ILLINOIS

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPA1GN

PRODUCTION NOTE

University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign library
Brittle Books Project, 2014.COPYRIGHT NOTIFICATION

In Public Domain.
Published prior to 1923.

This digital copy was made from the printed version held
by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
It was made in compliance with copyright law.

Prepared for the Brittle Books Project, Main Library,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
by

Northern Micrographics
Brookhaven Bindery
La Crosse, Wisconsin

2014DIXON'S ADDRESS

TO THE JURY

In Defence of
FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Considered t^e nu st 2v*wertui

addres ever delivered in the
Com*ti§ of Manitoba

And

JUDGE GALT'S
Charge to the Jury

In

REX v.DIXON

H)

PRiCE 25c

Publiilied by
T H 8 DEFENCE CO MMITTBB
WINNIPEGlISlSI

£

N-,"? V

&



% '/ ; T A \ P





«v ,, \ ;•*,< : . ■•' ; y , " k • . +» w'S. * y,.v;"4V-<	v\:' ■• • *-'•/ ''*w

'h<r.l-''l\f:k-k^:'V.



r^w

t:%m^

' *V;



'•t/j«* ' * ,», VI ,>rS ^ '¥,

k,fe;» Ji' < O i



0!$&m

z:Kki •

£«*:*!&& 1.....4,J .> W

I- << • . .	?■< ,	x • . ,

•/' ,»«.'. • ' ^ * .	Jjfi vvl-*/ ' " •' -•' '. ," -

'>£&• £'

:-.A^ MlwH.. : K

»	^iL. ^ Y« £/ 4 jv '^.w*	* "* ? ' ' .

; W.4£,f** >«/ \»*.",'%>•

8t;« *♦ J <* •. ;, * * -. • • .. /. - * '/ ^ '7'

u „<■.....• \! .,v. > >: ., .'*'	„*i. JI?V.:

-• •':



':1V 1. ..** -. /•'*•..' 1« V ■

I3li*V





m:! ..'.	. .. •*, * <.	"v\\ 'L* A «*e -i

*' ■

v f * ''rmti-'

i,~df 'I a " v S

x\ M ."/V'V.

;<V "i'-j'

•	rVi:¥/'

l* i	■?<	wjRfsjp H4	.... .*.v

/	VvU. , "i^V-v V^> /k'^fK, - ' i

f ' ^ K* -^v . S ~;\-i*\''.. )'* h^y i r \*;
,!"r> v';.«? -«*T Yi>k	4r> ^ :

rtv'.'if*:

, „;.V'¥ .

fit.*?* '

•' '■ Vv»;r

llllll



.v	^ ^ 5 V5V ^ |

V- if^A^XlAUii's Address

TO THE

JURY

An argument for

LIBERTY of OPINION

Being a speech by F. J. Dixon, M.L.A., in
answer to an indictment charging him with pub-
lishing seditious libel, delivered in the Court
House, Winnipeg, on the 13th and 14th of Feb-
ruary, 1920.

"Other liberties are held under Govern-
ments, but the liberty of opinion keeps Govern-
ments themselves in due subjection to their
duties. This has produced the martyrdom of
truth in every age and the world has only been
purged from ignorance with the innocent blood
of those who have enlightened it."

—LORD ERSKINE.

"Give me liberty to know, to utter, and to
argue freely, according to conscience above all
liberties."	—MILTON.

"This is true liberty, when free-born men,
Having to advise the public, may speak free."

—EURIPIDES.

THE ISRAELITE PRBSS LIMITED

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

An argument (or
LIBERTY of OPINION

February 13th, 1920.

2.30 p.m.

My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury: We £ave been
(together now for some two weeks, and I would remind you at
this time, that when the jury was being chosen there was a
question asked with regard to the juror W. P. Jamieson "If
there would be evidence at the trial connecting Dixon with
the strike, would this prejudice apply?77 to which his lordship
replied: "I don7t know that is a question to ask; we are not
trying him for the strike." Now, I shall leave it to you to
judge of all the evidence that has been put in here in connec-
tion with the strike and you will understand, if I take up
|i£ore time than you would wish to stay, it is because a great
; dheal of irrelevant matter has been admitted into this case, and
tjjou will understand it is not my fault—for you know I have
objected from time to time to a great many matters I have
qonsidered irrelevant and much of that connected with the
s frike. The court at that time said I was not to be tried for
i ie strike.

However, you are seized, gentlemen of the jury, with a
reat responsibility. You are the last hope of the subject in
'ie matter of his personal liberty, and when all other things
aVe failed he must place his hope in the judgment and con-
cience of the jury. It is fortunate for me that some of my
peeches have.been preserved and have been put in evidence,
lad we to depend on the scattered notes of men who were
ent out to different meetings to spy upon the proceedings and
ear what was said,—they did not take notes at the meeting®
ut went and wrote those notes two or three hours afterwards,4

DIXON'S ADDRESS fO fII JURY

—I think a man would hare a very difficult time to clear .him-
self of some of the things that were laid against him; but I
think you will understand evidence like that is not very reli-
able evidence of what was said. You will remember that so far
as the Walker speech was concerned there were two or three
sentences that were put in, and I think you will agree with
me that when the full speech was filed it put a very different
complexion on the whole matter, and I ask you to remember
that, in regard to the Walker Theatre meeting, that is the only
complete speech you have. You will remember that Lamont
who read from the Telegram a report he had made a year ago,
when he was asked what he had remembered about Blumen-
berg, said he remembered Blumenberg advocated Soviet gov-
ernment for Canada When I asked him to find that in his re-
port made that very day, he could not find it and I am going
to ask you what value is such evidence as to whether Blumen-
berg advocated a Soviet Government. It is not of very much
value.

I want you to assume that if he had heard Blumenberg
advocate a Soviet Government for Canada, he would not only
have put it in his article, but in the headline, so that every^
body could see it as a very startling piece of news. I hope tof
deal with that later on. I want to deal with the speech of Julyj
20; that is the one in which I referred to the right of trial by|
jury. I think you will see from that speech, from which I shallj
read very briefly, what I think of trial by jury as the last hop$
of the liberty of the subject. I am not going to read it in its|
entirety but a portion of it.

TRIAL BY JURY HAS BEEN ABOLISHED

"Trial by Jury has been abolished in Canada. That bald
statement of fact without elaboration, should be sufficient tc
arouse public resentment to such a pitch that the Dominion
Government would be compelled at the next session of Parlia-
ment to repeal that infamous amendment to the Immigratior
Act, by which men have been robbed of a fundamental civil
right. Meanwhile we should insist, as far as in our power
lies, that the victims of this vicious amendment should be give^
fair play, and we should attempt by force of public opinion te
make the government suspend the operation of that amend
meat matil such time as it can be obliterated from the statut
book. We, the people of Canada, must make it our business tDIXON'S ADDBESS TO THE JURY

5

rmtme trial by jury in this country. Trial by jury developed
in Great Britain as a constitutional protection of the subject
against the tyrannies of kings and ministers. Its exact origia
is clouded in the mist of antiquity, but about the beginning of
the thirteenth century, we find trial by or/leal falling into dis-
use, and trial by jury beginning to evolve At first the jurors
were witnesses, neighbors of the accused, who were called t#
testify as to the facts involved and the character of the accused.
They were then selected on account of their knowledge of the
circumstances. Now they are not supposed to have previous
knowledge of the case but to be judges of the evidence produced
in court, with power to declare the accused either "guilty or
not guiltyIt was about the middle of the fifteenth century
that the jurymen ceased to be witnesses,—the jury ceased te
be a jury of proof and became a jury of judgment.

