
 
 Mr. Barret's application was based on the first sub-section of section 
 22 of the Manitoba Act, which section, with its sub-section has already 
 been given in these pages. He contended that Roman Catholics, by 
 virtue of the sub-section in question, were entitled to exemption from 
 taxation for the support of any other than Roman Catholic schools, and 
 that, therefore, the act which imposed on them taxation for the support 
 of public schools was ultra vires of the provincial legislature, and conse- 
 quently ineffective. Justice Killam, who heard the application, dismissed 
 the summons. He held that no right or privilege, which the Roman 
 Catholics possessed at the time of the union had been prejudiced or 
 affected by the legislation in question. This judgment was appealed 
 against, but the full court of the province sustained Judge Killam's 
 decision by a majority of 2 to 1, the dissenting judge, Mr. Justice Dubuc, 
 holding that the legislation was ultra vires. 
 
 An appeal was carried by the Roman Catholic party to Ottawa, 
 where the judgment of the Manitoba court was reversed by the 
 unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. 
 
 There is neither space nor motive here to reproduce the deliverances 
 of the various Supreme Court judges, who rendered judgments, but a 
 perusal 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 rendering it prone to seek for ingeniously intricate and 
 complex solutions, for problems whose actual solution is very simple. 
 
41 
 
 The province of Manitoba, in turn appealed against the judgment 
 of the Supreme Court of Canada, and the case went to England, where it 
 was argued at great length before the Judicial Committee of the Privy 
 Council. This tribunal of last resort allowed the appeal, reversed the 
 judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, and restored the judgment 
 of the Manitoba Court, thereby 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. 
 
 When it had become apparent, from the judgment of the Manitoba 
 full court, which upheld that of Mr. Justice Kill am, declaring the School 
 Act of 1890 intra vires, that there was a possibility, and even a 
 probability, of the validity of the act being ultimately 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 act or decision 
 of the legislature of the province or of any provincial authority affecting 
 any right of privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the 
 Queen's subjects in relation to education." In terms of this provision, a 
 petition was gotten up, signed by Archbishop Tache and over 4,000 Roman 
 Catholics, in which the grievances of the petitioners were set out, and 
 which asked for a declaration from His Excellency in Council that the 
 rights of the Catholic minority had been prejudicially affected and also 
 that provision be made for their relief. 
 
 Sir John Thompson, who was then Minister of Justice, decided that no 
 appeal to the Governor-General-in-Council could be heard, till the Imperial 
 Privy Council had given judgment in the Barrett case. 
 
 As soon as the decision of the Imperial tribunal (which as we have 
 seen, was unfavorable to the separate school party) was rendered, a second 
 petition was presented to the Governor-General-in-Council, praying for 
 relief. This second petition was referred to a sub-committee of the .Dom- 
 inion cabinet. This body decided that, in so far as the petition asked the 
 the Governor-General-in-Council to declare that the act of 1890 prejudici- 
 ally affected rights and privileges held by the Catholic before the union, it 
 could not be entertained, as the judicial committee had settled that point. 
 With regard to the question as to whether the Governor-General-in- 
 Council could hear the appeal, and in the event of his doing so, whether he 
 should do anything in the way of affording relief under the provisions of 
 sub-sections 2 and 3 of section 22 of the Manitoba Act, they thought this 
 should be further argued, and advised that a date be fixed for that purpose. 
 The suggestions of the sub-committee were adopted, and the case was 
 argued on January 21st, 1893, before the Canadian Privy Council (nearly 
 every member of the cabinet being present) by Mr. Ewart for the Roman 
 Catholic petitioners. Manitoba was not represented. 
 
 After this argument the council decided, 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 under 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. 
 
42 
 
 The questions referred were as follows : 
 
 1. Is the appeal referred to in the said memorials and petitions and 
 asserted thereby, such an appeal as is admissible by sub-section 3 of sec- 
 tion 93 of the British North America Act, 1867,. or by sub-section 2 of 
 section 22 of the Manitoba Act, 33 Victoria (1870), chapter 3, Canada ? 
 
 2. Are the grounds set forth in the petitions and memorials such as 
 may be the subject of appeal under the authority of the sub-sections above 
 referred 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, and Logan vs. The City 
 of Winnipeg, dispose of, or conclude, the application for redress based on 
 the contention that the rights of the Roman Catholic minority which 
 accrued to them, after the union, under the statutes of the province have 
 been interfered with by the statutes of 1890, complained of in the said 
 petitions 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-in-Council power to 
 make the declarations or remedial orders which are asked for in the said 
 memorials and petitions, assuming the material facts to be as stated there- 
 in, or has His Excellency the Governor-General-in-Council any other 
 jurisdiction in the premises ? 
 
 6. Did the acts of Manitoba relating to education, passed prior to the 
 session of 1890, confer on or continue to the minority, a "right or privilege 
 in relation to education," 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 
 applicable to Manitoba ; 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 thereunder to the Governor-General-in- 
 Council ? 
 
 By a majority of three to two the supreme court answered all these 
 questions, with the exception of No. 3, in the negative, one of the majority, 
 however, answering No. 3 also in the negative. 
 
 We have said that the judgment of this distinguished tribunal in the 
 Barrett case furnishes curiously interesting reading. But, even more 
 curious are the judgments in this reference. It is exceedingly interesting 
 to observe the very different and very devious routes by which these 
 learned judicial minds arrive at the same place. 
 
 The decision of the supreme court was, then, that an appeal of the 
 Roman Catholic minority to the Governor-General-in-Council would not lie. 
 
 The Imperial Privy Council's Judgment. 
 
 The reference was then carried before the judicial committee of the 
 Imperial Privy Council. A very elaborate and exhaustive argument of 
 the case was made from both sides. The judicial committee again reversed 
 the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court, thereby declaring that an 
 appeal of the Roman Catholic minority to the Governor-General-in-Council 
 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 
 
43 
 
 of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, it has a profound, and, to the non- 
 partisan spectator, an even amusing, influence on Canadian party politics. 
 
 It is argued by the Separatist party that the last judgment of the 
 Privy Council is not only a declaration that the Governor-General-in- 
 Council may hear the appeal, but also an injunction as to how he must 
 deal with it. The attempt is further made to create the impression that 
 their lordship's judgment is an expression of their opinion on the moral 
 merits of the case. Their lordships are probably the best authorities from 
 whom to obtain reliable information as to the purport and scope of their 
 judgment, and we shall see what they have said. 
 
 But first, it would be well to recall 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 negative 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 will be seen 
 that the essential point to be determined was whether under sub-section 3 
 of section 93 of the B. N. A. Act, or sub-section 2 of section 22, of the 
 the Manitoba Act, and in view of the facts and circumstances recited by the 
 Roman Catholic petition, there was any right of appeal at all. The 
 counsel for the Roman Catholics argued that the previous judgment of the 
 Judicial Committee declaring the legislation intra vires and constitutional, 
 did not affect the right of appeal to the Governor-General-in-Council. 
 They argued, indeed, that this appeal, under 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 declared constitutional, as, 
 if the legislation was shown to have infringed the provisions of sub-section 
 1, it would be ultra vires, and of no effect, and therefore no appeal against 
 its provisions would be necessary. 
 
 The counsel for the province of Manitoba argued that the provincial 
 legislation of 1890, having been ascertained to be strictly within the power 
 of the legislature, no appeal against it could lie, as sub-sections 3 and 4 of 
 the Manitoba Act merely enforced the first or substantive sub-section. 
 The nature of the issue before the tribunal may be clearly shown by the 
 following extract from the proceedings in the argument before the 
 Judicial Committee : 
 
 The Lord Chancellor It is not before 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 before us is the functions of the 
 Governor-General. 
 
 Mr. Blake Yes, and not the methods in which he shall exercise them, 
 not the discretion which he shall use, but whether a case has arisen on 
 these facts on which he has jurisdiction to intervene. That is all that is 
 before 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 legislation, is within the 2nd 
 
44 
 
 section of the Manitoba Act, and the 3rd section of the other, if it applies, 
 then you say there is a case for the jurisdiction of the Governor-General, 
 and that is all we have to decide. 
 
 Mr. Blake That is all your Lordships have to decide. What remedy 
 he shall propose to apply, is quite a difierent thing. 
 
 In their judgment their Lordships say : "The function of a tribunal is 
 limited to construing the words employed : it is not justified in forcing 
 into them a meaning which they cannot 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 reasons 
 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 settled districts, to work the system 
 inaugurated in 1871, even with the modification introduced in later years. 
 But whether this be so or not, is immaterial. The sole question to be 
 determined is whether a right or privilege, which the Roman Catholic 
 minority previously enjoyed, has been affected by the legislation of 1890. 
 Their Lordships are unable to see how this question can receive any but 
 an affirmative answer. Again their Lordships remark : "Mr. Justice 
 Taschereau says that 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 
 affected. 
 
 Again : " Their Lordships have decided that the Governor-General 
 has jurisdiction, and that the appeal is well founded, but the particular 
 course to be pursued must be determined by the authorities to whom it 
 has been committed by the statute." 
 
 Two things are clear. Their Lordships 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 
 opinion on the ethical bearing of the legislation 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 highest 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 similar to the Star Chamber of malo- 
 dorous memory, an institution not quite in keeping 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 conclusion, 
 contains an element of the absurd. Let us see how it works out in this 
 instance. The legislature has passed legislation, which has" been declared 
 by the highest authority to be valid and constitutional. But by the same 
 constitution an appeal is provided to a political authority, against this 
 legislation. The political authority (so the separatists allege), is bound to 
 annul the legislation. The legislation, therefore, which, according to the 
 
45 
 
 constitution, is valid, is, also according to the constitution, such legislation 
 as must be made null and void. This see-saw process seerns so puerile that 
 the mere description of it appears to partake of silliness. Yet, in spite of 
 their Lordships' statement of the scope of their decision, 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 injunction to the Governor-General-in- 
 Council to restore separate schools. 
 
 Functions of the Judicial Committee not Unlimited. 
 
 And this unwarranted interpretation of tfye 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 jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee. 
 That tribunal had as much authority to instruct or advise the Governor- 
 General-in-Council to order the restoration of separate schools, as it has to 
 direct him to abandon the policy of protection. We shall, however, a little 
 later see the reason for such an interpretation or rather misinterpretation 
 of their Lordships' decision. 
 
 It has also been contended that, because their Lordships have decided 
 that an appeal would lie, and that the rights and privileges of the Catholic 
 minority have been affected, therefore the legislation which has affected 
 these rights, is morally unsound and unjust, or at least that this is their 
 Lordships' opinion. This also is an entirely unwarrantable contention. An 
 opinion as to the moral merits was not, and could not, be asked for. We 
 have seen their Lordships' 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 nature of 
 the "rights and privileges" themselves, with a view to ascertaining whether 
 such rights and privileges had any moral claim to existence. It is ( obvious 
 that the moral status of the legislation which abolished these rights, 
 depends altogether on the question whether their existence could be 
 defended on ethical grounds. If the rights were natural or common rights, 
 the withdrawal of which would place the persons who had enjoyed them 
 in a position of disadvantage as compared with any other sections of the 
 community, then the legislature was morally wrong in abolishing them. 
 
 But is this the case ? The legislation of 1890 accords to no section of 
 the community any privileges which are denied to any other section. The 
 "rights and privileges" of which they were deprived were enjoyed by Cath- 
 lics to the exclusion of persons of every other sect or class in the community. 
 All are now treated absolutely alike, and special provision is made for avoid- 
 ance of offence to susceptibilities of every description. The Roman 
 Catholics, however, say that these equal privileges are not enough for them, 
 that their conscience impels them to demand more, and that fortunately 
 for them, their conscience is re-inforced by a provision of the constitution. 
 
 What is their Lordships' Opinion ? 
 
 It is probably unfortunate that we could not have an expressly stated 
 opinion on the broad, ethical and political issues involved, quite apart from 
 
46 
 
 the techicnal legal questions, from a body of men so well qualified by their 
 learning, their capacity, their integrity and independence, as this same 
 judicial committee. Such an opinion, of course, could not be, and was not 
 given, but some suggestions as to what it would have been, had it been 
 permissible to state it, may be gathered from passages in the judgments. 
 In the first judgment, their Lordships point out, and correct a misappre- 
 hension to the effect that one of the effects of the legislation of 1890 was 
 to confiscate Catholic property. They show that, on the contrary, the 
 Catholics were placed, in regard to their school properties, in a better posi- 
 tion than the rest of the community. Their Lordships proceed : " Not- 
 withstanding the Public Schools Act of 1890, Roman Catholics, and 
 members of every other body in Manitoba, are free to establish schools 
 throughout the province ; they are free to maintain their schools by school 
 fees or voluntary subscriptions ; they are free to conduct their schools 
 according to their cwn religious tenets, without molestation or interference, 
 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 to 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 evidence in the Logan case), to send their 
 children to public schools, where, 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 favorable position than those who can take 
 advantage of the free education provided by the act of 1890. That may 
 be so. But what right or privilege is violated or prejudicially affected by 
 the law ? It is not the law that is in fault ; it is owing to religious con- 
 victions, which everybody must respect, and the teaching of their church, 
 that Roman Catholics and the members of the Church of England find 
 themselves unable to partake of the advantages which the law offers to all 
 alike." 
 
 Their Lordships here put their finger on the vital spot. The law 
 offers advantages to all alike. It discriminates neither in favor of, nor 
 against, any person or class of persons. If any persons feel themselves 
 placed at a disadvantage, " it is not the law that is in fault." The source 
 of the disadvantage is within themselves. It may entitle them to respect, 
 as their Lordships observe, but not to exemption or other favorable dis- 
 crimination. In regard to a much disputed point, on which the separatists 
 lay much stress, 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 the Act of 1890 are in reality Protestant schools." 
 
 Then, glancing at the economic and political aspect of the question 
 they say : (and let the Governor-General-in-Council 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 the views of the respondents (the Roman Catholics) were to prevail, 
 it would be extremely difficult for the provincial legislature, which has 
 been entrusted with the exclusive power of making laws, relating to educa- 
 
47 
 
 tion, to provide for the educational wants of the more sparsely inhabited 
 districts of a country as large as Great Britain, and that the powers of the 
 legislature, which on the face of the act appear so large, would be limited 
 to the useful but somewhat humble office of making regulations for the 
 sanitary conditions of school houses, imposing rates for the support of 
 denominational schools, enforcing the compulsory attendance of scholars, 
 and matters of that sort." 
 
 There is a very strong suggestion of sarcastic humor in the latter words 
 just quoted. Their Lqrdships were evidently struck with the essential 
 absurdity of the whole situation, and have gone as nearly to expressing 
 their sense of jocularity in these words, as such an august tribunal could 
 afford to go, consistently with its dignity. The idea of a legislature, whose 
 jurisdiction is defined by a statute which impressively commences by say- 
 ing that the legislature shall " exclusively make laws," being reduced 
 before the section is completed, to the "useful but somewhat humble" 
 functions of a municipal council, seems to have struck their Lordships as 
 an exceedingly humorous conception. They were doubtless also struck 
 with the doctrine which is gravely involved in the contentions of the sep- 
 aratists, that the few simple-minded natives of Red River in 1870 had 
 acquired a right to legislate for the province of Manitoba for all time. 
 And no wonder. The innate preposterousness and absurdity of the politi- 
 cal doctrines involved in the case of the separatists, taken in connection 
 with the seriousness with which they are urged, is enough to upset the 
 gravity of even a more solemn body than their Lordships, if any such 
 exists. 
 
 It may be and has been charged, that the last judgment of the 
 Judicial Committee is inconsistent with their first. But this charge is not 
 borne out on comparision of the two judgments, and on a fair and careful 
 and common sense reading of the latter one. While their Lordships dis- 
 charge their functions of strictly construing the words of the statute, 
 they do not leave any doubt as to the impression which the statute itself 
 created in their minds. They say : "It may be said to be anomalous that 
 such a restriction as that in question should be imposed on the free action 
 of a legislature, but is it more anomalous than to grant to a minority who 
 are aggrieved by legislation, an appeal from the legislative to the 
 executive authority ? And yet this right is expressly and beyond all doubt 
 conferred." Undoubtedly their Lordships' astonishmeut had good grounds, 
 for there is probably no other case in all the records of parliamentary 
 government, in which a legislative body is prohibited from repealing its 
 own acts, and in which valid and constitutional legislation may be appealed 
 against to an executive authority. Moreover, we venture to assert that 
 such a provision is contrary to the spirit and principle of government of 
 the people by themselves. 
 
 Whilst the whole text of the latter judgment shows that their Lord- 
 ships clearly defined their own function to be that of construing the words 
 of the statute, and whilst they declare that the course to be pursued must 
 be determined by the authorities to whom it has been committed by the 
 statute, the last or rather the penultimate paragraph of their judgment is 
 couched in language which the Separatists contend give the judgment the 
 effect of a mandate. This paragraph reads : " It is certainly not essential 
 
I 
 
 |.|i!il (lie .l.il ill . rep.-Ml.'d liy Mir Acl o|' |S!K) should I ;. 'I . -d . or j IIM I 
 
 ||,r p,r. i .r piox I .inn . ..I UK-..' :|Mlule>, :.lnlll.l .I'viin I M- niMilehw Tin* 
 
 ^ 1, m <>| ednrMhon nil 1 > I n- I in Mir \< i I "I I:.'M) n ,, .|,.iil>l . -, timnm. I .-. 
 