On many occasions juries have protected the rights and
liberties of the people against the invasion of tyrants.

Harking back to British history we find repeated attempts
to destroy trial by jury. It was the denial of justice under
King John which lead to the insertion in the Magna Charta
of that memorable article, that lies at the base of our whole
judicial system. It ran: "No free man shall be seized or im-
prisoned, or disposed, or outlawed, or in any way brought to
ruin; we will not go against any man, nor send against him,
save by the legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the
land." Another clause reads: "To no man will we sell, or
deny, or delay right or justice."

Charles I was condemned because he made arbitrary im-
prisonment by star chamber methods Shall trial by jury,
which our forefathers successfully defended from the assaults
of King John and Charles I, be taken from us by the poli-
tical trickery of Jim Calder, Arthur Meighen and their fellow
conspirators against the people? It took many centuries to
secure the protection of trial by jury. It required the highest
efforts of noble men, Stephen Langton, Pvm, Hampden, Wilkes,
Erskine, Fox and a host of others. Shall we now allow it to be
destroyed by those assassins of liberty who,misgovern Canada T*

I will not read any more from that; I want to say that fit
respect to my standing there strongly for the right of trial by6

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

jury, any hard words I have to say against those who occupy
places of power is not to vilify the government, but to purify
it. We hold in British countries that we are free to criticise
the government, in fact it has been called government by dis-
cussion, and if we are going to have government by discussion
we must have an opportunity of criticising the government. In
order to purify the government we must have this right to
criticise men who may be in power for a short time. Men come
and go, but the government remains and we must retain that
right to criticise the action of men if we are to preserve the
boasted honor of British institutions.

You are the last hope of the subject in this matter. When-
ever there is a question as to whether this is a fair discussion
or an unfair one, it comes finally to twelve men in the jury box
and so far as the law is concerned, a man in a British country
is free to say anything that twelve of his fellow countrymen
think he is entitled to say under the circumstances. That is to
say, if you take these very articles with which I am charged,
and review the circumstances, and read them over and come
to the conclusion I was entitled to pass these remarks, that I
was not exceeding freedom of speech, then you will have the
right to bring in a verdict of "not guilty," and it is you who
are to make the decision, it is you who shall say, and if you
think I was entitled to make these remarks no one else can
say me nay. I want you to remember that your own liberty is
also involved, for if I had not the right to make these remarks
then no one in Canada had a right and you have your own
liberties to consider as well as the liberties of every one in this
Canada, It is a big question, and you will deal with it accord-
ing to your conscience and judgment.

I have undertaken a great responsibility in assuming to
defend myself. I believe it is a proverb in the legal profession,
that a man who defends himself has a fool for a client; how-
ever I have taken that responsibility and taken the risk.

While I know there is some personal risk in;the matter,
there is a more important thing, and that is the public in-
terest, and I am hopeful the public interest will not be injured
through my body. I do not wish to do anything that may
restrict freedom of speech or of press in this country, and if
I do perhaps get a little warm at times, and emphatic, t do notDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

7

want you ta hold that up against me, but take it all into your
consideration and give your judgment in what you consider to
he the public interest and welfare. I am, of course, strengthen-
ed in the feeling of innocence upon this occasion by the know-
ledge of the fact that under British law every man is con-
sidered innocent until he has been proven guilty; that is one
of the fundamental principles of our British law, and I must
say while I have listened to the evidence that has been put in
and the terrible arraignment that has been made against me'
my conviction of my own innocence has been confirmed and I
feel a double security in my own sense of innocence and the de-
claration of British law that every man is innocent until he
has been proven guilty.

% Now this charge of seditious libel is very vague. It is
what you might call a sort of blanket charge. It is true I did
find some fault with the indictment that it was not specific
enough, that it should have alleged what particular form of
seditious libel I was accused of, whether of maligning His
Majesty or stirring up disaffection against His Majesty's gov-
ernment or speaking disrespectfully of the officials of the
crown or of attempting to secure some unlawful object by un-
lawful means—there are so many ramifications and general, not
specific, accusations are made in the indictment. This is a
general indictment, a sort of omnibus indictment, and some-
where within the four corners of seditious libel they hope to
find something upon which Dixon may be convicted. I think,
gentlemen, before I have concluded I will be able to show you
that even that is not possible, at least I hope so. That will be
my endeavor. It seems they were not satisfied with that; while
I am charged with seditious libel I have been also accused of
every crime there is in the calendar. I think I have been accused
of everything: hpyocrisy, blasphemy, distributing seditious
literature, attending unlawful assemblies, riotous assemblies,
rebellious conspiracies and every other thing that is in the
Criminal Code; and I am supposed to meet these charges. I
Bhall meet them as best I may and I trust I may meet them
satisfactorily but I do want you to get in mind that I am not
charged with these things, but that I am charged with pub-
lishing a seditious libel. These three particular articles pub-
lished upon a particular date—it is with them you are to find
mt either guilty or not guilty. I say it is a vague charge. In
lie time of Charles II, coffee houses were forbidden noi be-8

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

cause His Majesty had any dislike to coffee house®, but be-
cause coffee houses were claimed to be hotbeds of sedition. At
the end of the 17th century, men were accused of sedition if
they advocated adult suffrage and said every man over 21 years
of age should have a vote and a learned judge on the bench said
men advocating that were attempting to overthrow the British
constitution. This is a vague and wide charge, but so far as I
am concerned, it only deals with these particular articles with
which I am charged at this time, and I want to say that so far
as these charges of libellous and seditious utterances are con-
cerned, they were becoming rarer and rarer as the days went
by until recently.

When Mr. Phillipps wanted to give a definition of sedition
he had to go back a hundred years, when there were many
prosecutions for sedition. Since one hundred years ago there
have been very few. In the case of Rex. v. Trainer it was said
there had been more such cases in Alberta in the last two years
than there had been in the last hundred years in England.
There had to be some clear cause before there was any hope
for a successful prosecution; so it had been rare until the last
year or two, when it has been revived. I want to submit that
it is not in the best interests of the country that prosecutions
for seditious articles should be revived unless there is some
substantial ground for the prosecution, which I hope to show
you there is not in this particular case. As to whether I should
be charged with seditious libel and then alleged to be a mem-
ber of a conspiracy, I shall leave you to draw your own con-
clusions. ,

I call your attention to the fact that I was served with
notices that in regard to publishing seditious libel some 70
or 80 witnesses would be called and then notified 30 or 40
would not be called and then 10 others would be called, and
then two days later 2 more, and then on the 20th I receive#
notice there would be some 377 documents filed in the case,
and I would have an opportunity to peruse them if I wished.

So far as the majority of these documents are concerned!
09 per cent .of them I have never seen in my life, and I
not want to see them again. I do not want to read that kinl
of literature even at the invitation,of the crown counsel, bu^
we will deal with that more fully later on. I want you
flrasr your own conclusions in regard te that natter.DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

9

I want to* emphasize the fact again that so far as liberty
©f opinion is concerned, that is what is on trial, I contend.
Liberty of speech and the press have been secured by the fear-
less action of British juries and Canadian juries, and they
can only be preserved by the same method.

I must say, when I was arrested and charged with this
crime, that I felt somewhat annoyed, but when I started to
study the law and history books in order the better to prepare
myself for my defence against this false accusation. I then be-
gan to consider that after all I had been thrust into rather
illustrious company, for I found most of those who had led
the fight for freedom had at some time or other been arrested
and charged with uttering some opinions, and a great many
had been thrown into jail, and I realized that this was what
appeared to me to be a rear attack upon the forces of liberty.
In the van were men of whom I can only be a humble follower.
I recognize the great Erskine referred to by counsel for the
crown, who a hundred years ago made the courts of England
ring with his eloquence in defence of men who had been charged
with publishing seditious libel, and it was owing to Erskine's
efforts there was finally secured in England what is known as
the Fox libel law, under which the jury is given the power of
judging the whole matter in the case of seditious libel. Pre-
vious to that time all the jury had to consider was whether
the articles were published or not and it was left for the Judge
to say whether they were published with a seditious intent or
not. There was a long, arduous battle over that, but finally, as
a result of the efforts of Lord Erskine, Mr. Fox introduced fEe
famous libel law under which the jury had the right to hear
and judge of the whole matter.

(Mr. Dixon reads from Statute 32, George III., Chap. 60.)

Now, you may have some difficulty with this particular,
indictment, because there is no sense ascribed. The seditious
libel should be directed to a certain object, with a certain end.
It is not set out here, but in a general term of seditious libel.
However, you will recognize your power in the matter.

By reading over the different books of law and history,
I realize the truth of Erskine's statement when he said that
"other liberties may be held under government, but liberty of
opinion keeps governments themselves in subjection to their
own duties. This has produced the martyrdom of truth in10	DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

every age, and the world has only been purged from ignorance
with-the innocent blood of the men who have enlightened it."
That may seem a strong statement.

If we glance over history, we wil soon realize the truth
of it. We will realize, for instance that Socrates—whom we
now call Socrates the Great, Socrates the Wise—was put to
death by the men of Athens, who compelled him to drink the
poisoned cup of hemlock because they said he corrupted the
youth of Athens by his teachings, and yet those very opinions
have been the evidence from which the rest of mankind have
placed Socrates in the forefront of the world's philosophers,
because he put forward the opinions for which, by the men of
his day, he was done to death. We find also that Galileo, who
had the courage to assert that the sun did not move round
the earth but that the earth moved round the sun, because
he made that assertion was thrown into jail, and because he
supported Galileo's assertion Bruno was burned at the stake.
Yet we are of that opinion in the present age. Then there was
Milton, who ventured to have opinions. He is considered to be
one of the brightest stars in the literary firmament of the
British Empire, but we must not forget that he was thrown
into jail and persecuted for his opinions.

Then we come to the abolition of chattel slavery. Wen-
dell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison were dragged about
the streets of Boston with ropes around their necks because
they chose to advocate the abolition of chattel slavery. We find
the same thing in many other countries.

We come to our own Canada. We heard some reference
this morning to Mackenzie and Papineau. They are not re-
membered so much because they were rebels, but because they
established responsible government in Canada. We know,
if we read our history carefully, that there was in that day
what is known as the family compact that did monopolize the
power of the country. The farmers we're not satisfied. They
desired a more representative form of government, and it was
because of that Mackenzie and Papineau were able to lead the
disaffection, if you like, against a government and bring it to
such pitch that some notice had to be taken of it, and a re-
sponsible form of government was established and took the
place of the old family compact. We have got to the pointDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

11

where we have the right to elect our own representatives. I
think it should not he forgotten that no matter how Mackenzie
or Papineau came back, the fact is that though they were driven
from their own country as rebels, they did come back to this
country and were elected "to the government of this country
and helped to destroy privileges which maintained that old
family compact. While branded as rebels in those days, they
have statues in parliament grounds today, and are considered
fit subjects for the pen of the poet and the skill of the sculptor.

Then there is Howe, who was prosecuted by the corrupt
magistrates whom he exposed in his day. By the way, he suc-
cessfully defended himself, and I hope to perhaps follow his
glorious example. He is now proclaimed as Nova Scotia's
noblest son. So when we look at the line of men who have
been persecuted on account of expressing certain opinions, I
think I am justified in saying I have been thrust into a some-
what glorious company. I was not anxious to be thrust there,
but having been thrust there, I am not going to be ashamed of
the company, and I hope the company will not be ashamed
of me.

You heard one of the witnesses here, Sergeant McLaughlin,
confirm that statement of Dr. Bland's that he made in the In-
dustrial Bureau, when he said that he was a student of re-
ligious history, and that from his close study of religious his-
tory he had found out that all the apostles had been in jail
except one, and the name of that one was Judas. So von see
a great maiiv men have been cast in jail and persecuted and
treated that way by men of their own day who today are looked
upon as the idealists and leaders in the world of thought and
action.

So with these glorious examples Before me I shall not fear
the eloquence of Mr. Phillipps. I know when you have con-
sidered how hardly this liberty of opinion has been won, and
what sacrifices have been made for freedom, it is something
you will not lightly surrender.

I do feel perhaps at this time I should take a moment,
if I may, to remove some of the prejudice that may have been
created in your mind.12

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

I will give Mr. Phillips the credit for intending to be
fair, but at the same time I submit it is hard to give him that
particular credit when I review the way in which this trial haa
been conducted. I am charged with a certain thing in the
indictment, but instead of being very anxious that the jury
should get the indictment, you will remember I had to insist'
for several days before 1 got a copy of this indictment for you;
in the meantime a certain amount of literature had been given
you to read of an entirely different kind to that in the indict-
ment. It seemed to me while I was charged with one thing
there was at least the appearance of attempting to get your
minds away from that and adverted to something else. If I
put it this way, when children at school we might take a red
disk, for instance, and say, "Look at that disk hard for a few
minutes," and then tell the child to look at the white wall
and he would see there a red spot I submit to you gentlemen,
and I ask you to assume there was nothing particularly vicious
in these articles, but perhaps it may have been hoped by flash-
ing a certain kind of red literature before your vision, if, after
you read them, they did not look red, they would look a little
bit pink, but we will get away from that and deal with it
later on.

At the present time I want to submit to you that I am
not being tried for my political opinions. While I shall be at
some pains in defending the liberty of the press, I want you to
understand that I have suffered the full measure of abuse of
the liberty of the press in my own person, so much so that
many men I have met cannot realize that I am really the Dixom
they read about in the newspapers. You would imagine from
their countenances when they meet me that some expect to see
me with a tail, hoofs and horns, and a hay fork in my hands.
You are not trying me for whatever vision you have got of me
through the newspapers. These newspapers are controlled by
men holding different opinions to what I do; they are con-
trolled by the forces that exploit labor.

Mayor Gray, when speaking to the soldiers in Victoria
Park, said that perhaps it was a good thing the press was shut
Off a few days at the early part of the strike, and we have evi-
flence that Premier Norris said he did his best to shut off the
misrepresentation appearing in the press during the strike—
s© something is recognized by others than myself that news-DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JUEY

13

papers misrepresent and distort. I ask that you will put these
"press* opinions out of your mind—that you will find your ver-
dict on the indictment. If I am not guilty of publishing these
seditious articles claimed, then I am not guilty. If I am, my
guilt must be established on these articles themselves. It can-
not be read in.