 ,i ,,n i... .in. I M.ie.piMiri\ .npphr. i,hr \\.-ini. ,.r the greal majority of thi 
 iniiMitn.ini .-I HI.' province All legitimate grounds of complain! would 
 in* rrmo\ rd i r iii:i< \ .t, m \\ n lupplernented i>y proviiloni \\ ineh \\ onid 
 
 irmoxr I'll" "iirvMner upon \\liieh lit.' Mpp.-.'il i . founded. Mini were nn . 1 1 lir. I 
 NO I'MY MM mi'dil I'" iHMTssM.ry t.o L'.iv ellret l> Ihese provision^," 
 
 Now. in 111" lir.;i. pl.-irr. il r. MS well To no! " I IIM! I In- i i< \ .in. 'I o 
 
 which thoir Lordships rol'or is not. n n-.-il >r inm-M.1 -,1 n-\ MIUT. I ml, m. i. I \ .\ 
 
 .(Mlnlory our The only gvieVADOt Hi-'H <'"' l"in.in ( ';i I li. -he , l i;i \" 
 
 mil .1 .! . in 111" I'Mi'l. lliMl. <-.iI.ini M",lil. :in. I |ll\ il< ;" \vlnrh \\ri. 
 conlVrr".! upon MHMII l'\ ;i pr ' v IIH-IM! '.Inlnlv. :in.l \\lnrli lh.-\ M I. ML- <-n j. iy "< I 
 j,|ln- OXt'lusioil "I :lll olliri ,.l .in. I rl:l;iS('S ol' ill" "< 'I II III 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ . \\rir 
 \\iili.lrM\\ii l\ Hi" SMiii.' Mulln.ril.y \\ln.-li r.-inl . I Ilirin. I.-MXIII", (linn in M. 
 
 |..i .l! loll .'I ' rXMl-t ".|ll.lllly \\ H II Mil .'Ill.T rl.|...V, III j.| I r . > X I IM . ' I \\ . 1 1 M \ - 
 
 MhrM.I\ "i\.-n I'r.Mn lli.n I ,. .nlslnp'N li i .! |n. ! ni.'nl . 1 1 i. \M\ , , -IH -I n .1 \ , I y 
 :.|io\\ li lllMl ill lll"ir Lord:. Ill]'':- opinion III. 1 ItolliMII ('Mlliolic; lui\r lio M il 
 Or i no CM I -i n-\ MII.-.- on M"connl ol' I lie op. TM I ion of UK IMU I of L890 
 
 Tlio (>\pic..ion " "ii.'\ MII"(\" I. lion, MM irir.l l>y Ilicir honl.liip [| 
 pun|y M l<"-:il I.M'lnncMl on". No\v. H i. uilli.r .lillimll lo con. , i \ .- . .1 
 p,-,,\ i :;i,,n.-; I- .-ill" in.i.lr lo iviuo\r :i . i i. \ MI ). . I v .11 1 1 1 1 1 < - _l'i . .1 M I. - - _i .1 .1 1 I. m . 
 linlr.sM Mini Ir^islMl.lon .lionl,! |i,> rrpi-Mlrl or :.oinr| lull", .lolir \vllirh NVolll.l 
 IIM.M- Mil "iplix.'ili-iil rlliM-l \\'r .Mil.'.:; lluii we Ml'" ill :i loMM to roCOlloilll 
 |.ln lir;,l \\ illi UK- IM I .. -nlnuT of UK purn^ntph pi ( <pio|c.| 
 
 Til" p.'..iM" CXplnilMlioil is !|IM!.:I. Mu- ; n-\ M.IH-I- r..inpl;iin'.| >!' i; 
 n,.| M 11101:1! pieVlUlCO, hilt) ninvly M. ;-;l,Ml,ul.ory olio, it ""ill. I In- .-nln.-ly 
 r.Miio\<-.| ly 111" r"p\'il ol III" :;l.Mlul.nry provision on wlncli il is l-.i .'.I 
 
 I In JiKlmnnir not a 
 
 Tlir tplolr.l pMTM-MMpli ol' Ihrir Lol'< |s;h i p'.M judgment COUld, \V" Ililllk. 
 h" 'on .1 in. <! MM M III:MU|M|". T.iil r\rn il il liM.il mapped OUt IODQ6 
 
 upeoino i">" or action, i" IH- roiio\ v ,-,i i.\ i IH- Gtevernoi General m 'onnni. 
 
 1 1. nr.-.l no!. IIMX r IM-.-II I'olloxvr.l hiVM.ilsr I In- i . ..IIM nc. ol inli directions WHH 
 no|. in\ -olvr.l in. or n. r, .o \ I,. ., ,|, , i i,,n ol I In- c:i .r hrl'nri' Uir < '.'ill I 
 
 Mr. |)M||.OII GdoOavthy deals \\il.li tin; poinl, in In. .n niii.'iil. I'ni Ilir 
 provillCO lrl'orr Ilir ({o\.-i-noi (l.-n.-i.il in ( 'oiiiinl Mi .i\ Now. l.lii-n- 
 
 is M \\ I'll known nil". I IIM I, il" M ronrl, o|" |.i\\ -or . l>< \ on. I \V!IM.|. i . in ....i i \ 
 
 I or ill.- l""i .ion ol' M CM;..-, j.hr derision is not, hi nd in^ ; it. is what 18 -Mll"-i 
 <il>i(rr. Tliry h.'ive no more i i-dd I.. :iH'-r|. Hi" illtere il,.s ol i i-'.lil.s ol' p.n i i. . 
 
 -in- 1.. -\on.l IK.- question itsoll', Hi.'in M iiion st.nin^or lm.s. The court 
 
 i,M limited III il .d.n .ion. Mild Mil. hllS II lundlii", rliMi-M.el.rr onl\ HO Ion 
 
 II I . eolllined |,o Mie i plr :.| io| i; . \\hich \\ . I . .1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 I . . I " ,l||d;-lll" l'\ Ml 
 Mr( 'Mi-lhy's eiuinener MS M. iMwyer. MM M!SO l.y Mie I'MC!. MiMilo. .I..I . ninil. 
 \\ . -not e.Mlled in .|l|. ,1 loll. Mil. rrm. lol.r :. ..... id hlW. Til. 'II LordshipB 
 
 Iheiuselves delin"d I lie .. o|><- o|' Mini- iiKpiny lo In- M,; lo \\ heMirr MII M pp"M I 
 lo Ihr ( Jo\ n noi General \\onld In- Anyl.lnnv; in Mini jn.|.. ninil . Ih.i. 
 l.n . no|. IK-MIIII;' on Mie VM.Inlil.y ol' Ilir MppeM.I would he .in ^^l>l^<^ 
 
 ,ind of non e||, -el 
 
n 
 
 I IK I HIM lion of HM UoVCI'llor <.< m i ..I in <<>,,.,< .1 
 
 'I'l,, ,|iitli< ill ' InmtniUi - "' ' I" l'i" ' ' '' '"' ' Ootlftoil h : 
 
 i, I,,, i, i.i,, i ;., lim i, i 'nil ...I i< minority ol Manitoba hfl ft right d rtpfteal bo thi 
 
 ( |<, vi i n>, i < ii- i -i I in ' "Hi,, I I 'll.nl I : nil Urn I. I.M IHI M<I I I . n : . I. . i - 1 , , I ... 
 , ,,i|l<l -|. < |.|i 'I IK 1 |oV< f M'.i in ' -.iiii' il i IM Of/llMI ! ! I IK 
 
 I ), .mini'. n '", i HIM' ill.. "'In' I. I. "I'l il (.'.-' i I., i.l'i' "I UH-. ':ri|i|i,i I '.I 
 
 thi nil mdi i "I '.I-' I >oinmi d< - "I i- 
 
 i.i,, M fon . politic o/l d<,/iy ( M.n'1 in u.i m- .1.1. i i HI ...; in .. |.>. hi. i> ..i ,.|,H 
 
 nl.y n . ' |,l.i.m-.| l,y II,- |i|.| v . ,,f |,|,, p, , v y OIHH il. ' ' , 
 
 ,,u, ... I |..i tli n ' iiUiolii i '"' 1 - .vi"' i rmii I'.'iw li. ' h 
 
 I.M ildont "I I-'" 1 '-"'nifil Now, a jiiflirinl iiii.ini"! in i. 
 merely c/i.llc/l iij<"i |,o i Kplain l.nn '' '-I M, Mhihif.r. Any 
 
 I. r , .,,,,, -,| ,, j||<||( , .,! l.ril,.IM-il '-H l.li< h" I. : fil < 
 
 wiUi, irntl wit-Inn UM lirnil irnpn ' ' , ' . /ii " (i 
 
 ii|.'.n 1,1.' |ii- l.ion nlitriiM.i -I (" l.li- m A |,<,hl.i< ..I I i I|,HMM| 
 hi . 1.1,, |>n '' "I . i Hoi, l.'.nri'l l.y l-li' I-' i 
 I.I'.M : <il 1. 1 1 M i < : |i 'I i' n'-y ntcl | HI Mir W< II ln-iii[< in, 'I >-.fiiiri'l |i'ilir y in II :l, dr. 
 
 '(Hinf. dy il,. n.ii'l ii.ll Ui' di 'ui'l nil "'I |"'dl, i 
 
 rul I li M. d'. 'I / 
 
 )'-|i would fiavr UK - II- - I. --I 
 
 I In I, in rlisrn l.ioniu / rn c I. M -. UH |. :< !.. il. 
 
 j|i| 'I .', Irly dy UK hi.r.l.f. nri'l ' )' ' I, nri'l 
 
 Uir. <-;i :< . li : I ill d ti :t < i l.tiim 'I, n.l'l 
 
 i',n n.ri'l 'd :'U'. '. '.i"f. 
 
 'I'dr v.bi.f,l|tn wdird |ir'./i'l' : i'.i U.' /. | | ' n.l . ' I' ' : r K ,!. 'J , ' 1 1 / UK roiM ' 
 wdird I.I f UK 
 
 ju,|,ral II, dor : riol, r.vrn iri'li< ><' I f i , 'I- 
 
 l.ion i". of l.dr v< i y v/i'l' :l. 'I 
 
 UK ]iil:'< : of l.dr .lii'liruil C.imtiti i U,< < , dul, dy I 
 
 r>j,Uio|ir: U, /' nlf.Mly ;rrn. UK lior/l ( Jloi nr<-| |/, , 
 
 iifltd Ir r.di.1-- * * * " Uirn you say Uirrr, i A <!Af 
 
 U,c |in l :'ll' l.ion of U,< ^',/'rr.',r ;" i,' i n I Ji.r I'l : 
 
 , Mr I '.In I < ..->. .vv^m : "Thai iff all / : ' '(; dav t<jr d^lkllf/ 
 
 Wlial. r-rnrly l.r ;l,iill |,iir|,',.' I, . . rrnl, U,. 
 
 I'ir.iof (JCHfiW'l in U.r, MM, Wiyn ir. ' 
 f,| I, ri ! ' .l,i/n ; d; I.i. 
 
 of i.i. dy Uift govf^rror ^ftn^ral. Wo rrinr^ly al< U 
 
 ,'l l.dal, l.r, dn .-': _, ..,,;<) ir f,. /,n l,o 
 '/ ///' /// /.W : /'/"/ 
 
 KFiOM w- pufli<'ly 
 
 ror.d ri'l U.nl, U,r judjon/ r.l, of I,!,' .!M C r ^ttK 
 
 I f,o l.dr. < !>i,nid, fine nl, .,.-' [..* ,I:IIM r.f, l.o 
 
 M r. Bwftft Agftlo MiyK ui U.r-. '.n.u.c Afgttfn^nl </iv*fI ol 
 
 ;i|,|,r.H.I l,o U. nor, 1,0 I. 
 
 laturr , rns l.o \,<- -//dolly f|> ,y in doU, " 
 
 Wr, vJ,,,iiM l.dink f.l.rrr, r.onl'. , l,o U" 'd -./ r' l.,on 
 
 <>\ I 
 
50 
 
 The Remedial Order. 
 
 The judgment of the Imperial Privy Council has been interpreted by 
 the Governor-General-in-Council as a mandate to him to demand of the 
 Manitoba legislature the restoration of separate schools. If such were the 
 correct intepretation it would seem to the ordinary observer that anything 
 in the nature of a further trial would be somewhat of a farce. Yet the 
 Governor-General-in-Council evidently thought that a further trial was 
 necessary, and notified the parties that they would be heard. A most 
 elaborate argument was made, lasting four days. On March 21, 1895, the 
 Governor-General issued an order in council in which is reiterated, almost 
 verbatim, the peculiar penultimate paragraph of the judgment of the 
 Imperial Privy Council, which we have quoted, and he declares " that it 
 seems requisite that the system of education embodied in the two acts of 
 1890 aforesaid, shall be supplemented by a provincial act or acts which 
 will restore to the Roman Catholic minority the said rights and privileges, 
 of which such minority has been deprived 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-Council has obviously not availed himself 
 of his discretionary power. In the Remedial Order, the political or ethical 
 factors which the Governor-in-Council was entitled, and bound in duty, to 
 take into consideration, are not so much as alluded to. The very impor- 
 tant question of the soundness from an ethical, political or economic point 
 of view, of the present system, is not considered by His Excellency in 
 Council. Neither is the still more important consideration of the nature 
 and bearing on the freedom of our political institutions, of sub-sections 2 
 and 3 of the Manitoba Act. The order is a mere recital of the statutory 
 provisions, and an account of the proceedings in the litigation. The judg- 
 ment of the Imperial Privy Council, which is merely a declaration that the 
 Roman Catholic minority have a right of appeal, has been interpreted by 
 the Governor-in-Council, as a mandate to answer the appeal in a certain 
 way. 
 
 It is to be hoped that the attention of parliament when the matter 
 comes before it, may be specially directed to the following significant 
 passage in the Remedial Order : " The Committee therefore recommend 
 that the Provincial Legislature be requested to consider whether its action 
 upon the decision of Your Excellency in Council should be permitted to be 
 such, as while refusing to redress a grievance, which the highest court in 
 the Empire has declared to exist, may compel parliament to give relief, of 
 which, under the constitution, the Provincial Legislature is the proper and 
 primary source, thereby, according to this view, permanently divesting 
 itself in a very large measure of its authority; and so establishing in the 
 province an educational system which, no matter what changes may take 
 place in the circumstances of the country or the views of the people, 
 cannot be altered or repealed." 
 
 This sentence, in so far as it has an intelligible meaning, is a most 
 pregnant one. It obviously menaces the Manitoba, legislature with the 
 possible permanent loss of its jurisdiction, in event of non-compliance with 
 
51 
 
 the terms of the order. " The committee," however, with considerable lack 
 of astuteness, evidently overlooked the fact that if the Manitoba legislature 
 should comply with the demands of the order, its compliance would have 
 precisely the same effect in depriving it of its jurisdiction, as would its 
 refusal to comply. The committee, apparently, had forgotten for the 
 moment the effect of the provisions of the " anomalous " sub-sections 2 and 
 3 of section 22. of the Manitoba Act. If the Governor-in-Council's inter- 
 pretation of that sub-section is sound, then any legislation which the 
 Manitoba legislature might now pass on the lines of the Remedial Order, 
 would be quite as irrevocable by it as would be a Dominion Statute of the 
 same trend. If that is the case the provincial legislature might as well 
 permit the Dominion parliament to enact the legislation which will per- 
 manently divest the legislature "of a large measure of its authority." 
 
 The committee evidently fancy, or wish to make the Manitoba 
 legislature believe, that if the legislature complied with the order, and 
 thereby retained its jurisdiction, it would, somehow or other, be 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 views of the people." Such changes have already taken place, and 
 the legislature repealed the laws which had become unsuitable because of 
 these changes, and enacted new ones to suit the changed circumstances and 
 views. But the Committee declares that the laws which the legislature 
 has repealed, practically "cannot be altered or repealed," and that the laws 
 which it enacted are inoperative. What jurisdiction, in these circumstances, 
 can the legislature imperil, by refusing to comply, or what can it save by 
 complying ? 
 
SECOND PART. 
 
 Progress and Incidents of the Controversy. 
 
 The answer of the government of Manitoba to the Remedial Order, 
 which practically demanded the restoration of separate schools, was a sub- 
 stantial refusal to comply with the demand. The answer was an able 
 and well considered document. The language was clear, well chosen and 
 moderate. The tone was expostulatory rather than defiant. It was in 
 marked contrast, both in the matters of lucidity and of tone, to the prolix 
 and peremptory communication of the Dominion authorities. The reply of 
 the Manitoba government pointed out that no change of a radical nature 
 could, or need be made in the system of education established by the law 
 of 1890, because, in the first place, that law was entirely within the consti- 
 tutional powers of the legislature which had enacted it ; because it suited 
 the economic conditions of the province ; because it replaced a system 
 which was emphatically unsatisfactory in its results, and was based on an 
 unsound principle. It also pointed out that the Dominion government was 
 manifestly ignorant of certain essential, and of many minor, facts bearing 
 on the case. It further suggested that, probably on account of the haste 
 with which it had pushed the exercise of its remedial authority, the Dom- 
 inion government had overlooked some very important considerations, due 
 cognisance of, and attention to which, were absolutely indispensable to a 
 just and efficient discharge of its appellate duties. 
 
 The Manitoba authorities therefore suggested that an enquiry into all 
 the facts and merits of the case should be made by the Dominion govern- 
 ment, and they offered their co-operation and assistance in such an enquiry. 
 
 The reply of the Manitoba government was met by a rejoinder, in 
 which the Ottawa government virtually ignored the suggestion that an 
 enquiry be made. The rejoinder was really an ultimatum, and it was 
 accompanied by a declaration in parliament, that if Manitoba should not 
 in the meantime remove the " grievances " of the " minority," or give some 
 tangible undertaking that such relief would be forthcoming at an early 
 date, a session of parliament would be called for January 2nd, 1896, at 
 which a bill would be introduced providing the relief. The reply of Mani- 
 toba to the ultimatum did not alter the position of matters. Parliament 
 met on January 2nd, 1896, but many weeks elapsed before the Remedial 
 
53 
 
 Bill was introduced. The interval was consumed by probably the most 
 discreditable exhibition of personal squabbling and petty intrigue between 
 the members of the Ottawa government, that has ever been seen in Canad- 
 ian parliamentary history. 
 
 In the meantime the government of Manitoba, in view of the menac- 
 ing attitude of the Dominion authorities, and of the grave situation with 
 which the province was confronted, had dissolved the legislature and gone 
 to the people of the province, with this question as the issue of the election, 
 which was held on January 15, 1896. The government expressed its 
 determination, if returned, to make no compromise involving the restora- 
 tion of the separate school system, be the consequences what they might. 
 The election resulted in an overwhelming victory for the government, and 
 was an emphatic expression of the determination of the people of Manitoba 
 to resist any and all encroachments on their rights. 
 