Now, Mr. Phillipps, in his opening address, said the condi-
tion prevailing in Winnipeg when these articles were written
was something akin to a dry field; that the writing of these ar-
ticles was like throwing a match into the dry field. I think
you can learn from the evidence of the Strike Bulletin, so far
as my articles were concerned, and speeches—you have had evi-
dence upon them from the crown witnesses—they were to do
nothing, avoid violence, keep the peace, not thorw matches
into the dry field, and they were seeking to avoid any particular
trouble along that line. I shall point out to you that in the
articles in question, instead of throwing matches into a dry
field, I was attempting to prevent others throwing matches into
that dry field. I shall hope to point that out when we read
the articles themselves. Mr. Phillipps says while charging me
with publishing seditious libel he would attempt to establish-
a case of seditious conspiracy and take some time to build up
this case. I call your attention to the words "build up"; he
was going to build up a case showing that unconsciously he
realized that he had no case so far as seditious conspiracy was
concerned. It was something that had to be built up. It was
something that I was not charged with. Then Mr. Phillipps-
proceeded to "build up" a case of seditious conspiracy, and he
took about two weeks to do it, and about one day out of the
two weeks to deal with seditious libel, and I am going to sug-
gest to you when he was building up this ca*?e he was not
building it up with real bricks, but with painted paper bricks,
and I hope, before I am through, that you will be able to take
away those bricks andv artificial arrangements and look at these
charges and see what is really in them.

What I want you to do, gentlemen, so far as these articles
are concerned, is to brush aside everything that is artificial and
theatrical, and take and judge these articles as you would
judge them if you were behind the barn or haystack, or by the
kitchen fire after the chores were done. What would you think
of them then? That is the judgment I want you to render
upon this occasion.14

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

I want you to judge this indictment just the same as you
would judge a horse—if you were going to judge a horse it
would not make any difference whether the horse were put in a
red barn with red curtains around the stall and red lights
flashed on; if you wanted to judge the horse you would say
bring him out in the open; you do not care whether it was an
old broken down barn or not. I want you to take these articles
out and look at them with your natural vision and leave the
flash lights and get where you can see whether they were legi-
timate criticisms atv that time.

Then we have Mr. Phillipps' closing address, and I am go-
ing to deal with that at some length now. In the first place,
there is an insinuation that because I wrote an article called
"Governmental Stupidity," in which I. said the governments
must have known this thing was coming since last January,
therefore I must have had some knowledge not available to
the general public. Now, I want to submit to you, gentlemen,
that anyone who was moving around in political circles at that
time knew that trouble was brewing (and I am going to ask
you, even if I was in the Trades and Labor Council, speaking
about the Industrial Commission, I am going to ask you to
believe that the proposal to establish that Commission was with
a view to settle differences at that time), that strike could be
seen coming, and the Norris Government suggested that as a
means of avoiding strikes and settling them through the com-
mission. That is the idea of the Industrial Commission pro-
posed in January; and I am going to admit that I went down
to the Trades and Labor Council—although I very rarely went
down there—I was not a member, but I did go down to tell
them about cliis particular Bill of the Industrial Commission ;
so you realize other people besides myself must have known,
if they used their intelligence, that unless something was done
there would be trouble later in 1919. I want you to see when
people realized trouble was brewing, that Industrial Bill was
introduced into the House, and we have evidence here to show
that the Trades and Labor Council opposed the bill at that
time, and for reasons that are going to be remedied at the
present session, they opposed it. We have the evidence of the
crown witnesses that later they did, from the Strike Committee,
appoint two men to that Industrial Commission in order to
try and effect a settlement. At that time their efforts to put
men on that commission were brushed on one side and wej*eDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY	15

aot accepted. I am going to read to you the article on "Gov-
ernmental Stupidity."

"Dickens said that the great principle of governments
consisted in finding ways and means 'How not to do it.' "

Apparently governments still operate on that principle.

This strike ha§ been looming up since January. Every-
one knew it would come if nothing was done to avert it and
nothing was done.

Ottawa appears to have adopted an attitude of igno-
minious isolation. Premier Borden at the peace conference
sets his signature to the principles of freedom of association
for the workers and the right to a decent living wage, but
when he returns to Canada and finds the country convulsed
with a struggle for those very principles he folds his arms
and says: "This is a matter" within the jurisdiction of the
provinces." He has found out "how not to do it."

MANITOBA GOVERNMENT EQUALLY

The recent record of the Norris government indicates
that it also is wedded to the great principle of "how not to
do it."

Labor asked for legislation permitting peaceful picket-
ing similar to the British Trade Disputes Act which has been
the law of that realm for twelve years. The Norris govern-
ment was prompted to introduce an Industrial Condition
Bill giving a council of five the power to forbid sympathetic
strikes. This bill was opposed by Labor, and in order to in-
duce its acceptance the government added clauses, in the
form of a schedule, giving the council power to permit or
withhold the right of peaceful picketing. Instead of molli-
fying Labor this sharp practice increased the opposition to
the Industrial Conditions Bill. The government had hit
upon the right plan of "how not to do it."

* APPROACHING THE CRISIS

The government stood by until there was an open rupture
in the building and metal trades. A strike was called in
those industries on May 1st. Still the government stood by
like a disinterested spectator. Organized Labor decided to16

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

support the building and metal trades employees in their
demands for recognition by the employers of their chosen re-
presentatives, and the right to a decent living wage.

wmt

A general strike vote of the various unions was taken,
and May 15th was getting near before the government began
to move.

On or about May 13th Premier Norris presided over a
conference between the employers and employees in the build-
ing trades, the upshot of which was the decision of the em-
ployers to no longer recognize the building trades council,
but to insist on dealing with each union separately.

At the same time Mayor Gray presided over a meeting
of metal trades employers and employees, where the em-
ployers declared their policy to be non-recognition of the
metal trades council.

THE NIGHT BEFORE

Late on the night of the 14th Premier Norris, it is as-
serted, called up James Winning, president of the Trades
Council, to know if the general strike could be called off if
the employers could be induced to recognize the chosen re-
presentatives of their employees.

TOO LATE! TOO LATE!

This was about 11 p.m. The strike was called for 11
o'clock the next morning. "It was too late," said President
Winning, and he was right; the str}ke could not have been
called off at that hour. Nevertheless, if the government had
succeeded in getting the employers to deal with the chosen
representatives of the employees the strike would have been
short and sweet. But the government seemed to say: "Let
her go," and she went far beyond their expectations.

ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE

For the first week the strike committee held the strike
almost exclusively to Winnipeg while endeavoring through
Senator Robertson, the Provincial Government, and the City
Council to get a satisfactory settlement.DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

ffi

ENTER THE ONE THOUSAND

Now appears the committee of one thousand, which ap-
parently convinced the authorities in general that this was
not a strike but an attempt at revolution. They fell for that
suggestion, and wrapping their constitutional cloaks around
them, appeared to assume that the attempts of the strike
committee to reach a settlement were a sign of weakness,
and with one accord shouted in chorus: " We can do nothing
until you call off the sympathetic strike." Ultimatum after
ultimatum followed in quick succession, so, foiled in its at-
tempts at settlement, the strike committee was forced t©
adopt a policy of spreading the strike.