 The Remedial Bill was a ponderous and awe-inspiring legislative 
 effort. It may be said, to some extent, to have been killed by its own 
 weight. It contained 112 clauses. It did not embody the changes speci- 
 fied by and provided for in the Remedial Order, and would, therefore, have 
 been unconstitutional, in the opinion of some respectable legal authorities, 
 even if it had passed. It contained provisions, however, which involved 
 the practical restoration of state-supported separate schools and a full 
 recognition of the principle. 
 
 The second reading of the measure was carried by a majority of 
 eighteen, which included the votes of six Catholic Liberals, who supported 
 the Government. The normal majority of the government on a strictly 
 partisan division was fifty-three. The result, therefore, shows that but for 
 the adhesion of the six Liberal recalcitrants, the government would have 
 narrowly escaped defeat on the second reading. It indeed suffered a 
 practical moral defeat, because its support on this division was composed 
 to a very large extent of place hunters who had succeeded in their object, 
 and who were virtually office holders, some of them being within a few 
 days or weeks, in actual occupation of the offices of which they then had 
 the assurance. Such are the methods by which, when the party in power 
 is hard pressed, expressions of the "will of the people" on questions of 
 vital importance are secured in the parliament of Canada. Manifestly the 
 educational question is an all important one. Till the Canadian public 
 have their intelligence and their moral sense developed to the point at 
 which they will be able to see the folly and absurdity of the prevailing 
 idolatry of party or faction, the public business will continue to be 
 conducted on the principle of the hippodrome. 
 
 The third reading of the bill was never reached, as its opponents, by 
 the adoption of a policy of tireless opposition, obstructed the measure in 
 committee so effectively that only a very few clauses had been passed when 
 parliament was prorogued on April 23rd, 1896. Its dissolution by 
 effluxion of time would have taken place the following day. The course 
 of the men who fought and obstructed the passage of the bill has been 
 severely characterized by the government. It is our opinion, and it is, we 
 believe, that of the country, that the obstructionists performed their duty 
 in a most creditable manner, and that they have earned the gratitude of 
 the Dominion in saving it from an indelible disgrace, and from endless 
 
54 
 
 trouble. The odium and the disgrace of the unseemly proceedings lie 
 on the men who, in the last days of a parliament composed to some extent 
 of corrupted office seekers endeavored to force through a measure which 
 could not have failed to strain the bonds of Confederation. 
 
 In the interval which has passed since the publication of the earlier 
 portion of this review, there has been an incessant and tumultuous literary 
 controversy carried on, of which this school question has been the subject. 
 Probably half the members of the Canadian brigade of the cosmopolitan 
 army of literary Quixotes have broken a lance in favor of, or against the 
 attitude of Manitoba. The large proportion of the other half has probably 
 been held back from the fray by the heartlessness of matter of fact, 
 unsympathetic editors : who, of course, are, as a class, so dull of perception 
 and so wanting in refinement and in literary discrimination as to be quite 
 incapable of appreciating, and actually consign to the waste basket, many 
 works of genius which are offered to them without money and without 
 price. 
 
 The Gravel Incident. 
 
 One of the most striking incidents of the controversy was what is 
 known as the " Gravel Incident." 
 
 In June, 1895, Mgr. Gravel, Bishop of Nicolet, issued to the clergy of 
 Canada some extraordinary documents regarding the Manitoba school 
 question. The first is a report to the Holy See, which he was asked to 
 prepare by Cardinal Ledochowski, Prefect of the Propaganda, when in 
 Rome in 1894. It purports to give a history of the case, in the course of 
 which it says that Kiel was given the " mission to prevent the entrance 
 into the country of the officials of the government of Canada, and that the 
 leader accomplished his purpose victoriously." Bishop Gravel intimates 
 that Cardinal Vaughan, at the request of Cardinal Ledochowski, influenced 
 the judgment of the privy council in favor of the Catholics of Manitoba. 
 He then transmits the protocol of Cardinal Ledochowski, which is practi- 
 cally the mandate of the Pope to the Roman Catholic Bishops of Canada. 
 
 It is probable, as will be surmised, that Bishop Gravel's circular to 
 the clergy was not intended for general perusal, but somehow the entire 
 document reached the press. It attracted much attention and some very 
 unfavorable criticism. 
 
 It may be interesting to recall the salient facts of the incident. 
 Bishop Gravel was requested by Cardinal Ledochowski, Prefect of the 
 Propaganda (whose office at the Vatican is somewhat analogous to that of 
 Secretary of State for Foreign Aftairs in the British Government), to 
 prepare a report on the Manitoba School Question. In compliance with 
 this request, the Bishop made a report which was submitted on December 
 7th, 1894. The matter was considered by the church authorities to be one 
 of great importance, and it would naturally be thought that the Bishop 
 would spare no pains to secure and to verify all available data, so that the 
 accuracy of his report would be unimpeachable, and its exhaustiveness 
 leave nothing to be desired. But strangely enough he commences it : <: I 
 have done the work from memory, not having any book or document 
 relating to this question. I believe, however, that I can affirm that the 
 
55 
 
 account which I give of the events surrounding this affair is strictly true." 
 This shows the folly of relying on human memory in a matter of impor- 
 tance, even if the memory be an episcopal one. For the account given by 
 the Bishop is so inaccurate in regard to some of the most essential facts as 
 to render the whole recital a gross perversion. His descriptions of the 
 functions and modus operandi of the Imperial Privy Council is decidedly 
 piquant and interesting. Referring to the judgment in which that 
 tribunal held that the Manitoba School Legislation of 1890 was strictly 
 constitutional, the good Bishop says : " That Council, which is the 
 guardian of British interests, considered that it was more advantageous for 
 the peace of the Empire to affirm the autonomy of the Province of Mani- 
 toba than to maintain the rights of the Catholics. It therefore reversed 
 the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, and declared to be 
 constitutional the obnoxious law passed by the Legislature of Manitoba. 
 To reach that conclusion the Privy Council affected not to understand the 
 force of the evidence furnished by the negotiations which had taken place 
 at the time of the union, and by solemn assurances given by the Crown." 
 
 It will be observed that the worthy Bishop evinces a cynical readiness 
 to assume, as the most natural thing in the world, that the judges of the 
 British Privy Council, the most exalted tribunal in the Empire, whilst 
 pretending to adjudicate on cases brought before them solely on the facts 
 and merits of these cases, and with regard to the rights and interests of 
 the parties, really considered in the first place the policy and the 
 necessities of the statesmen, who for the time being might be ruling in 
 Britain. This idea is rather startling. 
 
 Commenting on the statement by the Judicial Committee of the 
 reasons on which its judgment was based, the right reverend reporter 
 remarks : " That reasoning is so lame that it is impossible to believe that 
 men of such intellectual strength as the noble Lords could have advanced 
 it in good faith." 
 
 The gentle naivete with which the Bishop makes his startling accusa- 
 tions of duplicity and bad faith against such a body is not the least 
 remarkable feature of the incident. 
 
 In view of Bishop Gravel's opinion of the ethical standards of the 
 Privy Council, and of the considerations which influence it in arriving at 
 its decisions, his suggestion to Cardinal Ledochowski is not at all surprising. 
 He proceeds : " Now, I am asked if the Sacred Congregation of the Propo- 
 ganda can usefully intervene in the settlement of this important question. 
 # * K. It might, perhaps, through the intervention of His Eminence 
 Cardinal Vaughan, represent, among other things, to the Colonial Minister 
 in London, that his predecessor, Lord Carnarvon, had given in his own 
 name, and, in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the assurance to the 
 Catholics of Manitoba that they would have their Separate Schools, and 
 that, consequently, the Crown is bound in honor to fufil these solemn 
 promises, if it does not wish to alienate the hearts of the Catholics of 
 Manitoba. An intimation of this nature might have a good effect in 
 reference to the judgment which the Privy Council will deliver within a 
 few months!' 
 
 This suggestion was made, be it remembered, after the case had been 
 argued before their Lordships and the evidence all submitted to them. 
 
56 
 
 Now, these alleged facts, which the Bishop recited, if they had been true 
 facts, would all have been brought out in the evidence in the case, and the 
 attention of their Lordships would have been drawn to them by the legal 
 counsel for the Catholics in their argument. Why, under these circum- 
 stances, was an intimation to the judges, through the Colonial Minister, 
 coupled with the suggestion of the possible alienation of the hearts of the 
 Catholics of Manitoba, thought to be necessary ? As a matter of fact, the 
 recital of Bishop Gravel was a gross misrepresentation of the whole 
 question. His essential facts were wrong, and there was no such promise 
 as he alludes to either on the part of Lord Carnarvon or Her Majesty the 
 Queen. It is impossible to avoid the conviction that the real import of 
 Bishop Gravel's suggestion is that the threatened estrangement of the 
 Roman Catholic authorities, which would hardly be confined to the 
 Province of Manitoba, and the political difficulties which would follow to 
 the British Government from such estrangement, were to be used as a 
 lever to influence the Judicial Committee to find some pretext to deprive 
 the small and comparatively insignificant Province of Manitoba of those 
 constitutional rights, which had been confirmed to it, by the previous 
 judgment, as this course would, to use the language of the Bishop, be "more 
 advantageous for the peace of the Empire." 
 
 This incident, as may be imagined, created a profound sensation. It 
 had somewhat the effect of a vivid flash of lightning on a dark night. It 
 exhibited things whose existence had not been dreamed of. It is impossi- 
 ble to avoid the presumption that efforts were 'made to influence the 
 judgment of the privy council. It is equally impossible to believe that 
 these efforts in any way determined the verdict of that tribunal. 
 
 Principal Grant's Letters. 
 
 One of the most remarkable contributions to the literature of the con- 
 troversy, was a series of letters contributed to the Toronto Globe by Rev. 
 G. M. Grant, I). D., principal of Kingston University. These letters were 
 worthy of serious attention, not so much on account of their intrinsic 
 value, as of the prominence and recognized ability of the writer. The rev. 
 principal did not do justice to his reputation in the contributions in ques- 
 tion, which contained several grave errors as to fact, and some erroneous 
 conclusions, evidently the result of haste, insufficient study, and not the 
 best of good fortune in regard to the impartiality of the sources of his in- 
 formation. It was quite apparent from the tone and argument of the 
 later articles of his series, that if he had spent as many weeks in the prov- 
 ince before commencing the series, as he had spent days, the earlier parts 
 would have been very different. 
 
 Dr. Grant severely criticized the Dominion government for its 
 Remedial Order and condemned its proposal to introduce remedial legisla- 
 tion. But in his first letters he dropped into some very serious errors and 
 misconceptions. His articles, are very largely occupied by a description of the 
 schools, and of the quality of the teaching. Much of this portion of his 
 work is interesting, but it is nearly all quite irrelevant to the question at 
 issue. He admits that the teaching in the Catholic schools prior to 1890 was 
 grossly inefficient. He thinks this was the difficulty which faced the 
 
57 
 
 Manitoba legislature and to overcome which it enacted the law of 1890. 
 He says : " The Teal problem then amounted to this : Seeing that one- 
 tenth of the schools in the province were badly taught, how shall we 
 improve these ? " 
 
 To persons who thoroughly understand the question, it is almost 
 inconceivable that a man of Dr. Grant's experience and ability could be 
 capable of making such a fundamental and colossal blunder as this. 
 
 If the problem before the legislature had simply been the inefficiency 
 of the Catholic schools, Dr. Grant's argument that legislation looking to 
 the improvement of the teaching, and not to the abolition of the system, 
 was what was wanted, would be quite valid. As a matter of fact the 
 inefficiency of the Catholic schools was merely an incident, and not the 
 essential element in the situation which culminated in the now celebrated 
 laws of 1890. Had these schools been efficient the necessity for that 
 legislation would still have existed. Columns of dreary twaddle have 
 been written from one side and the other on this merely incidental phase 
 of the controversy, which, to our mind, can serve no purpose but to 
 confuse and distract attention from the real issue, and to unnecessarily 
 engender or increase bitter feeling. It seemed to us, indeed, that the only 
 weak feature of the Manitoba government's reply to the remedial order, 
 which was in other respects an exceptionally strong, concise and courteous 
 document, was the prominence given to this matter of the inefficiency of 
 the Catholic schools. 
 
 The Real Problem. 
 
 The " real problem " which confronted the Manitoba legislature in 
 1890, had two distinct but very important aspects. The province was 
 then, and for that matter, is now, practically a new country. The 
 settlement was sparse, and was scattered over a very large territory. The 
 settlers who were coming into the country were of various nationalities, 
 and spoke different languages. The intelligence and previous experience 
 of some of these immigrants were not such as to fit them to exercise their 
 rights as citizens of a self-governing community with advantage to them- 
 selves or with safety to the state. For reasons which will be self-evident, 
 it was urgently necessary in the interest of popular government, that 
 facilities for the education of these heterogeneous elements, or their 
 offspring, should be provided. The provision of this education was the 
 real problem confronting the legislature, and it was seen that the only 
 effective and economical, and indeed possible way to attain this end 
 was the establishment of a uniform system of education under the pro- 
 tection and supervision of the state. 
 
 The other aspect of the ''problem" was inseparably interwoven with 
 that just described. Up till that time there had been in existence a 
 double system of schools which had been instituted by the legislature of 
 the province in 1871. The ftoman Catholics had a system of schools 
 supported by taxes and controlled by the clergy. All other sections of the 
 community, under the comprehensive but very inappropriate and mis- 
 leading designation of Protestant, used the other system, which was in 
 reality a common school system. The legislature declared that this state 
 
58 
 
 of matters involved discriminations and distinctions which were incompat- 
 ible with, and repugnant to, the principles underlying our form of 
 government, and that it was entirely inconsistent with the doctrine of 
 entire separation of church and state, which the legislature declared to be 
 a sound doctrine. The legislature also saw that the cost of educating the 
 people under a double system would be so great, under our conditions, as 
 to render education simply impossible if the immigrants should be partly 
 Catholic and partly non-Catholic. 
 
 The " real problem " then, involved the most practical considerations 
 as well as the most important principles. 
 
 When Rev. Dr. Grant was in Winnipeg he preached a sermon, in 
 which he emphasized the necessity, when erecting a structure, of laying 
 the foundations broad and deep and sound. In facing its " problem " the 
 Manitoba legislature proceeded on that principle. It was legislating for a 
 community practically at the beginning of its existence. It determined to 
 lay the foundations with such strength, solidity, and soundness of design, 
 that future generations would not require to tear down the superstructure 
 and do the work over again. It abolished all class privileges. It placed 
 every sect and individual in the community in a position of absolute 
 freedom and absolute equality, and that is the position in which they are 
 to-day. It is to be steadily borne in mind that the " rights " which the 
 separate school party claim, are privileges which never were, and never 
 cculd be, possessed by any other portion of the community. 
 
 If the constitution of the province had been so framed as to debar the 
 legislature from legislating as it did, that would only have shown that the 
 constitution was defective and required amendment. But the Imperial 
 Privy Council declared that there was nothing in the constitution to 
 prevent Manitoba legislating as she had done. Dr. Grant believes that the 
 laying of a broad and sound foundation is a good theme for preaching. He 
 has not, apparently, so much admiration for the process when it is applied 
 in practice, for he has for some reason which does not become apparent in 
 his contributions, suggested that the dispute be settled by some sort of 
 a compromise, the terms of which he does not indicate. 
 
 It will be seen that the " real problem " was a much larger and wider 
 question than that with which Principal Grant supposed the legislature 
 had to deal. 
 
 Xot a Minor Question. 
 
 In view of the trend of modern civilization, of the portentous ques- 
 tions that are looming up on the social and political horizons, it is impera- 
 tive that all self-governing communities, whose purpose it is to preserve 
 their freedom and integrity, shall be composed of intelligent individuals. 
 
 There is no duty to-day devolving upon a legislature or a government 
 in a state such as ours, which demands more of its attention, or entails a 
 weightier responsibility, than that of providing for the education the 
 development of the intellect, the judgment and the moral sense of the 
 future citizens. To do this effectively the best system and methods must 
 be adopted, and all cumbrous appliances or faulty institutions, which oper- 
 ate as obstructions to the attainment of the object, must be eliminated, 
 
59 
 
 It has been the fashion amongst a few pseudo-sagacious writers on 
 this subject, since the publication of Dr. Grant's letters, to treat the whole 
 matter in a spirit of contemptuous disgust. The Manitoba school question 
 has been referred to as a " wretched affair," a " petty squabble," over the 
 proper way to educate a few hundred Catholic children, or, as one paper 
 put it, the children of a " handful of French half-breeds." 
 
 It has been pointed out that the predominance of this "wretched 
 question " as an issue in the politics of the country is interfering with our 
 material interests, which is undoubtedly the case. 
 
 It is also argued that because , the present Catholic population of 
 Manitoba is concentrated in one or two districts in which there is practi- 
 cally no Protestant settlement, the granting of separate schools by the 
 province would not have any different result in future from that produced 
 by the operation of the present system 
 
 Now it will be found that nine-tenths of those persons and journals who 
 treat the question as a " squabble " and a " nuisance," are persons and 
 journals who are partisan supporters of the Dominion government. They 
 feel that the position of Manitoba is sound and inpregnable, and that the 
 course of the Dominion government is indefensible. They wish, therefore, 
 to minimise the importance of the question as an issue in the politics of the 
 country. One Winnipeg journal has actually declared and reiterated, that 
 the school question is dead and is not now an issue in the impending elec- 
 tion, and that whosoever shall try to make it an issue is a bigot and a 
 traitor to his country's interests. At the same time, the leaders of the 
 party which it desires to assist, declare that, if returned to power, they 
 will enact the coercive measure which they were unable to force through 
 at the last session. As the author of the school laws of 1890 (Mr. Martin, 
 M. P.) declared at a public reception recently given in his honour, in Win- 
 nipeg, it would be very satisfactory indeed to know that the question was 
 " dead." The people of Manitoba would wish for nothing more ardently. 
 They are prepared to let it rest. But they know that the question will be 
 an issue although they will not make it such. They are quite prepared to 
 face the issue squarely, as they ha^e done from the beginning. They are 
 quite alive to the disturbing nature of the dispute on the material well- 
 being of the community. But who is responsible for this ? Is it the 
 people of Manitoba who have merely exercised their declared constitutional 
 rights, and who propose to resist any invasion of these rights ? 
 
 Regarding the argument that, as the Roman Catholics of Manitoba 
 are at present grouped gregariously in one or two districts, and that 
 therefore the institution of state aided separate schools would really make 
 no difference, it may be said that it is characteristic of the class of 
 opportunists which is altogether too numerous, whose highest and whose 
 only governing principle is the expediency of the hour. Manitoba, it is to 
 be remembered, is a very large, and at present a comparatively empty 
 territory. Its population is little over 200,000. Its resources are capable 
 of maintaining in a high degree of comfort at least two or three millions 
 of people. In the more sparsely settled districts, population is wanted and 
 it is to be hoped that every capable Roman Catholic who believes he can 
 improve his condition by emigrating, will come to Manitoba. He will 
 certainly be welcome, He will find that in no country in the world, does 
 
60 
 
 a man's creed figure less as a factor in his social and commercial relations, 
 than in Manitoba. He will find that he has every privilege which is 
 enjoyed by any other citizen, in education as in everything else. But Man- 
 itoba does not hold out, as an inducement to Catholics or to possible 
 immigrants of any other sect, the promise or the possibility of any special 
 privileges or immunities based on sectarian distinctions. It will occur to 
 the reader that if, in the future settlement of the province, there should be 
 a considerable proportion of Catholics who should distribute themselves 
 over the whole provincial area, the existence of a statutory provision for a 
 dual system of schools, w r ould, in spite of the sagacious opportunism of 
 those very " practical " persons who sneer at the idea of acting on principle 
 instead of expediency, have a very practical effect on the educational 
 interests of the province. We know the unchanging policy of the Roman 
 Catholic church with regard to education, we know that as soon as the 
 settlement should thicken, the country would be dotted by the little 
 public school and the still littler separate school, both conducted on a scale 
 of impaired efficiency because of the scattering of the resources. All 
 Manitobans who have studied this important question of education, know 
 the difficulty, the cost, and the disheartenment involved in providing 
 education in a new country, even in the more populous districts, and when 
 the children of a district catn all be educated together. The cost and the 
 difficulty would obviously be hopelessly enhanced, if a dual system were 
 made possible. 
 
 In this controversy the opponents of Manitoba have frequently 
 pointed to the Ontario School System, which it is frequently asserted,, is 
 the " best in the world," and under which a high degree of efficiency has 
 been attained. Now the Ontario system is a dual one, and the object of 
 the allusions to that system, is to show that if Separate Schools are not 
 actually conducive to a high standard of public education, they are at least 
 not incompatible with it. This is analogous to arguing that because strong 
 men frequently use tobacco, tobacco must be productive of strength or at 
 least not destructive of it Physiological science, however, shows that 
 tobacco not only does not produce strength, but diminishes or subtracts 
 from the vital forces. The same result may be found on an investigation 
 of the operation of the Ontario system. Complaint may be heard in every 
 direction of the heavy taxation which is necessary to the support of the 
 schools, and which is necessarily rendered more onerous because of the 
 division of the energies. It is an undoubted fact, that in many districts in 
 Ontario the cost of public education is increased and the efficiency dimin- 
 ished, by the existence of the separate school system. By intelligent men 
 in Ontario, regardless of partisan proclivities, the separate school system is 
 not regarded as a good thing in itself, but simply as an evil and a draw- 
 back of which they cannot rid themselves. 
 
 This is merely considering the question in its economic aspect, and 
 from the most sordid and material point of view. Viewed from the higher 
 ground of sound political doctrine, the separate school system is still more 
 objectionable. 
 
 J^JThere i another very important reason why Manitoba should resist 
 a I'ouirance the establishment of the separate school system in the prov- 
 ince. Manitoba, whilst it covers a large area, is very small when compared 
 
61 
 
 with the vast domain known as the North West Territories, which have 
 not yet been sub-divided into autonomous provinces, and in which the 
 population is still sparse. Now this great land came into the Canadian 
 confederation at the same time, and, it will probably be argued, under the 
 same conditions, as the province of Manitoba. If, therefore, there is an 
 obligation on Manitoba to tolerate state-aided separate schools, that obliga- 
 tion would be upon all the provinces which shall be in the future carved 
 out of the Territories. This consideration greatly emphasizes the duty 
 which confronts the people of Manitoba, of maintaining the rights and the 
 liberties of the province in this matter. 
 
 Perversions of the Second Judgment. 
 
 It has been the habit of all the supporters of the Dominion govern- 
 ment in its " remedial " policy, to make constant reference to the last 
 judgment of the privy council, which, according to them, declares that the 
 " minority " has a " grievance " which the government was bound to 
 redress, and even Principal Grant has been led into misconception on this 
 point. In one of the letters of his series he states that Manitoba "is 
 morally bound to take action which shall meet the spirit of the last judg- 
 ment of the Privy council." This obviously implies that there is some- 
 thing in the judgment of the Privy Council, which indicates that Manitoba 
 has exceeded her powers, has dealt unjustly or harshly with the "minority," 
 and is under an obligation of either a legal or moral nature, or of both a 
 legal and moral nature, to do something which the principal does not 
 specify, but which, if his inference as to the import of the Privy Council's 
 judgment is correct, can be nothing less than the restoration of separate 
 schools. Now to understand the effect of that last judgment of the Privy 
 Council it would be well to recall briefly what was before the judges. The 
 circumstances and conditions under which this reference was made, as well 
 as a statement of the questions referred, have already been fully given in 
 the first portion of this review. 
 
 The question before their Lordships was, as we see, not as to whether 
 there was a grievance, but as to whether, in view of the facts stated in the 
 petition, the case was one which came within the [scope of sub-section 22, 
 and in which an appeal to the Governor-General-in-Council would lie. It 
 is to be clearly observed that an appeal under this "anomalous" sub- 
 section might be allowable, whilst no grievance existed. In fact, having 
 in our minds the description given by their Lordships of the limitations of 
 their functions in the case, and their opinion of the provisions which they 
 were called upon to interpret, we can see that they might quite logically 
 have decided that the appeal would lie, whilst at the same time expressly 
 stating that there was no grievance. This is actually what they have 
 done, if their first and second judgments be considered together. It should 
 be carefully observed that the second judgment does not reverse, nor in any 
 way modify, the first one. The questions before the tribunal on the differ- 
 ent occasions had no relation nor connection with each other. 
 
 But, as has been observed, the Judicial Committee in using the word 
 " grievance " simply employed it to describe, in an entirely technical way, 
 the ground of appeal in much the same way as the term "complaint" is 
 used in the same connection. 
 
62 
 
 Enough has already been said to show that there is nothing, and that 
 there could be nothing, in either the letter or the "spirit " of their 
 Lordships' second judgment, upon which " Manitoba is morally bound to 
 take action." If so, what is it ? Their Lordships have clearly shown in 
 their first judgment, that the Manitoba laws of 1890 are fair and just, and 
 well adapted to the requirements of the country. They decide, moreover, 
 that in enacting these laws the legislature of the province acted strictly 
 within the Constitution. In their second judgment they declare that by 
 the strict construction of a sub-section of the Manitoba Act, which they 
 very appropriately describe as ''anomalous" the Roman Catholics have a 
 right of appeal to the Governor-General-in-Council, against the legislation 
 which their Lordships, be it observed, have declared to be just, wise and 
 constitutional. There is the substance of both judgments in a few words. 
 Where is the "grievance" and what is Manitoba called upon to do ? 
 
 The Controversy in Parliament 
 
 Mr. Foster's Exposition of the Remedial Policy. 
 
 It is very interesing, and also amusing, to study the shifts and changes 
 of base and attitude, to which the supporters of the coercion policy are 
 forced in their efforts to give to their course an air of seriousness and 
 consistency. The piece de resistance in the parliamentary defence of the 
 Remedial Bill, was the speech of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Foster. This 
 oration was evidently considered to be a very telling contribution to the 
 discussion ; for it was issued as a pamphlet, copies of which were sent by 
 those Manitoba members who had voted against the interests and the 
 wishes of Manitoba, to many of their constituents. 
 
 Goethe, the great German poet, expressed in poetic language, his 
 desire for the gift of seeing things as they are. On reading Mr. Foster's 
 speech, one might be impressed with the conviction that the deepest yearn- 
 ing of the Canadian politician is for the gift of making things appear as 
 he would like them to be. There was nothing particularly original in Mr. 
 Foster's deliverance. It was aptly described by a subsequent speaker as 
 "a scrap-book speech." Yet the collection of the matter evinces much 
 industry, and the arrangement is certainly deft. The speech is calculated 
 to create in the mind of the critical and deliberate observer, the impression 
 that Mr. Foster is quite aware that he is not expounding the reasons and 
 explaining the facts which determined i!he policy of coercion, but that he 
 is making reasons and arguments to fit his conclusions. 
 
 Mr. Foster thinks this vexed question is not intrinsically a complex 
 one, and that "the importance which attaches to it at the present time is 
 due rather to the complication with it of side issues." With this the 
 
63 
 
 writer heartily agrees, and has already hinted at some of the " side issues,-' 
 a reference to which, coming from Mr. Foster, seems rather surprising, and 
 must surely have been inadvertent. 
 
 Separate Schools a " Principle of Confederation." 
 
 Mr. Foster says this is not a question of Provincial rights, with which 
 contention the writer emphatically disagrees. Nor is the question one of 
 separate schools. This proposition is absurd. The time for the discussion 
 of the desirability or the undesirability of separate schools, says Mr. 
 Foster, has long gone past. " The principle of separate schools was settled 
 once for all * * * by the fathers of Confederation, and embodied in 
 the constitution itself." So says Mr. Foster. He did not, in the course of 
 his speech, divulge the source of this exclusive and surprising intelligence, 
 nor did he succeed in showing that it was accurate. Let us consider. If 
 the separate school system was a " principle of Confederation," it would 
 apply to all the provinces except in cases where specific exemption was 
 made. Now there is no record in the Confederation Act, or any other act, 
 of the exemption of any province from the operation of this supposed 
 " principle." Yet, as a matter of fact, separate schools do not exist in any 
 province to-day, except in Ontario and Quebec, and we shall deal presently 
 with the reasons for their existence in these provinces. Now if separate 
 schools is a "principle of Confederation" how is it that out of the seven 
 provinces the system is in operation in only two ? In the earlier part of 
 this review, we referred to the cases of New Brunswick and Prince 
 Edward Island, both of which provinces were compelled to undertake a 
 struggle, similar to that in which we are now engaged, before they 
 obtained their educational enfranchisement. In this connection, it is a 
 remarkable fact, that the present leader of the Ottawa government, Sir 
 Charles Tupper, who now seeks to override the school law of Manitoba, 
 was the author, or principal promoter, of a substantially identical law in 
 the province of Nova Scotia, which was enacted under practically similar 
 conditions. How about the "principle of Confederation," the "constitu- 
 tion," the "solemn compacts" and the other stage " properties," in view of 
 the position of these provinces ? Mr. Foster says : "We ought to come 
 down to the discussion and settlement of this question as it arises under 
 the constitution, and as it affects the rights of minorities which were 
 legislated for under that constitution. It seems to me, Sir, that there are 
 but three points of view from which it would be possible to discuss a 
 question of this kind. One is to take up the question de novo, and I 
 think we are precluded from doing that, because it was discussed before, 
 and as a result of that discussion it has been embodied in two compacts 
 which now have force in this country, the Confederation compact and the 
 Manitoba compact. Or we could take it up as a question which has come 
 to us under a constitution which is binding, but in which constitution this 
 is an unwise provision. If we look upon it in that light, it seems to me 
 that we ought not to deprive a minority of its rights under that constitu- 
 tion, which is binding, because we think one of its provisions is unwise ; 
 but we should go to the constitution itself, and discuss and settle the 
 question as to whether it is better, in the light of thirty years experience 
 
64 
 
 that has been shed upon it, that the constitution should be revised. The 
 third point of view, and which seems to me to be the only practical point 
 of view, is to discuss it in the light of a clause in the constitution which is 
 binding, and which, taking all the circumstances of this country into 
 account, is not only binding, but is a wise provision of the constitution as 
 well." 
 
 Well, we shall take the " constitution," for which Mr. Foster professes 
 such veneration, and shall endeavor to ascertain what the duty of Mr. 
 Foster was, in view of its provisions. 
 
 Mr. Foster says : "There is a compact in the 'Constitution of Confed- 
 eration'; there is a second compact in the 'Constitution of Manitoba." The 
 first of these statements is true in a limited sense; the second is not true 
 in any sense. Mr. Foster goes on : " It i>s an idea which has gained 
 currency in the country, that for these compact clauses in the constitution, 
 and for the protection of minority schools in this country the Catholics 
 were sole movers, and are responsible for their introduction into this 
 constitution." He proceeds to explain that on the contrary these compacts 
 and the separate schools were the result of the fears and jealousies of the 
 Protestants of Quebec. Now, it will be interesting to go back and 
 ascertain how the separate school system originated. 
 
 Origin of the Separate School System in Canada. 
 
 In the old colony of Lower Canada (Quebec), education was entirely 
 in the hands of the Roman Catholic clergy, who collected their educational 
 dues as well as their tithes, under the authority of the law. No other 
 state-supported or state-recognized system of schools existed in Quebec. 
 Public education in that colony was as exclusively sectarian as in Spain. 
 In 1840 the colony of Lower Canada was united to that of Upper Canada 
 (Ontario), by the Union Act of that year. For years after this union the 
 non-Catholics of Quebec had agitated for educational freedom without 
 success. They finally succeeded in establishing and obtaining recognition 
 for a system of separate or dissentient schools. The restrictions and 
 limitations under which this separate system was placed rendered the 
 privilege one of very doubtful value. In 1863 the freedom extended to 
 these schools was greatly enlarged. The reason for this was that, in that 
 year the parliament of United Canada enacted the Separate School Act, 
 for Upper Canada, which extended to Roman Catholics in Upper Canada 
 the right to state-aided separate schools. It is a well known fact that this 
 Act, which was the origin of the Ontario separate school system, was 
 forced upon Upper Canada by the preponderating votes and influence of 
 the Catholic members from French or Lower Canada. Upper Canada 
 would never have permitted the recognition of the dangerous and baneful 
 separate school principle, but for the fact that she was powerless to 
 prevent it. 
 
65 
 
 No Parallel Between the Position of the Quebec arid the 
 Manitoba minorities. 
 
 It has been said that if the Catholics of Upper Canada had been 
 granted special recognition, the " Protestants " of Lower Canada would 
 never have been allowed to continue their so-called separate schools. But 
 this is an entirely erroneous conception. There is no parallel or similarity, as 
 we shall see, between the grounds on which dissentient schools may be 
 demanded by the Protestants of Quebec, and those upon which separate 
 schools are claimed on behalf of the Roman Catholics o Ontario. 
 
 It may now begin to strike the reader, that the great radical fallacy, 
 which has run through, and influenced all the controversies on this subject 
 had its origin in this legislation of 1863. It originated through the con- 
 fusion and misapplication of terms, and the acceptance of false postulates. 
 We have heard a great deal about the Catholic and " Protestant " minori- 
 ties. Now it is to be observed that the majority of the population of 
 Quebec was and is Roman Catholic. That is to say the majority is in 
 educational matters a sectarian body. For a long time this sectarian ma- 
 jority compelled the "Protestant" minority, to contribute to schools con- 
 trolled by their clergy, and in which their catechism and dogmas formed a 
 considerable portion of the curriculum. Even at the present day, the 
 "Protestant" population of Quebec is taxed to some extent for the support 
 of the so-called public schools, which are in reality sectarian schools of the 
 most pronounced type. What is the "Protestant" minority in Quebec f Is 
 it a sectarian body ? Is the teaching in the so-called "Protestant separate 
 schools" of Quebec, marked by anything of a sectarian character ? Assured- 
 ly not. The "Protestant" population of Quebec comprises all the people of 
 every religious sect and denomination, as well as those who have no religi- 
 ous beliefs at all, except Roman Catholics. No distinctive religious 
 exercises are engaged in at the Quebec so-called separate schools, and these 
 schools might be attended with as little offence to his denominational sus- 
 ceptibilities, by a Roman Catholic as by a Methodist, an Anglican or a 
 Baptist. 
 
 The assumption then, that there is any equal basis of comparison 
 between the position of Roman Catholics and that of "Protestants" is a 
 false one. The term "Protestant" is a misleading one. It is, in these con- 
 troversies, used to convey the idea of distinctiveness of creed, whereas it is 
 really a general term embracing the people of all sects and denominations 
 except one, the excepted denomination being thus placed in a position 'of 
 favorable discrimination as compared with all others, in palpable violation 
 of one of our cardinal theories of government. 
 
 It is very clear that the separate school system originated in the fact 
 that the majority of the population of Quebec belonged to one religious 
 sect. After compelling the minority for a long time to contribute to the 
 inculcation of their peculiar religious dogmas, the majority finally accorded 
 to the minority composed of all sects, the right to establish schools of an 
 entirely public and unsectarian character. This sectarian Roman Catholic 
 majority in Quebec has conceded to the non-sectarian minority, a measure 
 of liberty to which they are entitled on the ground of natural right. It is 
 
66 
 
 therefore, considered by Mr. Foster and other thinkers of his calibre, to be 
 a quite fair and reasonable arrangement that, because the Roman Catholic 
 majority of Quebec permit the minority in that province to enjoy rights 
 which could not be withheld without creating a well grounded charge of 
 persecution, Roman Catholics should in all other provinces enjoy special 
 privileges and special recognition which are not, and canno.t be, accorded to 
 any of the numerous sects composing the rest of the population in these 
 other provinces. The effect of this " principle of confederation " would be 
 to give Roman Catholics, or rather the Roman Catholic hierarchy, (for they 
 are the real beneficiaries) especial and peculiar privileges in every province 
 of the Dominion. 
 
 It is very clear, as we hare indicated, that a great deal of the error 
 and misapprehension in this phase of the controversy, has arisen from the 
 confusion and misapplication of terms, which have had the effect, whether 
 from accident or design, of concealing the gross absurdity and injustice 
 involved in the division of the population for purposes of education into 
 Roman Catholic and "Protestant" majorities and minorities, on the 
 assumption that these are two equal sectarian divisions of the people. This 
 assumption is obviously a false one. 
 