A NEW PHASE

Workers by the tens of thousands outside of Winnipeg
have rallied to the support of their brothers. As their num-
bers have increased the strikers have waxed more enthusias-
tic. Thousands of returned soldiers have demanded that the
provincial government attempt a settlement and that the city
council cancel its ultimatums.

The situation is tense. Everyone realizes now that a
strike that has continued for nearly three weeks in a perfect-
ly peaceful and orderly manner bears no shadow of resem-
blance to revolution. But the governments have issued their
ultimatums and they hate to withdraw them. They have
taken the line of action least likely to end the strike.

A RAY OF LIGHT

A conciliation committee of the running trades is now
attempting to solve the problem and break the deadlock.

It may be that this committee will discover the key that
will open the deadlock and make a satisfactory settlement.
This committee may be able to save the faces of the govern-
ments that have blundered so stupidly. One thing is certain.
Labor will not waive its demands for the recognition of col-
lective bargaining, a decent living wage, and the reinstate-
ment of all strikers.

Labor will insist on those terms. Those terms in full, and
nothing but those terms will end the strike."

I want to point out to you that Dickens was not arrested18

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

for seditious libel because he said what I have read you out
of that article.

Now you see there is a reference to the Industrial Council.
I also want to call your attention to the further reference to
the metal trades and building trades dispute.

THE METAL TRADES DISPUTE

"In the case of the metal trades dispute the fight is a
long one. They struck a year ago, and were backed neither
by organized labor nor the public. The public was wholly
indifferent if it ever heard of the strike. They lost the strike.
This year they presented their schedules nearly three months
before th£ strike was called.

The bosses have never to this day acknowledged the re-
ceipt of these schedules. They wrote to each individual em-
ployee and said it was impossible to recognize their metal
trades council. They refused point blank to even discuss the
terms of the schedule. When a date was set for a strike the
executive of the metal trades approached the executive of the
Trades Council, and at their request the strike was postponed
long enough for a delegation to attempt to avoid a strike by
approaching the bosses. When this failed, the strike was
called in the plants that refused to recognize the unions.
But, where the schedules were signed, the men remained at
work .

They asked no help from other unions until the bosses
made it clear that they could shut down their shops indefi-
nitely and so starve out the employees.

THE BUILDING TRADES DISPUTE

The issue was different with the building trades. Their
unions and council were recognized. But, they were told,
their demands, reasonable as they were, could not be granted
because of the opposition of the bankers. Moreover, unless
the workers accepted the smaller increase—exactly half of
what was asked—the employers would refuse to recognize
their building trades council, aqjd would break them one at
a time. This they believed they could do, because there was
little building that had to be done.

It was at this stage that these men asked for the assist-DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

19

ance of the whole of oiganized labor.

Before the sympathetic strike was called Labor was
steadfastly trying to effect a settlement with the bosses, but
without avail."

The strike was called on the 15th of May. Three months
before schedules had been submitted—that would be February
15. I am going to ask you to accept they were negotiating since
January.

I just want to emphasize that there is an explanation why
I should say in the article on "Governmental Stupidity" this
thing was looming up since January when you take into con-
sideration the question of the Industrial Commission and the
activities in the building trades and metal trades when they
came out on strike. I think the building trades came out on
the 1st of May and the metal trades on the 2nd of May.

Now, there has been some reference, and I want to point
out to this as to the fairness of the prosecution, a great deal
of reference has been made to David Rees. David Rees was at
the Quebec Conference and Majestic Theatre and Miners' Con-
ference and Calgary Convention. Did it ever happen he was
present at a meeting where I was? Has he been arrested for
seditious libel or having seditious literature or being connected
with an unlawful federation? He is an organizer for the
United Mine Workers of America. He is an international
officer, and while he was present at this meeting, I was not
present. I want to ask if it is fair to associate him with me. I
do not know whether he is a fellow-conspirator, as they say,
but I do not think it has been shown I was present at any meet-
ing where David Rees was present. That holds for quite a
few more. Take Midgeley or Knight or Stevenson —they were
not present.

Has it ever been shown to you whether I am going to be
responsible or you want to be responsible for the action of
someone else's wife? I was never show^n to be present at a
meeting where Mrs. Armstrong was present. You look all over
these letters and wires that were put in as evidence of con-
spiracy and you find my name only once, and when Bob Russell
said, I happened to be present at the Walker theatre meeting,
why, the very evidence itself shows I am not guilty of con-
spiracy. If there was a conspiracy and I was in it, don't you
think my name would appear more than once? Don't you think20

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

with all their spy system they would find a letter from one per-
son to me? There is not one letter written by me or to me—
only one or two letters in which my name happens to appear,
and I ask will you convict a man on evidence like that ?

Then we have the Walker theatre meeting, and I am asked
why I did not run down to the attorney-general and inform him
it was a seditious meeting. The attorney-general is supposed 1m
know his business, and if I had gone down he might have told
me to mind my own business, for the evidence of witnesses was
to the effect they went there to listen to speeches in favor of
repealing orders-in-council and releasing political prisoners and
recalling troops from Russia. I want to submit the witnesses
themselves testify that, in the main, these three resolutions
were carried out. When the people came out of that meeting
they did not go to the Parliament Buildings or wreck a house;
they went home quietly, according to the evidence. 1 am going
to read my speech at the Walker Theatre, so you may judge
for yourselves whether it is seditious or not. I want to ask
you if you think a man has a right to speak like this.

DIXON'S SPEECH AT WALKER THEATRE ON THE
RELEASE OF POLITICAL PRISONERS

"I do not believe that a man who follows the dictates of
his conscience is necessarily a criminal. That is the main
reason why I ask your support to this motion in favor of
liberating all political prisoners. Shakespeare said;—"T©
thine own self be true and it shall follow, as the night the
day, thou cannot then be false to any man." Men who are
willing to suffer the tortures of the penitentiary rather than
be false to their inner convictions cannot be bad citizens. The
greatest danger to this, or any other country, are those un-
scrupulous men who stifle the voice of their own conscience
while they suck the life blood of the nation.

These men whose liberation we seek were sent to jail
because the powers that be thought that in some way they
were giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Personally I
think those responsible for the Ross Rifle, defective shells,
shoddy clothes, paper boots, and the whole black record of
profiteering and graft gave ten thousand times more aid and
comfort to the enemy than all the socialists and conscientious
objectors put together. But the malefactors of great wealth
are not in jail. The Rosses, Allisons, Flavelles, and fh®DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

21

shareholders in the Crescent Creamery still have a place ia
the sun. It is only the poor men who had religious or econo-
mic objections to war and those who violated one of the
numerous Union Government Orders in Council who are ia
jail.

With regard to the first class. When the Government
passed the military service act it recognized that there were
conscientious objectors and specifically exempted members
of certain religious organizations from military service.
Those men who were exempted have remained free. It is
only the unfortunate C.O.'s who did not belong to one of
the exempted organizations who are in jail. This is, to say
the least, rank discrimination. Either all C.O.'s should be
in jail or all should be free. Respecting those who were im-
prisoned for violating orders in council. Any one who will
take the trouble to read over some of those orders will thank
his lucky stars that he is still free. For example in one^of
them it is made a crime to attend any meeting at which
abusive language is uttered as to the established form of the
government in Canada, or language tending to bring the
form of government into contempt, scorn, contumely, or dis-
repute. I rather think it might be possible to convict the
members of the government under the terms of their own or-
der in council for saying things tending to bring our form
of government into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute.
Government by order in council is certainly not strengthen-
ing the faith of the people in our form of government. But
let that pass. Whatever excuse there may have been for or-
ders in council and jail sentences for offenders has certainly
vanished with the signing of the armistice.