 Take for example the case of the province of Manitoba. We are told, 
 in tones of reproach, to contrast our behaviour with that of magnanimous 
 Roman Catholic Quebec, where the 'sectarian majority generously allows 
 the minority, composed of every sect and creed, to have a system of 
 common schools, and which now compels this unsectarian minority to 
 contribute very little to the sectarian schools of the majority. The public 
 schools of Manitoba are strictly unsectarian. There are several sects in the 
 province of Manitoba herded in with the " Protestant " majority which are 
 much more numerous than the Roman Catholics. The Presbyterians for 
 instance, are twice as numerous, and would therefore make a much more 
 respectable "minority," so far as numbers are concerned. But could the 
 Presbyterians claim any rights in regard to separate schools ? Assuredly 
 not. The " constitution " makes no provision for Presbyterians as a 
 " minority," the only sect for which such a distinction is reserved by the 
 constitution, being the Roman Catholics. The Presbyterians although a 
 minority of the population in fact and in common sense, are not a consti- 
 tutional " minority." They are only "Protestants," and must flock together 
 with their fellow-"Protestants" the Anglicans, the Baptists, the Methodists, 
 the Jews, the Second Adventists, the Mennonites, the Agnostics, the 
 Sceptics, and all the other various brands of " Protestants." 
 
 Now if it is right that the Roman Catholic sect should have separate 
 schools, the privilege could scarcely on ethical or common sense grounds be 
 denied to any of the other sects. If this privilege should be accorded and 
 should be taken advantage of by the people of even a few denominations, 
 public education would be an impossibility. The whole argument for the' 
 soundness and the reasonableness of this separate school " principle,' 
 the absurd hypotheses on which it is based ; the confusion and misuse of 
 terms, and the eccentric or sophistical methods of argument adopted in 
 defending it, are more suggestive of the extravagances of opera bout'f e, than 
 of the work of serious statesmanship. It is difficult to controvert, with 
 the gravity becoming to so serious a question, arguments based on the 
 
67 
 
 absurd premises which our coercive statesmen, in all seriousness, assume to 
 be so sound as not to require even examination. 
 
 Roman Catholics in Manitoba have to-day the same rights and privi- 
 leges as every sect or denomination of the " Protestant " majority. This is 
 the decision of the Privy Council which says that the law offers the 
 advantages which it provides " to all alike," and that if any person or class 
 fails to avail themselves of these advantages, " it is not the law that is in 
 fault." No sect or denomination of the " Protestant " minority in Quebec, 
 enjoys the privileges reserved to itself by the sectarian Catholic majority 
 in that province. Nor does the " Protestant " minority in Quebec enjoy 
 the same privileges which the Roman Catholic " minority " enjoys in 
 Manitoba under the present system. 
 
 A Voice from Quebec. 
 
 One of the ablest and most exhaustive contributions to this phase of 
 the controversy, was an editorial article which appeared about the middle of 
 March, 1896, in the Gleaner, a newspaper of Huntingdon, Quebec. The 
 article was written by Mr. Robert Sellar, the editor. Mr. Sellar points 
 out that the Quebec minority schools are not " Separate " Schools in the 
 sense in which that term is ordinarily applied, but that those of the major- 
 ity are. He shows that the Quebec minority did not owe their limited 
 educational liberty in the earlier times, to the generosity or magnanimity 
 of the Catholic majority, but to Lord Dalhousie, a British administrator. 
 He shows that, so far from the Quebec minority having been dealt with in 
 a spirit of generosity by the majority, the reverse is the case, and he 
 further shows that at the present time the minority is harassed, and the 
 usefulness of their school system much impaired, by the personal composi- 
 tion of the Board of Instruction, and the rasping regulations which the 
 majority imposes on them. Mr. Sellar has very pronounced views as to 
 the motives which actuate the " remedial " politicians in their apotheosis 
 of the magnanimity of the Catholic majority of Quebec. It is a matter for 
 regret that the full text of Mr. Sellar's article cannot be given. One or 
 two extracts will however, be interesting. In one passage Mr, Sellar 
 observes, " But from the talk at Ottawa, it seems it is a wonderful instance 
 " of toleration to allow the Quebec minority to teach their children the 
 " three R's, and slavish adulation is sounded in praise of the majority for 
 " such a gracious condescension. We confess when we read the speech of 
 " Sir MacKenzie Bowell in the Senate last April, and the Hon. Mr. Baker's 
 " in the Commons last July ; when we noted the expressions in Mr. Foster's 
 " Ontario election addresses, in J. L. Hughes manifesto to the Orangemen, 
 " in Sir Charles Tupper's speeches and this later utterance of Mr. Ives, we 
 " have been staggered, and forced to ask if Quebec is a British Province or 
 " a South American Republic, that non-Catholics are required to be devout- 
 " ly thankful that they are permitted by the majority to give their 
 " children the elements of education ? Quebec is a British Province, and the 
 " minority are not here by permission or tolerance of the majority. They 
 " are here as equals among equals, and in exercising so simple a right as 
 " teaching their children in non-sectarian schools, they thank nobody, ask 
 " no permission and are under no obligation to the majority." Again Mr. 
 
68 
 
 Sellar says : "The effrontery of the Quebec majority in claiming credit 
 "for not compelling the minority to support Catholic schools, is only sur- 
 passed by their impudence in demancling, as an equivalent for such an 
 "exhibition of tolerance on their part, that Manitoba furnish funds to 
 "establish Catholic Separate Schools. Matters have surely come to a sore 
 ''pass when, in a British Province, the fact that non-sectarian schools are 
 "permitted to exist, is trumpeted forth as a proof of toleration, and low 
 " indeed have sunk our public men, when they preach the cry in order to 
 ": curry favor with those upon whom they fawn." It will be observed that 
 Mr. Sellar is not lost in wonder, love and praise, in contemplation of the 
 performances of the politicians. Who shall say, however, that his strictures 
 are not well merited, and even moderate ? 
 
 Mr. Sellar is indignant at the colossal absurdity and dishonesty in- 
 volved in the attempt of the remedialists to establish a parallel between 
 the case of the Quebec minority and that of the Manitoba " minority." In 
 this connection he remarks: "To talk about the majority in Quebec 
 " having the power to force upon the minority obnoxious text books, or to 
 " shut the school houses, and leave none but separate schools efficient is 
 " absurd. The right of toleration depends neither on the act of Confedera- 
 tion nor the Federal Government ; it is the inherent right of every 
 " British subject. To endeavour to induce parliament to pass the remedial 
 "bill, by representing that the Quebec minority is in the same boat with 
 " the Manitoba half-breeds, is as contrary to fact as the statement that the 
 " privileges of the Quebec minority are those that bill professes to confer 
 " upon the Manitoba minority." 
 
 Various Controversial Styles. '. 
 
 None of the advocates of the separate school system, so far as we are 
 aware, have conducted this controversy in a spirit of perfect openness or of 
 scientific enquiry, with a view to arriving at sound conclusions, regardless 
 of what the effect might be bn their own preconceived theories, prejudices 
 or beliefs. Some of these advocates (a great many of them indeed) rushed 
 into the question with an imperfect knowledge of the facts and some very 
 crude notions as 'to what were the issues or principles involved. This 
 stamp of controversialist is doubtless quite honest, but he has been an un- 
 speakable weariness. Then there is the political party controversialist, of 
 which Mr. Foster is a type, whose chief concern is manifestly to make the 
 facts and merits of the question square with the exigencies of the party 
 policy. Again, there is the forensic advocate, who cannot overcome his 
 professional instincts in literary controversy. The ethics of the legal pro- 
 fession do not make it obligatory on a member of that profession arguing 
 before the courts, to draw attention to evidence he may know to exist, but 
 which, if cited in the case, would make the success of his clients impossible. 
 The forensic advocate should understand that the ethics which may, for 
 obvious reasons, be quite permissible in the courts, are most improper in 
 the sphere of public controversy. When lawyers go into literary discus- 
 sion, they should endeavor to, as far as possible, abandon the methods and 
 style of the nisi prius pleader. 
 
69 
 
 To the mind of the writer, the best and the most honest defence of 
 the separate school party's claims that has yet been made, was presented 
 by Mr. James Fisher, of Winnipeg. Mr. Fisher is a lawyer and has the 
 distinction of being the only member of the present Manitoba legislature, 
 representing an English constituency, who was not pledged t6 support the 
 maintenance of the present school law. Mr. Fisher's contribution was in 
 the form of a series of long letters to the press. Owing to a certain pro- 
 lixity of style, to the length of his communications, and partly to the repu- 
 tation for extreme exhaustiveness and elaboration, which Mr. Fisher had 
 already achieved, his articles did not receive the attention which their 
 merit would have warranted, and which was 'accorded to many inferior 
 utterances. There is the best evidence, however, in Mr. Foster's speech 
 that Mr. Fisher's brochure had had at least one very close student. 
 
 The Compact of Confederation. 
 
 Mr. Fisher recited, with great minuteness of detail, the circumstances 
 connected with the "compact in the constitution of confederation," to which 
 Mr. Foster alludes. The "Protestants" of Quebec refused their assent to 
 confederation, till the limited educational rights which they then enjoyed, 
 as well as certain others which were promised them, were so firmly and 
 unmistakably secured, that they would be beyond reach of interference by 
 the provincial legislature which should, after confederation, be paramount 
 in matters of provincial concern. Sir Alexander Gait, the leader of the 
 Quebec Protestants, was quite right in the stand which he then took. 
 Doubtless, experience in Quebec had taught him that even the natural 
 rights and liberties of a citizen of a self-governing community, are far 
 from secure, if they are left at the mercy of a legislature in which the rep- 
 resentation of one religious sect preponderates, and which is virtually con- 
 trolled by the clergy of that sect. Referring to the additional educational 
 freedom for the security of which Sir Alexander Gait was contending on 
 behalf of the " Protestants," Mr. Foster says : 
 
 "There were only two ways by which these additional powers could 
 begot: either by legislation in- the Parliament of United Canada 'before 
 confederation came into operation, under which state of things they would 
 have been secured by the general clause I have just read; or else by 
 placing another clause in the constitution, so that when they got' those 
 rights after confederation they would have them secured to them by the 
 dominant power of confederation, acting through the Federal Parliament. 
 This was a question brought up, as I have said, by the Hon. Mr. Gait. And 
 how was it settled in the end? It was attempted to be settled by legis- 
 lation in the provincial parliament which was promised in 1865, but which 
 was not brought down ; which was brought down in 1866, but which, 
 owing to complications which arose, was not passed ; which it was then 
 promised by Sir George Cartier and other French leaders would be 
 enacted by the Quebec legislature after confederation had gone into force. 
 On the strength of that promise, evincing again the good faith which 
 existed between parties at that time as regards promises made one to the 
 other, on the good faith of that promise for efficient and full legislation for 
 the Protestant minority confederation was accepted, and a clause wa,s 
 
70 
 
 placed in the constitution which should make this post-union legislation 
 secure for all time to come. This clause which was proposed by Mr. Gait 
 and unanimously agreed to by the other delegates reads as follows ; 
 
 "And in any province where a system of separate or dissentient schools 
 by law obtains, or where the local legislature may hereafter adopt a system of 
 separate schools, an appeal shall be made to the Governor-in-Council of the 
 general government from the acts and decisions of the local authorities 
 which may affect the rights or privileges of the Protestant or Catholic 
 minority in the matter of education. And the general parliament shall 
 have power by the last resort to legislate on the subject." 
 
 It will be observed that the first sentence of Sir Alexander Gait's 
 clause is substantially sub-section 3 of section 93, B. N. A. Act, and that 
 the latter sentence is a suggestion of sub-section 4. It will also be 
 remembered that sub-section 2 of that section provides for the maintenance 
 of the separate school privileges enjoyed by the Catholics in Ontario and 
 by the Protestants in Quebec prior to confederation. Section 3, therefore, 
 embodies the " compact." It is quite clear, as Mr. Foster shows, that the 
 sub-sections referring to separate schools were inserted because of the 
 desire of the Quebec Protestants to have the security of certain rights 
 guaranteed. 
 
 A recital of the circumstances shows that the "compact" had reference 
 to certain especial circumstances and transactions, which concerned only 
 the province of Quebec. How, then, does Mr Foster arrive at his conclus- 
 ion that the separate schools are a "principle of confederation ?" At one 
 time he asserts that separate schools are a '' principle of confederation " ; 
 then when desirous, to display the magnanimity of the majority of the 
 voters of Quebec, he shows that the separate school " compact " was not a 
 " principle of confederation," but simply a provision expressly stipulated 
 for by the Protestants of Quebec, not as a " principle," but for the specific 
 purpose of meeting the peculiarities of their own case, by which they 
 secured certain guaranties, without the assurance of which they would not 
 accept confederation. 
 
 The concession of sectarian privileges and exemptions to the Roman 
 Catholics of Ontario, in return for the recognition, in the case of the Prot- 
 estants of Quebec, of the rights natural to, and inalienable from citizens of 
 a free community, was a grievous error. Under the circumstances, how- 
 ever, it was impossible for the people of Ontario to prevent it, as, in the 
 legislature of united Canada, in which the vicious system originated, the 
 overwhelming votes and influence of the Quebec Catholics actually decided 
 the matter. 
 
 The earlier history of the colonies of Lower and Upper Canada, the 
 circumstances of confederation, and the fact that in none of the other 
 provinces of confederation do separate schools exist to-day, show that sep- 
 arate schools, so far from being a "principle of confederation," were simply 
 the result of a bargain between Upper and Lower Canada. 
 
 In Argument with a Missing Link. 
 
 The entire and glaring absence of parallel between the demands of the 
 Roman Catholic "minorities" in the other provinces, and the claims of the. 
 
71 
 
 "Protestant" minority in Quebec, has always been the cause of much un- 
 easiness to the separate school advocates, and the defenders of "remedial" 
 legislation. Mr. Foster deals with the difficulty in the manner character- 
 istic of the opportunist politician. He takes it for granted in the first 
 place, that the terms "Catholic" and /'Protestant" represent two sectarian 
 divisions of the people, and that the positions of each of the bodies is 
 identical ; then he says that it is now too late to raise the question as to 
 whether the assumption is wrong, as it was settled at confederation. His 
 reasoning is worse than trivial. Mr. Fisher, his constitutional mentor 
 however, seems to have felt under obligation to meet the difficulty in a 
 more straightforward manner. Mr. Fisher says : 
 
 " I repeat that the most prominent opponents of federal intervention in 
 the present issue would be the first to demand intervention under exactly 
 the like circumstances for the protection of the Protestants of Quebec. 
 And for their justification in taking these two apparently irreconcilable 
 positions they give reasons which are not only satisfactory to themselves 
 but are exceedingly plausible. 
 
 " I have already hinted at the distinction they draw between the case 
 of the one minority and that of the other. The system of the majority in 
 Manitoba, as stated by the law that creates it, is a purely non-denomina- 
 tional one, and for the purpose of this discussion I will concede that it is 
 so. The system of the majority in Quebec, on the contrary, is avowedly 
 one of Roman Catholic schools. To compel the Roman Catholics of 
 Manitoba to submit to a system that is in no sense denominational, is one 
 thing. To force upon the Protestant minority of Quebec a purely Roman 
 Catholic system to compel them to educate their children in, and to pay 
 their taxes to, schools, that are under the control of a Roman Catholic 
 body is altogether another thing. So argue the opponents of intervention 
 in Manitoba, who would justify remedial legislation in the province of 
 Quebec. To them it seems plain that the abolition of separate schools in 
 Manitoba where the minority can send their children to an undenomina- 
 tional school with the protection of a conscience clause cannot be regarded 
 as a grievance comparable with the wrong inflicted on the Protestants of 
 Quebec, if forced to submit to a system that would be practically under 
 Catholic control. Looking at the question from a Protestant stand-point, 
 it seems impossible to deny that there is real distinction between the two 
 cases, in the extent at all events of the grievance. For myself I quite 
 concede the distinction. 
 
 " Does it follow, however, that the constitution which was created for 
 the protection of Catholics, equally with Protestants, shall be made effec- 
 tive for the protection of the latter, while it shall be a dead letter in safe- 
 guarding the rights of the former ? To me it seems that the conditions 
 affecting the Protestants of Quebec, rendering their dependence upon the 
 French Catholic legislature of the province so peculiarly irksome, and 
 alarming as to demand protection by the federal powers, are in themselves 
 the very circumstances that demand the most faithful extension to Roman 
 Catholics of the same protection." 
 
 Mr. Fisher perceives the absence of analogy between the cases. But 
 he evidently has failed to fully grasp the real source of the trouble, which 
 arises from the division, in the educational laws, of the population into two 
 
72 
 
 sections, the division being based on the hypothesis tliat the circumstances 
 in the case of each section are the same. The hypothesis is as we have 
 seen a false one. 
 
 The " rights" of the Catholics, as of each other sect in the Province, 
 are safe-guarded by the Manitoba laws of 1890. But Catholics are' not ac- 
 corded special recognition or privileges as a " minority," the Province of 
 Manitoba not seeing the wisdom of arbitrarily selecting any sect or class of 
 the community as a "minority." Such a proceeding it believes to be not 
 only unfair but absurd. All are placed on an equal footing. The Protest- 
 ant minority of Quebec would offer no objection, but would be highly grat- 
 ified, if the Quebec Legislature should pass an act such as the Manitoba 
 Law of 1890, although no sect of the Protestant minority would obtain 
 any sectarian advantage by the passage of such an act. There is absolute- 
 ly no parallel between the cases, and the reasoning in support of this 
 contention is not only "exceedingly plausible " as Mr. Fisher admits, but it 
 is simply unanswerable,, as Mr. Fisher also tacitly admits when he says : 
 "I quite concede the distinction." The last paragraph of the above 
 extract, it will be observed, is quite incompatible with the preceding por- 
 tion. The ,fact of the Constitution being <: created for the protection of 
 Catholics equally with Protestants " has no relevancy as, from Mr. Fisher's 
 own showing, the 1890 laws of Manitoba, inflict no injustice against which 
 the Catholics require " protection." But a most positive injustice would 
 exist if the legislature of Quebec imposed a sectarian, clerically controlled 
 system of schools, on the " Protestants " of that Province. Moreover the 
 constitution, according to the best constitutional authority, (the Privy 
 Council), has not been violated by the Manitoba laws. Mr. Fisher should 
 read the first judgment again. It is not, as Mr. Fisher would seem to 
 suggest, a question as to the relative degree of injustice in the two cases. 
 In the one there is no injustice whatever. In the other the grievance 
 would be very pronounced. 
 
 Mr. Fisher, it will be observed, here falls into the same error as his 
 partner, Mr. Ewart. He confuses the ethical with the legal. He 
 practically admits that, ethically considered, there is nothing object- 
 ionable in the Manitoba laws. Had there not existed legislation 
 conferring special privileges on Catholics, Mr. Fisher would not have 
 deemed the present law unjust. Now let this fact be clearly perceived, for 
 there is much confusion on the point. The law is admitted, even by the 
 advocates of separate schools to be intrinsically just, and it is only the fact 
 that it fails to recognize, and in fact abolishes previously existing privi- 
 leges, which has elicited criticism and hostility. Now if these privileges 
 should turn out to be discriminatory and unsound in principle, no griev- 
 ance in a moral sense would be involved in their removal. We have 
 already: shown, and Mr. Fisher clearly admits, that the privileges in ques- 
 tion are at least discriminating. Mr. Fisher, however, virtually argues 
 that whether' the privileges in question be peculiar or .discriminating privi- 
 leges, is not the question. These privileges are conceded by law 
 and they should be maintained. Mr. Fisher apparently forgets that the 
 Manitoba legislature is not a judicial but a legislative body. Its business 
 is not to interpret, but to make, repeal, and modify laws, within its juris- 
 
diction, as the one in question was declared to be. He also suggests that as a 
 matter of policy these statutory but unfair privileges, should be continued 
 in order to prevent the sectarian majority in Quebec inflicting a manifest 
 wrong and injustice on the unsectarian minority. Mr. Sellar, who lives in 
 Quebec, has no fears on that score. 
 
 Some Misconceptions about Law. 
 
 But are the separate school claimants strong on even the legal 
 ground ? 
 
 It might be well here to remember that the laws are made for the 
 people and not the people for the laws. This observation may seem some- 
 somewhat trite, but in view of the extraordinary arguments and postulates 
 advanced in this controversy, it is not uncalled for. Any law which, 
 whether from inherent defect, unsoundness of principle, or change in the 
 conditions to which it was enacted to apply, has ceased to be useful, or is 
 shown to be wrong, will cease to exist as soon as the mass of the people 
 become convinced of its unsoundness, whether its end be hastened by its 
 specific repeal, or whether it become obsolete through simple desuetude. 
 The principle of the legislation of the Medes and Persians is not adopted in 
 modern political systems. This is a consideration apt to be overlooked by 
 controversialists of the profession of Mr. Fisher, whose principal fault is 
 that his mind is a little too forensic, to permit him to perceive that in a 
 a controversy involving as does this one, great fundamental principles of 
 government and politics, the people not only want to know what the law 
 is, but they want to be assured as to whether is is right. If a law is defec- 
 tive, it is the duty of a statesman to procure its repeal or amendment, or 
 at least to do all he can to that end, not merely to administer it without 
 any regard to its wisdom or soundness. This is a consideration which our 
 Canadian statesmen would do well to ponder over, especially that section 
 of them which consider they are bound to coerce Manitoba in obedience to 
 what they conceive to be the constitution. If their interpretation of the 
 constitution were correct, their manifest duty would be, in view of all the 
 considerations upon which we have so exhaustively dwelt, and even of the 
 admissions which they themselves make, not to coerce Manitoba, but to 
 take measures to have that constitution amended. , For if obedience to the 
 constitution demands the overriding of the will of a province because it 
 has enacted legislation which is inherently just and wisely designed, the 
 constitution is manifestly unsound and in need of amendment. This 
 course, however, would, for reasons already pointed out, involve a loss of 
 votes, which would render the attempt impossible unless partisan differ- 
 ences could be sunk by all the elements opposed to clerical privileges and 
 clerical interference in secular politics. Our statesmen of the Ottawa 
 administration, are apparently determined to take no chances of losing 
 votes by adopting the policy that duty and statesmanship would dictate. 
 But does the constitution as it stands to-day demand or justify the 
 action of the Dominion Government in this matter? Our readers will 
 probably conclude that it does not. While there is a grave defect in 
 the educational section of the Canadian constitution, that defect only 
 affects the province of Ontario, upon which the separate schools are in 
 
: 
 
 express terms imposed by the British North America Act. That defect 
 can only be removed by a constitutional amendment, a legislative opera- 
 tion, which for reasons most obvious, is so difficult as to be almost beyond 
 the bounds of possibility at the present time. 
 
 The Compact of 1810. 
 
 The "Compact of Confederation" argument may now be laid aside. It 
 has no bearing on the controversy. It does not, and never did apply to 
 Manitoba. If the argument used by Mr. Foster were sound as to the compact, 
 nothing further would be required in order to show that, at least according 
 to the provisions or a defective constitution, the Catholics of Manitoba 
 were entitled, like those of Ontario, to separate schools. 
 
 But Mr. Foster has apparently very little confidence himself in this 
 part of his case. For he goes on to show that Manitoba was bound to 
 maintain separate schools .by a special compact, made at the time of her 
 entry into confederation, between her representatives and those of the 
 Canadian Dominion. If separate schools is a " principle of confederation," 
 this second compact was quite unnecessary, as Manitoba would have been 
 subject to the application of the general principle, unless she had been 
 expressly exempted from its operation, which we know she was not. But 
 it must be very plain to every reader who has followed the recital, that 
 the argument for separate schools on the ground that such a system is a 
 " principle of confederation," is simply buncombe of the most audacious 
 variety. We may then concentrate our attention on the "second compact." 
 as the real basis of the Roman Catholic claims in the present controversy. 
 Mr. Foster goes on at great length, to describe certain transactions and 
 negotiations which took place about the time of Manitoba's entry into 
 confederation and which we have referred to at length in the first part of 
 this review. Mr. Foster adopts the plan of Mr. Ewart. He quotes 
 documents, and cites statements and opinions of various persons, but. like 
 Mr. Ewart in his Bill of Rights fiasco, Mr. Foster says nothing, and produces 
 nothing, which at all justifies his assertion that there was a " compact." 
 
 Our readers will, of course, recollect the circumstances connected with 
 the Bills of Rights, and the events preceding the appointment of the 
 delegates who presented the list of Rights at Ottawa. We stated, and no 
 effort has since been made to contradict our statement, that the alleged 
 Bill of Rights, number 4, which contained a clause demanding separate 
 schools, was spurious. Indeed the evidence that this is the case, is so 
 indubitable that even Mr. Ewart, whose courage is unquestionable, has not 
 had, so far as the writer is aware, one word to say on the subject since the 
 first portion of this work appeared about a year ago. 
 
 Will not recognize Bills of Rights. 
 
 Mr. Foster finds the " Bills of Rights " episode very inconvenient. He 
 therefore proposes to blot it out of existence. He ignores it, and cannot be 
 induced to contemplate it all. He says : " I am not discussing, nor do I 
 " intend to discuss anything in controversy with reference to the different 
 " bills of rights or what they contained." Certainly not. Why should a 
 
75 
 
 statesman who is discussing a question not for its elucidation, but simply 
 in order to prove what he wants to prove, worry over the knotty and 
 disagreeable, even if vital, phases of it ? Mr. Foster proceeds : " I said a 
 " moment ago that I was not concerned to dig into this controversy about 
 " the bills of rights. What I am concerned to know is that these negotia- 
 " tions took place, that they were incident to the Act, that the Act embodies 
 " a measure of guard and a measure of security to the religious minority, 
 " whatever it might be, in the province of Manitoba, equal to, in all respects, 
 " and stronger in some respects, than the compact which was put into the 
 "British North America Act of 1867, in its 93rd clause." This is Mr. 
 Ewart's argument, expressed in slightly different phraseology, that it does 
 not matter by what means the provisions of the Manitoba Act became 
 incorporated. The Act is a " treaty " and the negotiations on which it is 
 based may not now be enquired into. 
 
 Neither Mr. Ewart nor Mr. Foster has produced one tittle of evidence 
 to show that there was anything in the nature of a compact, that the 
 people of Manitoba had thought anything about separate schools, or had 
 asked for them. Such evidence could not be produced, because there is no 
 such evidence in existence. In the case of the Quebec-Ontario compact, 
 there is the fullest historical evidence of the negotiations and transactions 
 which led up to it. In this alleged Manitoba compact there is absolutely 
 nothing of a tangible character to justify the assertion that it ever was 
 made. The attempt to establish the existence of such a " compact " with 
 the evidence produced in support of it, is nothing short of impudent. 
 
 Circumstantial Evidence of a Compact. 
 
 There is nothing in the Manitoba Act which, on the face of it, could be 
 construed as providing for separate schools. But, says Mr. Foster, the circum- 
 stances, as in the case of Quebec, show that it was settled by the negotiations, 
 that the first Manitoba Legislature should enact legislation which should pro- 
 vide for separate schools, and Sub-section 2 of Section 22 of the Manitoba 
 Act was inserted for the purpose of perpetuating the contemplated act of 
 the legislature. In making what he calls a " proof of sequence," Mr. 
 Foster says that in accordance with these arrangements, " the legislature, 
 " as soon as it was convened, adopted a system of schools, providing in the 
 " completest manner for the separate schools of the minority." 
 
 Sir Donald A. Smith who, it will be remembered, was the chief of the 
 commission sent by the Canadian Government to negotiate with the 
 inhabitants of Red River, was elected a member of this first Manitoba 
 Legislature. Sir Donald was also a member of the Canadian Parliament 
 which has just expired and a supporter, though we believe an unwilling 
 one, of the coercion policy of the government. In the discussion of the 
 Remedial Bill, Sir Donald made a speech in which, although there is abso- 
 lutely not anything of a tangible character to enforce his evident object, 
 Sir Donald speciously creates the impression that Separate Schools were 
 talked of and negotiated for. The speech is looked upon by Mr. Foster as 
 a strong confirmation of his argument for the existence of a " compact of 
 1870." Indeed it would seem as if it had been delivered for that very pur- 
 pose, for Mr. Foster publishes a synopsis of it at the end of the pamphlet 
 
76 
 
 edition of his own speech. The most telling passages of Sir Donald's 
 address are quoted verbatim by Mr. Foster. Describing his instructions 
 as chief commissioner, which gave him large discretionary power, Sir 
 Donald says that one clause of the Governor General's letter to him read 
 as follows : 
 
 " The people may rely upon it that respect and protection will be 
 extended to the different religious persuasions " 
 
 With reference to his mission Sir Donald Smith said : 
 
 " However, we did meet the settlers of the Red River in convention 
 and an explanation was made to them with regard to the intended action 
 of Canada. 
 
 They were assured that their rights, their privileges, everything they 
 then had would be retained to them and that justice would be done in 
 every way." 
 
 In answer to their demand that a sum of money should be yearly 
 appropriated for the maintenance of the schools, roads and bridges, he gave 
 them a full assurance that this would be done. 
 
 As to the nature of their schools at that time, he says : 
 
 " I may mention, however, that at that time, the schools were volun- 
 tary or separate schools : that is, the Roman Catholics had their own 
 schools and the Protestants had theirs and there were certain grants of 
 
 money given to each. " " It is true that not much was said 
 
 about schools at that time, but it was distinctly understood by the people 
 there, and the promise was made to those people, that they would have 
 every privilege on joining Canada which they possessed at that time, and 
 such promise I gave as special commissioner from Canada. That was 
 implemented by Canada." Again he said : 
 
 " The Roman Catholics had their schools and the Protestants had 
 their schools, and each body had a grant from the Government at that 
 time. If they did not enter minutely and particularly into the description 
 of the Separate Schools, it was because they thought it altogether un- 
 necessary. Any contention about Separate Schools was never dreamt of 
 by them." 
 
 "They found and knew they had their schools and they believed the 
 promises made would be faithfully kept and they did not care to have any- 
 thing of a more binding character in regard to them." And again he 
 said : 
 
 " Now, while a very little, indeed, was said there about schools, the 
 people unquestionably had them in their minds and thought they would 
 enjoy the privilege of having their schools as before." 
 
 Sir Donald A. Smith's Version of the " Compact." 
 
 Sir Donald A. Smith's speech is a monument of artistic and studied 
 simplicity. He says the schools were "voluntary or separate schools," 
 doubtless intending to convey the impression that they were separate 
 schools in the sense referred "to in this controversy. The simple fact is 
 that the clergy of the various denominations, Roman Catholic, Anglican, 
 and Presbyterian, had organized the only schools that existed, and they 
 were maintained by these denominations or by private subscription. Sir 
 
77 
 
 Donald says " certain grants of money were given to each," doubtless 
 intending to convey the impression that these t; certain grants " were made 
 by the state. As a matter of fact, there was no state, and no organized 
 government then in existence in the territory. The Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany, which exercised magisterial functions with the authority of the 
 Imperial government, gave, in the way of a purely voluntary donation, out 
 of its own funds, "certain grants" to all the schools, and each denomination 
 was treated alike. To endeavor to put this donation, which was virtually 
 a private subscription, in the light of a state grant is well, hardly 
 straight-forward. 
 
 As a matter of fact and of history however, the first judgment of the 
 Privy Council, which goes minutely into these transactions, shows and 
 declares that no right or privilege which any body of persons had at the 
 time of the union, was in any way interfered with by the Manitoba law of 
 1890. The attempt to establish the existence of "separate" schools prior to 
 the union is quite in keeping with the general conduct and policy of the 
 Remedialists. 
 
 Another " Proof of Sequence " Argument . 
 
 Now, it will be seen that there is nothing at all in the foregoing 
 extract from Sir Donald's speech to show that there was any talk or 
 negotiation about separate schools. Sir Donald says : " If they did not 
 " enter minutely and particularly into the description of separate schools 
 " it was because they thought it altogether unnecessary." That was not 
 the reason. Sir Donald endeavors to suggest the inference, although he 
 does not make the statement, that separate schools had been discussed to 
 some extent, but not "minutely and particularly." As a matter of fact we 
 know that they were never discussed at all. The subjects of discussion at 
 that time have been chronicled by other and equally reliable historians, 
 but separate schools are not once referred to. Sir Donald further observes 
 that " any contention about separate schools was never dreamt of by 
 them." This is obviously quite true, because separate schools themselves 
 had " never been dreamt of by them," as Sir Donald knows. And this is 
 the true reason why they were not " minutely and particularly " described. 
 
 Sir Donald follows Mr. Foster's plan of building a theory or argument 
 out of nothing, and establishing it by the new " proof of sequence" device. 
 He supplements the above quoted observations with the following para- 
 graph : 
 
 " This is apparent, I think, from what took place in the Legislature 
 of Manitoba in 1871, when, I think, the school law was passed. It may 
 not be known to a great many of the members here that many of those 
 who composed the Legislature of Manitoba at that time were members of 
 the convention (of forty), and in deciding that there should be those 
 schools they were looking to what had passed in this convention with it 
 fresh in their minds. Therefore, I certainly think, the people of the Red 
 River, then the majority, now the minority, are entitled to all the privil- 
 eges that are given to the majority of the present day. I think that in 
 one way or the other we should insist that they should have full justice, 
 and that whether in the form of separate schools or in any other way, still 
 
78 
 
 that substantial justice should be done and that faith should be kept with 
 these people." 
 
 Now, let us see just what did take place at the first session of the first 
 Manitoba legislature. The first legislature of the province of Manitoba, 
 met on March 15, 1871. On April 4 of that year the first school bill was 
 introduced by Mr. John Sutherland, member for Kildonan. It made no pro- 
 vision for separate schools and no objection was taken to it on that account. 
 It provided in fact for a national or common school system. It was 
 ordered to be read a second time on April 12. This bill was not enacted. 
 It seemed, however, to secure the favorable consideration of all parties in 
 the legislature, and met with no opposition. It was withdrawn in order 
 that a more comprehensive measure on the same lines might be introduced 
 in its place. Such a bill was introduced by Mr. John Norquay, which also 
 provided for a national school system, and did not provide for sectarian 
 schools. This was on April 27, 1871, just six days before the close of the 
 session. Up till this time there was no mention of separate schools. The 
 first heard of a separate school scheme, was the sudden introduction on 
 this same day (April 27, 1871,) of a bill to "establish a system of education 
 in the province." This bill was introduced in blank by the Attorney- 
 General of the province, Hon. M. A. Girard, at the instance of Lieutenant- 
 Governor Archibald, who seemed to have taken an extraordinary interest 
 in its passage. It was read a second time on Monday May 1, 1871, only 
 one copy of the bill being before the legislature, and that in writing. " The 
 " provisions of the bill were not explained at any length to the legislative 
 ' assembly, and it was passed through committee and all its readings, during 
 " that afternoon. No time was allowed to the legislature to ascertain the 
 " nature of the bill or to give it any consideration." The session of the 
 legislature ended on May 3, 1871. 
 
 This was the act which established the separate school system in 
 Manitoba. Thus hurriedly and with so much mystery and secrecy, at the 
 end of a legislative session, was enacted this measure which our remedialist 
 statesmen tell us is an indisputable evidence that the people of Red River 
 and especially the members of the " Convention of Forty " were all along 
 aware of the fact that there was an agreement to establish separate schools. 
 The dates and essential facts as to the introduction of these various 
 measures are taken from the official journals of the Manitoba legislature. 
 The information as to the detail of the circumstances and transactions as 
 well as the above quoted sentence, is from the affidavits of two members of 
 that first legislature (Messrs. Hay and Sutherland) who are still alive. The 
 affidavits throw a very sinister light upon the methods by which the pass- 
 age of the bill was secured. They were made on March 27, 1896, after Sir 
 Donald Smith had made the speech in support of Mr. Fosters "second 
 compact" theory. They were presented to the public by Mr. Wade, a 
 Winnipeg lawyer, in a letter to the press. 
 