No good purpose can be served by keeping these men in
jail. After what they have already suffered it should be
evident that punishment will not change their convictions. Om
the other hand continued punishment may well make them
bitter and more rebellious for, as Oscar Wilde says—

"The vilest deeds like poison weeds
Bloom well in prison air;

It is only what is good in man
That wastes and withers there;

Nor will the detention of these men prevent the ideas thej
hold from spreading. In fact it is likely to hare the22

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

opposite effect for "the blood of martyrs is the seed of the
church." History is replete with examples of the futility of
attempting to imprison ideas. To take two recent examples.
The Czar of all the Russians sent those who challenged the
supremacy of his State to Siberia—we have seen with what
result. The Kaiser imprisoned those Germans who dared to
challenge the supremacy of his State—rwe see the result of
that also. Oppression brings its own peculiar reward.
Whether the ideas these men have be right or wrong the fact
is that ideas cannot be killed by imprisoning the men who
hold them.

The imprisonment of those who hold unpopular opinions
is the negation of democracy. While these men are in jail
not one of us is really free. It was their turn yesterday. It
may be ours tomorrow. It is easy to stand for free speech
for those who think as we do—the Czar or the Kaiser would
go that far—but the acid test of our faith in democracy is
that we insist on free speech for those whose ideas are contrary
to our own, and that is the only safe course to pursue if we
would preserve our own freedom for who knows when he may
want to say something that is unpopular. Nor is it in the
interest of the nation that unpopular ideas should be sup-
pressed. Time and time again ideas unpopular when first
promulgated have finally become popular and have been put
into practice with beneficial results. Human beings are not
infallible and we should be careful that in attempting to de-
stroy what we believe to be false ideas we do not strangle
some great truth. In a democracy there should be the ut-
most freedom of expression and we may rest assured that the
common sense of the whole people will sift the chaff from the
wheat—reject the false and hold fast to the true. What a
calamity it would be if Ave should continue to punish men
who dare to be true to their honest convictions and reward
those who are false to themselves. I know of no better way
to breed a nation of hypocrites and knaves.

For the sake of the men in jail, for your own sakes that
. you may not be in jail, and for the sake of the nation that it
may not gain the reputation of rewarding its hypocritical
knaves with titles and its honest men with shackles, I ask
you to support this motion in favor or liberating all politi-
cal prisoners."DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

23

There you have the speech itself, and if you wish to con-
sider whether- it is seditious, I wish you to take it and read
the document over.

^ So far as this Walker Theatre speech is concerned, I simply
want to ask you whether your agree, for instance, when I say
"I do not believe a man who follows the dictates of his con-
science is necessarily a criminal"—do you believe that a man
who follows the dictates of his conscience is necessarily a crim-
inal, ancl do you consider it is seditious to make such a State-
ment? Do you consider it seditious to say that "the Rosses,
and the Flavelles, and Allisons, and shareholders in the Cres-
cent Creamery company have a place in the sun"? If they
have, is it sedition to say they have? Has it come to the day
when we cannot point to the profiteers and shine the white
light of publicity on them? Is it seditious to point out what
we consider to be bad influences in the nation, in the hope that
these things will be improved and the general welfare promot-
ed? I want to ask if you think that is sedition or whether you do
not? What do you think of the statement that if some of the
conscientious objectors are in jail all ought to be in jail? We
have always been taught that British justice does not discrim-
inate between man and man, and that if one man is sent to
jail for committing a crime all men who commit that crime
must go to jail. Would you agree with that proposition that
all must be treated the same? Would you agree also with the
statement that time and again ideas unpopular when first
promulgated have finally become popular and have been put in _
practice with beneficial results? Is that sedition? Well, they
used the early Christians to light the streets of Rome; they
persecuted the Christian idea. It was unpopular in Rome.
The Roman rulers did not like it, so they took the Christians
and burned them, and threw them to the lions, and did a good
many other things. The Christian idea was unpopular, but it
prevailed. Ask yourself that, and then ask whether it is sedi-
tious to say that ideas once unpopular have become popular,
and therefore we should not be rash and hasty in prosecuting
what we consider to be unpopular ideas. Take the statement
and look upon it, on its merits, and say whether you think it
is a seditious document or not. Then I want to deal with the
question of political prisoners. It has been suggested that it
was someone else, ajid I want to ask if you think it is a fair
reading Mr. Phi llipps gave of the Calgary conference? There
were some things he left out.24	DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

In dealing with the political prisoners, and, bj the way,
there is no showing of any meeting with Kavanaugh at which
I was present, Kavanaugh is reported to have said:—

"I may say, in the opinion of the committee, a prisoner
under the Military Service Act is a political prisoner. It is
a political affair as distinguished from a common criminal.?

Why did not Mr. Pliillipps read the next paragraph, where
the delegate said "Under the common law of Canada they are
not considered political prisoners"?—that is, men under the
Military Service Act were not political prisoners. If Mr.
Phillipps wanted to be fair, why did he not read the result of
the resolution on page 47 of the verbatim report of the West-
ern Canada Labor Conference? If you will turn to page 58
you will find the result of the debate on that question, and this
was, that Delegate Gibson asked, "Is that word military going
to be deleted from the resolution?" The chairman says "Yes."
Motion as amended, on being put to a vote, was carried. It
was carried with the word "military" deleted. Yet, forsooth,.
Mr. Phillipps says he is fair in giving you that definition of a
political prisoner when it is shown in that resolution they
wanted the word "military" deleted.

Now, we want to go again to the Walker Theatre meeting.
You will remember the evidence of that—the evidence of La-
mont? He did not remember exactly what was said. Witness
Langdale, who had some notes which are not complete, and
Mr. Peters, who said he remembered the strong statements, and
Mr. Peters said it was a public meeting. He went in out of
curiosity, and went home, and everybody else went home in the
same way. I want you to believe that was just an ordinary
meeting impressing on the government the need of repealing
certain orders-in-council, releasing political prisoners, and
withdrawing troops from Russia, and I want to draw attention
that these things have all since been done.

Then Charitinoff—here is a man who was on the platform
because a bogus picture appeared in one of the daily papers.
If he had been convicted you would have been told about that.
He was released: he was not convicted.

Then they said Dixon stood up and cheered for the Soviet.
Tfiere is no evidence of that. I defy the crown prosecutor t©
mf I stood up and cheered for the Soviet, and I want to pointDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JUBY	2*

out that whatever literature they bought, and whatever the
testimony from their witnesses, there is not one tittle to show
Dixon ever cheered the Soviet or O.B.U., and yon may depend
upon it that with their spy system, if I had supported the Soviet
or O.B.U. the evidence would be before you in unmistakable
form. J say it is not fair to bring that in.

You remember the language of the witness Batsford when
he said at the end ©f the strike he had an argument with me
as to whether the strike was a revolution or not? At that time
he said he had a suspicion it was, and I said we could get all
we wanted by the ballot. I can call your attention time and
time again in the speeches I have made I have said we can get
what we want by political action.

But perhaps the worst of all is the adding of insult to in-
jury. Of all this Socialist literature (much had been put in
as evidence against Dixon), I am willing to admit I have read
one document: that is the Communist Manifesto, exhibit No. 4.
The reason I read that was because, as Batsford testified, I had
debates with the Socialists, and he said I was opposing Social-
ism, and argued against Socialism. Simply because others do
not agree with my ideas I do not say Socialists should be
thrown in jail. In a British country we have the right to de-
bate and get together and thresh it out and let the truth pre-
vail. So I say in these debates I did become somewhat familiar
with the Communist Manifesto, and I am going to read, not a
paragraph, but the whole chapter, which is a very different pro-
position.

(Mr. Dixon read chapter 2, Proletarians and Communists,
to combat an insinuation by Mr. Phillipps that the book advo-
cated communism of women.)

Mr. Dixon explained that the book dealt with conditions
in 1848. The last paragraph of the preface stated just what this
particular book is.

(Mr. Dixon read paragraph.)

Mr. Dixon said it dealt with the conditions of 1848, and
did not fit present day conditions.

Bead in that light, the Communist Manifesto is not nneh
a terrible document at all. As Witness Batsford said he heard
me debate with the Socialists. I did not agree with all the
ideas they advanced. At the same time, I contend that ye*26

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

and they and everyone else has a right to their ideas, and we
should have so long as we advance our ideas by constitutional
means, such as argument and debate, without resorting to force.
A man should not be punished simply because he has ideas that
are different from someone else.

Now, we have dealt at some length with the Communist
Manifesto. I thought it necessary to go that length to get some
idea of its contents, not by one or two quotations, even thougk
we do not agree with all that is in there.

So far as the rest of the literature is concerned, I asked
various witnesses, "Now, did you get this literature from me?"
"No." "Did I give it to you?" "No." And there never was a
witness who could say I handed him a piece of Socialist litera-
ture or read from one—there was not one witness who could
say I had ever given him a piece of this Socialist literature. I
want to ask you am I to be held responsible for literature some-
body distributes at Weston when I may be in some other part
of the globe, or at meetings when I was not present? Some of
this literature may have been secured at a meeting when I was
present.

But there was evidence also that election and single tax
literature was distributed generally. It is a common thing in
Winnipeg, so far as literature is concerned. The people take
it, leave it, or buy it; and they read it, or do not read it, for
what it is worth, and it is one of our British privileges to real
what we like, and if we want to throw it in the waste paper bas-
ket or put it in the library on the shelf we can do so. You will
find in the library of nearly everybody of this country some
books in favor of certain things, such as in favor of or against
free trade, or the same with reference to the Unitarian or Trini-
tarian idea—a man reserves for himself the right of looking
over theories whether they be political or religious and select-
ing what he thinks the best. I submit that is the best plan t©
follow, and so leave the door open for those who want to read
and form a common judgment as to the things that are best
for the nation. I want to claim that I am not responsible for
this literature.

Then we hear a lot of charges or suggestions of unlawful
aaseihbly—this and that is an unlawful assembly or meeting,DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

27

and this was blasphemy and hypocrisy and revolution; but I
want you to say this is outside of the charge against me. If a
man has committed blasphemy there are laws against it, and
if there is one guilty of unlawful assembly that should be dealt
with in a lawful manner. If men violate the laws, bring them
in according to the law. If a man is blaspheming, do not bring
him in and say he must be guilty of seditious intention.

I want to give Mr. Phillipps credit for being fair; but
what could he do if he was trying to be unfair?

We are told about the Majestic Theatre meeting, at which
I was not present, and you will notice a great many of these
meetings I was not present at, but you will remember that Mr.
Russell was criticizing the platform of the Dominion Labor
party, which party, you have been told, I am the president of.
1 wish to show you how impossible it would be for one man to
conspire with another who was criticizing the platform of the
party of which he was president.

I want to go to the 9th of June, the day preceding the riot.
Now ,you were told what Queen said on that occasion; but you
will remember that the witness McLachlan said I did not say
anything of importance on June 9th, but we are told what
Queen said, and that is not reported here; but we have in Strike
Bulletin No. 21 a report of a meeting that did take place in
Victoria Park, and so far ts the Labor Party were concerned,
they did not consider what Ivens and Queen said of any im-
portance, because they were not reported. Oh, I beg pardon;
they were reported at the Labor Church, as shown in Strike
Bulletin No. 21. No, I think that must be at another meeting,
for the one I want to call your attention to is one held in Vic-
toria Park on June 9th, the day before the riot, and reported
in Bulletin No. 21 of June 10. That was where General Ketchen
and Canon Scott were at Victoria Park addressing the re-
turned men.

GENERAL KETCHEN AND CANON SCOTT AT VICTORIA

PARK

Returned Men Hear Distinguished Speakers—Ketchen Advises
Men to Stand Together—Canon Scott Favors Collective2S	DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

Bargaining—E. Robinson Given Great Reception—Resolu-
tions Passed Demanding Withdrawal of Ultimatums Passed
—Dissension in Committee of 1,000—Soldiers Will Meet
Daily.

Parades a Credit

"General Ketchen complimented the returned men on the
orderliness of their parades. If real trouble had come he
knew that he could rely on the returned soldiers to back him
up. He was convinced that the returned men were out for
the right, and if they would continue to stand shoulder to
shoulder as they had done in France they would be a great
influence for good. He had a hard row to hoe, but he was
not tied up to any faction, and would not allow his judgment
t© be upset by any influence."

Canon Scott Speaks

"Pressed by the returned men to mount the rostrum,
Canon Scott gave another of his characteristic good-humored
speeches. He had been invited Sunday night to All Saints'
church, but had come to All Sinners'. Perhaps some capital-
ists would hit him with a gold brick for doing that. He
thought there was misunderstanding on both sides. It seem-
ed to him that the initial mistake had been made when some
men had been refused the right to form an organization that
was quite legal.

Collective bargaining should not be objected to. Opposi-
tion to it was unconstitutional. Winnipeg was tame com-
pared with what he had expected. The workers must be
given an intelligent interest in industry and a share in the
profits. They must stick until the workers got their just
rights and those on strike were reinstated.

The cheering was renewed as Canon Scott concluded,
and many pressed forward to shake him by the hand. One
veteran remarked, "The last time I saw Canon Scott was at
Hill 70."

That was the day before the riot.

Now Robinson spoke there. I want you to see what Rofe-
iasra said: he spoke at the meeting with Canon Sc©tt.DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THB JURY	»

Robinson Loathes Strikes

"Bro. Robinson said he loathed strikes because he knew

the suffering they entailed. The workers had tried every other
method of settlement before they resorted to strike, but, hav-
ing been forced to strike for a righteous principle, they would
stay out solidly until the victory was won.

This strike had been the greatest propaganda for brother-
hood ever carried out in this country.

The workers did not want bloodshed. They had avoided
it so far, and would continue to do so. They did not want
bullets. Their time would come next election day. Mayor
Gray could talk bullets now, but ballots would count m No-
vember."

I have already made some reference to those letters and
wires. Now, what a set of fools these men were to preserve
carbon copies of these letters, so that the lawyers could go down
and pick out the copies for their business associates to use in
evidence against these so-called conspirators. Does in not seem
strange that these men who are such unscrupulous men should
do this so that Inspector Green could go in, and those lawyers
with him, to pick out such documents? Don't you think they
were a fine bunch of conspirators? I consider these letters are
great evidence in my favor. If I was conspiring with the Reds
you would certainly find my name in the letters more than
©nee.