 The "Sequence" Missing. 
 
 Now if the education clauses in the Manitoba Act had been expressly 
 framed on the strength of an agreement that separate schools should be 
 established by the legislature, how does it come aoout that .this legislature 
 
79 
 
 should go on discussing for six weeks, the subject of education without 
 mentioning separate schools, whilst the bills under discussion entirely 
 omitted to make provision for such schools ? What is to be thought of 
 the historical reliability of a controversialist like Mr. Foster who asserts 
 that " the legislature as soon as it was convened, adopted a system of 
 " schools providing in the completest manner for the separate schools of 
 " the minority." Sir Donald Smith asserts that many of those who com- 
 " posed the legislature of Manitoba at that time were members of this 
 " convention (of forty), and in deciding that there should be those schools 
 " they were looking to what had passed with it fresh in their minds." 
 How does the worthy knight account for the fact that these members sat 
 discussing common school systems for six weeks, without even hinting at 
 any agreement to provide separate schools ? The explanation is simple. 
 The convention had never decided " that there should be those schools." 
 There is absolutely no record of any such decision, although the doings of 
 the convention have been recorded, and Sir Donald himself, although a 
 public man, although he was intimately familiar with the events of that 
 time, and although this controversy has lasted six years, mentions these 
 mythical agreements for the first time only a few weeks ago. The conven- 
 tion never discussed the question at all. 
 
 But why go on ? It must already be apparent to the most superficial 
 reader that the " history " of the remedialists is as unreliable as their 
 arguments are sophistical. The " second compact" theory is just as strong 
 and sound as the " principle of confederation " theory. When we remem- 
 ber the circumstances connected with the origin of the " second compact " 
 notion, we must admit that it is most appropriate, and indeed inevitable 
 that the present attempts to establish its existence should be characterized 
 by distortion and misstatement of fact, as well as by evasion and insin- 
 cerity in argument. 
 
 Irrevocable Legislation Incompatible with Popular Government. 
 
 But assuming that this "compact" had been a fact instead of a myth, 
 we would then be brought face to face with a very wide problem, and one 
 involving the most fundamental considerations. This compact is not only 
 assumed to have actually been made, but it is further assumed and declared 
 to be irrevocable. This is obviously a very serious consideration. The 
 consideration here raised touches the very foundation stone of the whole 
 system of popular government. If the people govern themselves they 
 have manifestly the right to make and unmake the laws under which 
 government shall be administered. Without such right popular govern- 
 ment is a delusion. As a matter of fact the right exists, and its only 
 limitations are the will, the conscience, and the intelligence of the people 
 themselves, or the superior compulsory force of some external power. The 
 enactments or stipulations of past generations have no binding force on 
 the succeeding inhabitants of a political jurisdiction, beyond what appeals 
 to their conscience and intelligence. 
 
 Let us review the facts in the present case. A population of 12 ; 000 
 persons passed laws relating to education twenty-five years ago. These 
 
80 
 
 laws, we shall assume, suited these people and their peculiar conditions. 
 It was subsequently seen however, that, by distinguishing the persons of a 
 certain religious sect from all other persons or classes in the community, 
 and by conferring, on the assumption that this division was fair and equal, 
 peculiar privileges on the persons belonging to that sect, these laws violat- 
 ed the principles of equality on which our government is founded, and that 
 this violation of principle would create great and increasing difficulty and 
 expense in the administration of government, particularly with reference 
 to education. The population, in the meantime, had greatly increased both 
 in numbers and intelligence, and its material conditions had entirely 
 changed. The people replaced the archaic and unsuitable laws with legisla- 
 tion more adapted to their needs and their intelligence, while having strict 
 regard to the rights of every class in the community. But our statesmen 
 tell us that this legislation must be revoked, that the legislation of the 
 12,000 original inhabitants must be perpetuated no matter how unsuited 
 to present conditions, how wrong in principle, or how crude in conception. 
 And this, not because the privileges of the privileged denomination can be 
 defended on their merits, but simply because they were once given, and 
 given under circumstances which brought them within the scope of the 
 mythical " constitutional compact," by virtue of which they are irrevocable. 
 This is a very startling doctrine to propound in a government like ours. 
 
 The proposition involved in the contentions of the remedialists, that a 
 handful, or any number, of persons inhabiting a territory may make dis- 
 criminative laws which shall bind all future generations inhabiting that 
 territory, is absurd. The settlers had full right to demand security and 
 protection in the enjoyment of their liberties and their properties. But 
 they had no right, nor did they claim any right, to legislate for future 
 generations in education or in any other matter. The failure to perceive 
 the distinction between individual rights and liberties on the one hand, and 
 class privileges on the other, has been another source of much confusion. 
 To guarantee the settlers of Red River secure enjoyment of their rights 
 and properties is one thing. To give them the right to say that people 
 of any religious denomination whether Catholic or non -Catholic should 
 enjoy special privileges cr exemptions in this territory in all future genera- 
 tions, merely because they happened to belong to this denomination, is 
 quite another, and quite an impossible thing. 
 
 The Province of Manitoba " the People " in this Case. 
 
 As the Privy Council pointed out, in its first judgment, the govern- 
 ment and legislature of the province cannot properly discharge their duties 
 in regard to education in the absence of complete autonomy, limited only 
 by the obligation to observe and respect the rights and customs which any 
 persons had at the union, and which it so happened, were the natural and 
 inalienable rights of British subjects. These have been fully respected in 
 the Manitoba legislation. Now it may be said that, while the proposition 
 that the people of a democracy have always the right and power to make 
 or abrogate the laws under which they are governed, is incontrovertible, it 
 has no relevancy to the discussion. It may be said that Manitoba in this 
 instance is not " the people " but only a section of it, and that the political 
 
81 
 
 unit in the case is nob the people of Manitoba, but the people of Canada. 
 We have just referred to the explanation in the first judgment of the Privy 
 Council of the considerations which prompted their conclusion that, subject 
 to the protection of the natural liberties and rights of all citizens, full 
 autonomy in the matter of education was necessary to an efficient dis- 
 charge of its educational responsibilities by the government or legislature. 
 That judgment affirmed the constitutionality of the legislation, that is, it 
 declared it to be within the lawful power of the legislature to enact, and 
 declared also that the law was in itself wise and just. It will also be 
 remembered that in their second judgment their Lordships expressed their 
 opinion that sub-section 2 of section 22, Manitoba Act, on which the appeal 
 was based, and which they were asked to interpret, was an anomalous 
 provision. The provision for an appeal from a legislative to an executive 
 authority was what struck them as " anomalous." Now although by virtue 
 of the " anomalous " sub-section in question, the parliament of Canada has 
 the very " anomalous " constitutional right to interfere with legislation 
 which is constitutional, it would obviously be an act of tyranny for that 
 parliament to nullify the legislation merely because it has the technical 
 power of interference, and without regard to the* intrinsic soundness or 
 justice of the legislation in question. The constitution, as we have shown, 
 protects all classes in Manitoba in their natural and inalienable rights. 
 Manitoba has acted within the constitution. It is therefore the duty of 
 parliament to refuse to arbitrarily exercise its technical authority and to 
 leave to Manitoba its required and rightful autonomy. Manitoba is morally 
 therefore " the people " in the case. 
 
 The Constitutional Duty of the Government. 
 
 We must bear in mind that the Dominion Government was acting <in 
 this appeal in the capacity of statesmen with the widest discretion. If 
 they had found that the position of Manitoba was sound, but that it was 
 in conflict with some provision of the Constitution, their manifest duty in 
 such circumstances was to bring before Parliament a proposition for the 
 amendment of the Constitution. It may, of course, be argued, that this 
 would be a hopeless undertaking in the present political conditions of 
 Canada, and that the attempt would mean sure defeat and loss of power 
 to the government and party which made it. But does it in any way 
 lessen the obligation of a body of public men to do their duty, that their 
 attempt to fulfil it will cost them place and power ? Or does the fact that 
 following the path of duty means loss of place and power, justify a states- 
 man in pursuing the exactly opposite course, in order to retain them? 
 They cannot make the constitution square with legislation that is sound 
 and right, so they will mutilate or annul this legislation to make it fit the 
 constitution ! What is the constitution ? To listen to the remedialists 
 and some other " constitutional " statesmen, it might be thought that it 
 was an unalterable code, evolved by some superhuman agency for our 
 guidance, and which demanded our unquestioning and unenquiring obedi- 
 ence. Constitutional acts, like all other legislative enactments, are subject 
 to amendment or change, when this should seem desirable. But in this 
 case the question of the constitution does not come up. For the laws, as 
 
82 
 
 we have seen, have been declared to be strictly constitutional by the 
 tribunal of last resort. 
 
 Rights to Appeal and Rights to Have Privileges Restored Not 
 
 Synonymous. 
 
 Does the obligation to hear the petition involve the further obligation 
 to grant what is asked ? Manifestly not. Such a situation would * be 
 absurd. But this point has been set at rest by the Privy Council, who 
 have explicitly stated that the discretion of the Governor-General-in- 
 Council is unlimited in dealing with the appeal. But the Dominion 
 Government says that, while it is quite true that it has full discretion, 
 yet the fact that the Privy Council has referred to the existence of a 
 grievance, indicates a moral obligation on the part of the Dominion Govern- 
 ment as the appellate body, to see that a remedy is found. Now this point 
 has been already dealt with. The fact that the Privy Council had referred 
 to a grievance, did not impose on the Dominion Government, any obliga- 
 tion, moral or legal, to do anything whatever, nor did it relieve the 
 Dominion Government from the obligation to ascertain for itself whether 
 any grievance existed. For, be it remembered, the question before the 
 Privy Council was not whether there was a grievance, but whether there 
 was an appeal to the Governor-General-in-Council. This appeal, as it was 
 quite evident from their Lordships' judgment, might lie whether there 
 was a grievance or not. Their Lordships, in the second judgment, said 
 nothing which tended to demonstrate the existence of a " grievance " in 
 the moral sense. But in their first judgment they show very conclusively 
 that no grievance exists. As we have seen, they say : " But what right 
 " or privilege is violated or prejudicially affected by the law ? It is not 
 " the law that is in fault, etc." Now why should the Dominion Govern- 
 ment base its whole attitude and action in this mater on a chance expres- 
 sion in the judgment, which obviously could not have been used in the 
 sense in which they interpret it ? Even if their Lordships had stated in 
 express terms, that the petitioners were laboring under a grievance (which 
 they did not do), there would have been no obligation imposed upon the 
 government to do anything. For it was not the business of the Privy 
 Council to say whether there was a grievance or not. Even the Privy 
 Council cannot go into questions outside of those before it for adjudica- 
 tion. No comment that the Privy Council could make, favorable or hostile 
 to the case of the petitioners, could relieve the Dominion Government of 
 the duty of going into the whole facts of the case, as if they had never 
 previously been dealt with. For it is to be remembered that as the ques- 
 tion before their Lordships in the second appeal was not as to whether 
 there was a grievance, no evidence or argument for or against the conten- 
 tion that a grievance existed, could be, or was, introduced. When in the 
 first case such evidence was submitted their Lordships said there was not 
 any grievance. If any further trial or enquiry is desired as to the actual 
 existence of a grievance, Manitoba is ready to become a party to it, to 
 submit its evidence, and to abide by the result. Its government has so 
 declared. 
 
83 
 
 Is the Government Obeying the Constitution? 
 
 But has the Dominion government risen to the duty demanded of it ? 
 Has it assumed its responsibility as a political tribunal, or has it exercised 
 its unlimited discretion to deal with the matter, having regard to the 
 actual facts of the case, and to sound principles of government ? Let us 
 see. Here is an extract from the election manifesto of Sir Charles Tupper, 
 in which he outlines the attitude and arguments of the government : 
 
 " It is unnecessary that I should attempt within the scope of a para- 
 graph to fully review the position of the government in relation to the 
 Manitoba schoool question. Although shamefully misrepresented by men 
 who have had a purpose to serve in doing so, or who have been misled by 
 mis-apprehension of the real merits of the question, the fact is recognized 
 that the government has taken a clear and definite stand on the constitu- 
 tional aspect of the matter. We have simply done what we believed to be 
 right in taking up the duty laid at our door by the judgment of the 
 highest court in the realm, and in endeavoring to redress the grievances of 
 the Roman Catholic minority in Manitoba by restoring the rights and 
 privileges guaranteed to them by the constitution. Knowing our case 
 rests upon a sound constitutional basis, and feeling we are doing right, it is 
 our patriotic duty to adhere to the policy we have adopted in this regard 
 and we now appeal for a vindication to the sober sense and the justice of 
 the Canadian people." 
 
 A very cursory study of this paragraph will enable the reader to see 
 that it is absolutely without meaning in so far as it may have been 
 intended to explain the considerations which determined the coercion 
 policy of the government. It is composed entirely of specious platitude 
 and irrelevant verbiage. What can be the possible meaning of the assertion 
 that " the government has taken a clear and definite stand on the constitu- 
 " tional aspect of the question ?" We venture to assert that, although the 
 phrase may have an imposing jingle in the ear of the uncritical listener, 
 Sir Charles would be quite unable to explain what it means. It is simply 
 magniloquent nonsense. So also is the proposition " our case rests upon a 
 " sound constitutional basis." When we know the " constitutional aspect of 
 " the question " after a careful study of the duty which the constitution 
 really imposes on the government, how absurd and tawdry do such 
 utterances appear. 
 
 Sir Charles rightly says that the position of the government has been 
 "shamefully misrepresented by men who have had a purpose to serve." 
 The men who have " shamefully misrepresented " the motives of the 
 government have been its own members. And the shameful misrepresent- 
 ation consists in their attempts to create the impression that their present 
 course is taken in obedience to the calls of "patriotic duty." 
 
 Sir Charles says the Government has taken up " the duty laid at our 
 door by the judgment of the highest court in the realm." It has not done 
 so. It has evaded that duty. It has assumed that the Separate School 
 system was instituted by the constitution and that, therefore, whether it is 
 a good system or a vicious system, it must be maintained. This is an 
 absurd position for statesmen to take. Neither the constitution nor the 
 
84 
 
 "judgment of the highest court in the realm" imposed upon the Dominion 
 Government the obligation to take any fixed or particular course what- 
 ever. In its capacity as court of appeal, the Dominion Government was 
 invested with the fullest discretion as pointed out by the Privy Council, 
 and as admitted by the counsel of the Roman Catholics themselves. All 
 that the constitution, as interpreted by the judgment, obliges the Govern- 
 ment to do, is to hear the appeal. If they ascertained that, under the law 
 of 1890, the rights to which Cotholics, equally with people of all other 
 sects, are entitled, were protected by the Manitoba legislation, then they 
 were bound, in order to properly fulfil the duty imposed on them by the 
 constitution, to refuse to interfere with that legislation. 
 
 The Governm cut's Course a Violation of the Constitution. 
 
 The contention of the Government that it is bound, in obedience to the 
 constitution or to the judgment of the Privy Council, to take certain action, 
 regardless of the desirability or undesirability of Separate Schools, is prepos- 
 terous. If the constitution created the government a court of appeal, and in 
 that capacity in vested it with discretionary powers, the constitution obviously 
 contemplated that the discretion should be exercised. A failure to exercise 
 the discretion, therefore, instead of being obedience to the constitution, is dis- 
 regard of its provisions. The Government, (or Sir Charles Tupper) says 
 that it proposes to " redress the grievances of the Roman Catholic minor- 
 ity in Manitoba by restoring the rights and privileges guaranteed to 
 "them by the constitution." This implies that some rights and privileges 
 so guaranteed have been taken away. Now if the Manitoba legislation 
 had taken away any rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution, 
 it would have been unconstitutional legislation and therefore inoperative 
 and of no effect, till the constitution had been amended. But the Privy 
 Council, in its first judgment, decided that the law had not taken away any 
 rights and privileges guaranteed by the constitution, and that it was there- 
 fore intra vires of the legislature and constitutional. Sir Charles evi- 
 dently lias overlooked altogether the first judgment, which is incomparably 
 the more important of the two. Because the question then before their 
 Lordships, was this very question of the constitutionality of the Manitoba 
 legislation. In the second, the question before their Lordships, was the 
 comparatively unimportant one as to whether there was a prima facie 
 case for an appeal to the Governor-General in Council, under a provision 
 of the Manitoba Act which their Lordships in giving judgment, pronounced 
 to be an anomalous provision. 
 
 Statesmanship from the Opera Bouffe. 
 
 But the whole fabric of this elaborate network of jumbled sophistica- 
 tion, which the government presents as an argument in defence of its 
 course the " compact of confederation," the " principle of confederation," 
 the " obedience to the constitution," and "the judgment of the highest 
 court in the realm," and all the rest of it is so flimsy, so incoherent, so 
 utterly incapable of resisting the puncture of criticism at any point, that it 
 is impossible to believe that men with even sufficient cerebral power to 
 
85 
 
 enable them to obtain positions of leadership in the Conservative party of 
 Canada [and we have had powerful demonstration that a wonderfully 
 small modicum suffices] can fail to be alive to the fact that the whole per- 
 formance is a colossal piece of " buncombe." We trust that our readers will 
 pardon us for again using a figure, whose introduction into a discussion of 
 such a subject as this, may seem somewhat of an incongruity, but when 
 the writer reflects on the essence and the accessories of this controversy, 
 the only parallel which presents itself to his mind are the extravagances, 
 the paradoxes, and the impossible situations of the opera bouffe. The 
 elaborate and solemn disputations over self-evident facts, and the equally 
 solemn and equally ridiculous acceptance of hypotheses whose absurdity is 
 borne on their face, give the performance a truly Gilbertian flavour. 
 
 Is Duty the Motive ? 
 