I have here exhibit No. 81. By the way signed M.P.E., it
does not seem to be very good evidence to assume it is Russell or
Stephenson; it reads "Comrade Johns and myself are elected
to represent the Trades and Labor Council at the Calgary meet-
ing, and we are getting a number of Reds elected by the locals,
so let us hope we will be able to start something."

I was not at the Calgary meeting; they did not get me
elected to represent any local.

Then there are the Trades and Labor minutes. There Is
& resolution about the banned literature. If that resolutioa
was passed, I presume the crown counsel would call attentiom
t© that too. When Percy was on the stand he said a lot of
fool motions came up in the Strike Committee, and I want yon30

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

to assume they come up sometimes in the Trades and Labor
Council. I think I referred to the Industrial Commission, and
as to why I happened to be in the Trades and Labor Council
explaining the Industrial Commission. Surely a man repre-
senting a constituency of working men has a right to go there
and without being accused of a seditious intention.

There is no evidence I had been at the B.C. Federation
Conference; I was not present.

Then, with reference to the Calgary Convention, I have al-
ready read what Mr. Phillipps said on that occasion—he es-
pecially left you with the idea that it was military prisoners
to be released; at the same time it was deleted from the reso-
lution before it was pased. We have had Mr. Phillipps get very
excited that up at Calgary Russell or Johns said those who did
not vote should be counted in favor of the question. That
sounds bad that a fellow who does not vote should be counted
in favor.

I want to say to you, "Is this justice?" when it is said I
was not at the Calgary Conference, but because I happened to
meet some of those fellows some other place I am responsible
for what was done at Calgary. Then I was to be made respon-
sible for what was done at the Quebec Conference, the Miners'
Conference and B.C. Federation and Calgary Conference, and
you, gentlemen of the jury, are asked to assume I am respon-
sible when I was not at either of them. Shall I be responsible
for something I did not have an opportunity to vote for or was
not even present when the vote was taken? I ask is that fair,
is that liberty or justice?

Then he says that Pritchard made some remark about the
late member, Mr. Christ or something of this kind, and the tried
to link up in your mind that if Pritchard did make that remark
some other time I associated with Pritchard and I said Jesus
was not an ironmaster or lawyer. Well, was He? What does
the Book tell us? It tells us that He was a carpenter's son,
and Jesus Christ, so far as I read, was not a man who was
afraid to speak out, if I remember my Bible correctly, upon oc-
casion, but denounced the ruling classes of His day, the law-
yers and priests, the scribes and Pharisees. You remember the
strong denunciation in the Bible: I think He says, "Woe untoDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

31

you, scribes and Pharisees (lawyers and priests), ye devourers
of widows' houses, that for a pretence made long prayers. Woe
unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites. Ye generation of
vipers! How shall ye escape the damnation of hell?" Now,
that is a report of the speech of Jesus Christ, and I say, is it
blasphemy to say He was not an ironmaster, but a carpenter's
son?

I have already referred to the many letters and wires that
are here given from persons to other persons and not one to
myself, and also to the references to persons present at meet-
ings which I did not attend. I want to say Midgley was one of
that class. I was never present in a meeting with him, and yet
he is brought in here and I am assumed to be responsible for
what he says. Then there is the miserable reference to the
troop train. Was Dixon there? I submit there is nothing to
prove that I want to tell you that I went down to the troop
train and shook hands with my brother as the words of the
officer rang out to "step lively," and that brother never came
back, but now sleeps on the fields of Flanders. And Mr.
Phillipps talks of the troop train!

I want to read what Dixon said during the war, not paid
for by the Committee of One Thousand, an extract from an ad-
dress delivered during the war. It begins "Do we need Ideal-
ism now? The answer is in the affirmative."

WHAT DIXON SAID

NOT Paid For by the Committee of 1,000(?)
(An Extract from an Address Delivered During the War.)

"Do we need idealism now? The answer is in the affirma-
tive. What ideals do we need? Justice, Liberty and Love.

Justice means a square deal for all; equal sacrifices and
♦qual rewards; the Golden Rule and Canada for the common
people. It means tjiat the sacrifice of life which is now being
made by the manhood of the nation must in some measure b#
matched by the sacrifice of wealth. While men's lives are be-
ing conscripted to win the war it is unjust that money, also
needed to win the war, should be borrowed by the government
at high rates of interest, and millions of acres of land, wjiiph
are needed to produce food, should be allowed to lie idle imDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

the hands of speculators. Justice demands that money and
mud shall not be more highly regarded than human life. The
government is taking the men it needs. It aught to take the
money and the land it needs—but it does not. The govern-
ment has taken drastic steps to prevent the hoarding of flour.
It should take more drastic steps to prevent the hoarding ©f
money and land.

My blood boils when I think that returned soldiers, who
have defended all the land in Canada, are offered as their
share of it the leavings of the land grabbers. There should
be no talk of settling returned soldiers in the backwoods or
on the far horizon while millions otacres of fertile land, near
railways and centres of population, are producing nothing
but gophers and weeds and unearned increment. But prac-
tical politicans say these rich lands were given away by our
ancestors and the contracts they have made must be respect-
ed. My answer is: "You, by order-in-council, have cancelled
the titles of certain young men to life. If you have the will,
you have the power to also cancel the titles of certain men to
land by order-in-council. If you will not do that you might
at least so levy your taxes that they will fall more lightly
upon the necessities of life and more heavily upon vacant
lands. The policy of taxation now in vogue makes both land
and food dearer. The policy I advocate would make both land
and food cheaper Which is the better I leave to your judg-
ment."

Again, in the matter of pensions equal sacrifice should
bring equal reward. Life is just as dear to the private as it
js to the colonel, and both are entitled to pensions which will
assure them a full share of the comforts of life. "The col-
onel's lady and Sarah O'Grady are sisters under the skin,"
and each is entitled to equal consideration in the matter of
separation allowances and pensions.

Justice demands that money shall be taken to pay for the
war as it is needed. Instead of taxing excess profits the gov-
ernment should say: "There shall be no profits during the
war." The men who go overseas will think themselves lucky
if they return in as good physical condition as they went.
That admitted, and surely no one will hare the hardihood
to demy it, it follows that no mam has any right to becomeDIXON'S ADDEESS TO THE JUEY

38

rich by reason of the war. We ought to think ourselves for-
tunate if at the end of the war we are in as good financial
position as we were at the beginning of the war. The soldier
sacrifices himself. Justice demands that the men who have
money should sacrifice their pelf. We should urge with all
our might that we ought to pay for the war as we go, and
not pile up a big debt for those who come back from the fields
of Flanders to help to pay. Justice decrees that those who do
the work of the world should enjoy the wealth they produce
and that there should be an end to all the privileges by
which the few exploit the many."

This address was given in the Labor Church, at the
Labor Temple, July 14th, 1918.

I want you to think that over, gentlemen, and see if you
can find any seditious intention in there, whether it is not evi-
dence of non-seditious intention and just a general indication
of my line of speeches at all times. I am not afraid of what
you find in that; the only thing I am afraid of is what you have
read in, or injected into, anything that I have said or written.
You should take