 The effort to enact " remedial " legislation is one of the most startling 
 performances attempted by a responsible body of politicians in any demo- 
 cratically governed state of modern times. The outrageous character of 
 the effort has not yet been fully realized. Here is a group of statesmen 
 prepared, on the strength of arguments whose flimsiness and insincerity 
 are so palpable as to at once indicate that they have been manufactured to 
 meet a desperate exigency, to commit the Confederation of Canada to the 
 assertion of the most preposterous principles, to set down the most vicious 
 precedents, and to directly override and antagonize the will of one of the 
 most intelligent divisions of its population. And what is the motive ? The 
 government says that the actuating motives are simply duty and patri- 
 otism. But who, that has studied this question, that knows the facts, that 
 has considered the arguments advanced by the government in support of 
 its course, and that knows what the government has to gain, and obviously 
 expects to gain, by pursuing that course, can be induced to believe that its 
 motives are other than the most sordid and most unprincipled? When 
 we see it asserted that this dangerous, costly and sordid policy, has been 
 adopted at the call of duty, in the interest of the country, and in defence 
 of its reputation for good faith, the performance is only rendered a little 
 more revolting. Hypocrisy is probably the most repulsive of all the vices. 
 
 It is with much reluctance and only after great deliberation that we 
 put the matter thus plainly. But after an analysis of the situation only 
 two alternatives present themselves to our minds. Either the government 
 is incapable of grasping and dealing with the question, or it has determined 
 to manipulate it regardless of right or wrong, or of the country's wellbeing, 
 solely with the view of securing the support of the Roman Catholic episco- 
 pacy which it knows or believes controls the Catholic vote which, on most 
 questions in which the heirarchy are interested is considered to be " solid," 
 whilst the Protestant population being under no ecclesiastical domination 
 are more apt to vote according to partisan affinities. 
 
86 
 
 The Question Before tFje People. 
 
 The Church in the Campaign. 
 
 The question is now before the Canadian people, and as it affects the 
 interests of the Roman Catholic clergy, they will make sure that it shall 
 be the leading issue in the elections of June 23rd, which on account of the 
 existence of conditions already described they are able to do. The cam- 
 paign is now on and the spectacle is far from being attractive. Such 
 occasions display in unpleasant relief the great necessity for a much 
 higher standard of public intelligence and public honesty, and of indi- 
 vidual sense of public duty than at present exists, and consequently the 
 urgent necessity for an effective public educational system. The tendency 
 to allow the exigencies of party to overshadow the interests of the country 
 is still deplorably prevalent, although there are those who believe they 
 detect a growing distrust and independence of partisan machine influence, 
 especially amongst the younger men. This they attribute to the superior 
 intelligence of these younger men, which again is due to the better oppor- 
 tunities which they have had, on account of the existence of more or less 
 efficient systems of public education. Thousands of men vote from all 
 sorts of motives, such as personal interest or animosity, social relationships 
 and above all partisan connections, without giving the slightest weight to 
 the considerations which should really determine their votes. And these 
 are not by any means the worst class of voters. Then there are the elec- 
 tors who vote as members of a religious denomination, and not as citizens, 
 and who, however worthy they may be in their personal capacity, are 
 probably the most dangerous of all the undesirable classes of electors. In 
 this connection, and as suggesting and illustrating the nature of the danger, 
 it might be well to consider the following paragraph from a mandement 
 issued by the Catholic Bishops of Quebec, to the Catholic electors : "Please 
 remark, our dearly beloved brethren, that a Catholic is not permitted, let 
 him be a journalist, elector, candidate, or member, to have two lines of con- 
 duct in a religious point of view, one for private life and one for public 
 life, and to trample under feet in the exercise of his duties not social, the 
 obligations imposed on him by his title of a submissive son of the church. 
 Therefore, all Catholics should only vote for the candidates who will form- 
 ally and solemnly engage themselves to vote in parliament in favor, of 
 legislation giving the Catholics of Manitoba the school laws which were 
 recognized to them by the Privy Council of England. This grave duty 
 imposes itself on all good Catholics, and you would not be justifiable, 
 neither before your spiritual guides, nor before God Himself, to set aside 
 this obligation." 
 
 If free government can exist in a community in which such a mani- 
 festo as this, is permitted by a lar^e body of citizens to influence them in 
 
87 
 
 the discharge of their political duties, then the writer is compelled to admit 
 that his notions of what free government is are sadly aglee. 
 
 The peremptory attitude and the violence of the language of some of 
 the prelates during this controversy, have been a significant feature of it. 
 A Nova Scotia bishop characterized as " hell inspired hypocrites " those 
 Catholics who opposed remedial legislation. An aged missionary priest 
 wrote to the Hon. Wilfrid Laurier, requesting his assistance and co-opera- 
 tion in the passage of remedial legislation. The following paragraph from 
 Father Lacornbe's letter, describes the consequences of Mr. Laurier's refusal 
 to comply with the request : 
 
 if which may God not grant you do not believe it be your duty 
 to accede to our just demand, and that the Government which is anxious 
 to give us the promised law be beaten and overthrown, while keeping 
 firm to the end of the struggle, I inform you with regret that the episco- 
 pacy, like one man, united to the clergy, will rise to support those who 
 may have fallen to defend us. Please pardon my frankness which leads 
 me to speak thus." 
 
 The frankness is certainly charming. These and many other such 
 expressions may afford a vivid insight into the nature of this dispute. 
 
 The Feeling in Manitoba. 
 
 There is no doubt that there exists a feeling of soreness on the part of 
 a considerable section of the Roman Catholics in Manitoba. In the first 
 place, they have lost a privilege which they valued highly. Whether their 
 preference for Separate Schools originates from the exercise of their own 
 judgment, or is dictated by the influence and demands of the clergy, is a 
 matter into which it is not necessary to enter. There is no doubt about 
 the existence of at least an avowed preference on the part of a large 
 majority of the Catholics for Separate Schools. It is scarcely reasonable 
 to expect that they would acquiesce in a spirit of joyfulness, in the changes 
 which put an end to their peculiar privileges. Unfortunately human 
 nature whether Roman Catholic or " Protestant," has not yet reached that 
 phase of development on its moral side, which would be necessary before 
 any considerable class of mankind would be prepared to cheerfully surren- 
 der advantages which it possesses, no matter how clear may be the demon- 
 stration that its possession of these advantages is a very onesided and 
 unfair arrangement. But what is to be said in argument, with a body of 
 citizens who contend that by virtue of the incomparable superiority of 
 their religious creed over that of all others, they are entitled to exclusive 
 treatment ? For that is the meaning of their claim in the last analysis. And 
 what can be said to these same people, who consider as an evidence of 
 bigotry and fanaticism, the passage of a law by which they are placed on 
 the same plane, and enjoy the same advantages as every other section in the 
 community ? Argument on any matter is useless and indeed impossible, 
 with men who, in regard to that matter, have placed their judgment and 
 their conscience in the keeping of others. 
 
 This is, however, a case for the exercise of forbearance and modera- 
 tion on both sides in the conduct of the controversy. When the Roman 
 Catholics have time to examine the whole question free from the heat of 
 
88 
 
 discussion, they will see the real meaning of the attitude of the Province. 
 When the}' realize that this action has not been taken at the instigation 
 of fanatical rage, or because of an ignorant dislike of their religious beliefs, 
 they will, we believe, in increasing numbers, avail themselves of " the 
 advantages which the law offers to all alike," and the value of which 
 advantages some of them now realize and avail themselves of. 
 
 The Campaign. 
 
 To a disinterested spectator the contemplation of the present political 
 struggle would be productive of much amusement, if the graver and more 
 sombre aspects of it could be kept out of view. The transparent insincer- 
 ities, the bombastic and grandiloquent expositions of policies, calculated 
 more to befog than to enlighten ; the exploitation of " loyalty," and the 
 general impression of sham and unreality which pervades the whole busi- 
 ness, again suggests the comedy stage or the circus. A very disagreeable 
 feature is the adherence to the time honored custom of bribery of constitu- 
 encies by the offer or promise of public works. 
 
 As soon as the campaign commenced, it became evident that it was the 
 settled plan of the government to regain the constituency of Winnipeg. The 
 reasons for this desire are very apparent. In the first place it was thought 
 that if Winnipeg, which is recognized as the centre of the resistance to coer- 
 cion or remedial legislation, could by hook or crook be induced to return a 
 supporter and a member of a government pledged to coercion, the passage of 
 the remedial bill which the government has promised the hierarchy, shall be 
 passed if it is returned to power, would be a much easier matter than it is 
 otherwise likely to be. The government could then say to its rebellious 
 followers in the east : " Why should you object to remedial legislation 
 " when Manitoba itself, as shown by the result of the Winnipeg election, 
 " is really quite indifferent on the subject ? '' 
 
 Again, Winnipeg has been represented for about three years by Mr. 
 Joseph Martin the author of the school laws of 1890, and he proved himself 
 to be such a wide awake, formidable and untiring critic, that he had 
 become exceedingly inconvenient and obnoxious to the government. He 
 vigilantly watched and strenuously resisted, all attempts to poach on the 
 people's patrimony or to exploit the public exchequer. Of course he was 
 in the first rank of the resistance to the scandalous attempt to pass the 
 remedial bill. For these and other like causes he is held in great disfavor 
 by the government and its supporters. The vacuous old gentleman who 
 by some strange freak of fortune, possible only in the sphere of " politics," 
 attained the position of Premier of Canada, and held it till his subordinates 
 ungratefully and harshly jostled him out of it, has referred to Mr. Martin 
 with remarkable originality of diction as a "dangerous demagogue," which 
 epithet applies to Mr. Martin with as much appropriateness as it would to 
 the moon. Sir Charles Tupper has alluded to him as " Martin of Winnipeg, 
 " mainly instrumental in perpetrating the outrage on the Catholic minority 
 " in Manitoba." (Sir Charles was speaking in Montreal. His characteri- 
 sation of the Manitoba school laws is interesting.) 
 
 Inspired by this double motive the government has spared and is 
 sparing, no effort to carry Winnipeg. Mr. Hugh John Macdonald, son of 
 
89 
 
 the late Sir John A. Macdonald, who formerly represented Winnipeg in 
 the Canadian parliament and retired from the position in disgust with 
 " politics ", was induced to enter the cabinet pledged to coercion, and to 
 again contest the Winnipeg constituency, where, it was calculated, the 
 prestige of his name and his personal popularity, would have a powerful 
 influence. Other means have not been by any means neglected. Sir 
 Charles Tupper accompanied Hon. Mr. Macdonald on his return to Winni- 
 peg after his acceptance of office, and there made the opening speech of the 
 campaign. Exaggerated accounts of the reception accorded to Sir Charles 
 in Winnipeg have been telegraphed all over the country, and Sir Charles 
 himself has stated that he found that the feeling of the people of Winnipeg 
 had been much misrepresented; that they were not so averse to remedial 
 legislation as was supposed ! The party reins are being drawn hard, and 
 the party whip is being cracked, but nevertheless party lines are being 
 obliterated on a scale never before known in this community. The coercion 
 policy may thus prove to be not an unmixed evil. Sir Charles in his 
 speech promised everything in the way of public works, which the people 
 of Winnipeg and of Manitoba have been clamouring vainly for during the 
 past fifteen years. The perennial Hudson's Bay Railway, which exists 
 only on the statute books and which has for fourteen years been a tool of 
 " promoters " and charter-mongers, and a stalking horse of the politicians 
 at election times, is now to be built, no mistake this time. The vicious 
 provision in the Dominion election laws, which extends the franchise to 
 non-resident property owners, offers large scope for enterprising persons 
 who are ambitious to determine what the " will of the people " shall be. 
 There are indications that the opportunities which it affords will not be 
 neglected. The spectacle on the whole is more unpleasant than amusing. 
 It is very safe to predict, however, that no influences that can be brought 
 to bear, legitimate or corrupt, open or occult, will be strong enough to 
 carry the seat for Mr. Macdonald. 
 
 A Specimen Remedialist Record. 
 
 As Winnipeg is to be the battle centre, it may be interesting to study 
 the attitude and the record on the school question of the gentleman who is 
 now asking the votes of the electors in his capacity of member of the 
 coercionist government. As an illustration of the shifts to which the 
 remedial statesmen are put, the record of the Hon. Hugh John Macdonald 
 is interesting and instructive. Besides the prestige of his father's name, 
 Mr. Macdonald has some personal claims to attention. He is a man of 
 pleasant address, of great geniality, and his instincts and impulses are, we 
 believe, those of a natural gentleman. He cannot be compared, and in 
 fact is not in the same class with his opponent in the matter of force of 
 character, executive capacity, or even in the minor qualifications of public 
 speaking. This is not at all to Mr. Macdonald's discredit, for there are few 
 men in the Canadian parliament who can rank with Mr. Martin in the 
 matters of force, ability or debating power. Mr. Macdonald is himself a 
 man of some ability, and he is a fluent, if not very profound speaker. 
 
 When Mr. Macdonald represented Winnipeg in the Canadian parlia- 
 ment he was a strong believer in national schools and was strongly opposed 
 
they have suffered any injury, because that was not their business. It will 
 be observed that Mr. Macdonald's references to the judgment are of that 
 vague and incoherent sort so characteristic of the ' remedial " statesmen 
 when endeavoring to extract a justification for their policy from this 
 decision. 
 
 However, Mr. Macdonald's exposition of his change of attitude hardly 
 calls for much comment. It speaks for itself and it speaks so plainly 
 and so suggestively that a mind of very limited powers of analysis can see 
 what it means. It means that Mr. Macdonald sees that his present position 
 is inexplicable and indefensible and he endeavors to cover up the defects 
 and missing links in the sequence of his " explanation " with a mass of 
 confused verbiage. It is regrettable that a man of amiable qualities and 
 good impulses, such as Hon. Mr. Macdonald undoubtedly is, should allow 
 himself to be placed in a position so humiliating as that which he occupies. 
 It is a pointed illustration of the debasing tendency of the insane and 
 sordid partisanship which obtains in this Canada of ours, and which has 
 introduced a set of ethical standards into Canadian public life so low, that 
 the citizen who adopted them in his private commercial transactions, would 
 be commercially ostracised, if even more inconvenient results did not ensue. 
 
 Mr. Macdonald says he was not aware that the minority "had the 
 "right to appeal on the question of fact as well as of law." If this has any 
 meaning at all it must be apparent only to Mr. Macdonald. The appeal or 
 reference in the last case involved no question of fact unless Mr. Macdonald 
 considers as a question of fact the question as to. whether rights or privi- 
 leges had been in fact affected. That was not a " question " at all. It was 
 known beyond all question, not only that they had been affected but that 
 they had been abolished, and properly so. Mr. Macdonald knew this long 
 before the reference was made, just as thoroughly as he can know it now. 
 What then is the meaning of his phrase about questions of fact as well as 
 of law ? 
 
 Conclusion 
 
 In these pages we have endeavored to set before the readers the facts 
 and to indicate the issues involved in this important controversy. On the 
 title page of this review we point out that the controversy is one involving 
 questions of ethics, politics, facts and law. The title itself is in the form 
 of an interrogatory as to the soundness of Manitoba's position. The answer 
 we will leave to the reader. For ourselves we have all along been thor- 
 oughly impressed with the impregnability of Manitoba's position in regard 
 to all the aspects of the question. We believe that the people of Manitoba 
 clearly understand the issues, that they believe they are right, and conse- 
 quently that they will maintain their attitude to the end as firmly as they 
 have hitherto, and that they will prevail. 
 
 Although the overwhelming mass of the people here are of one mind 
 on this question, they are not unamirious. The great majority of the 
 
93 
 
 Roman Catholic population is certainly for separate schools, and, for the 
 reasons already adverted to, we are not disposed to condemn them or to 
 speak harshly of their attitude. 
 
 But there is also a proportion (fortunately for the reputation of the 
 province a very small one) of the non-Catholic population, which is ready 
 to support the policy of coercion or any other policy which the party 
 leaders might decide upon. This body uses the ordinary party shibboleths. 
 It prattles about the " constitution ", the " rights of a weak minority", the 
 " grievance which the Privy Council found to exist " and so forth, as the 
 pretext for its subversion of principle, and its treachery to the interests 
 and the rights of the province. 
 
 Probably, however, the most exasperating of all the varieties of rem- 
 edialists is that small group who declare their opposition to coercion and 
 their belief that it is tyrannical, but who urge that Manitoba should com- 
 promise, should "do something," because the agitation is, according to them, 
 having a disastrous effect on our material interests. These persons assume 
 the possession by themselves of an abnormal wisdom and sagacity. They 
 affect to believe that this question is kept alive only by the manipulations 
 of unprincipled politicians, and the misdirected enthusiasm of a few zealots 
 and doctrinaires. Their intellectual status and the point of view from 
 which they regard this question m&y be gauged from their observations. 
 They ask, " has the school question made you rich ? " No, it has not made 
 us rich. But we would be poor indeed, in all the qualities that have been 
 hitherto deemed the most admirable whether in individual men or in 
 nations, if we should submit to the deprivation of what we believe to be 
 our rights, and should permit the assertion of false principles of govern- 
 ment, and the establishment of vicious precedents in this new and vast 
 domain, merely because the discharge of our duty to ourselves and our 
 successors was not making us rich. 
 
 What would have been our condition to-day if the men to whose 
 struggles, whose courage, and whose invincible determination to adhere to 
 the path of duty as they saw it, we owe the freedom of which we are, in 
 our cheap ebullitions of " loyalty " so much given to boast, what would 
 have been our condition, we say, and where would have been those liberties, 
 if these staunch men had calculated, before launching into the struggle, 
 whether it was likely to result in making them rich ? There is in every 
 community a class of cheap cynics who consider as an evidence of superior 
 intellectual acumen, their sneering disbelief in the existence of any motive 
 higher than self-interest. Such men have an evil influence. They often 
 are the means of repressing, from the fear of ridicule, the natural expres- 
 sion of right feeling on the part of honest and right-minded men, who are 
 somewhat lacking in force of character. But these shallow cynics are we 
 believe comparatively few in number. We are a commercial and a Boetian 
 community, but we have confidence that there are still in the natures of 
 the great mass of this people, those chords which will respond clearly and un- 
 mistakably when touched by a strong appeal to that sense of duty, which 
 surely cannot yet be dead in the hearts of the heirs and descendants of the 
 race which above all others has successfully fought the battle of human 
 progress and human freedom, 
 

 WIN. 
 UK > 
 
Binder 
 
 Gaylord Bros., Inc. 
 
 Stockton, Calif. 
 T. M. Reg. U.S. Pat. Off. 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY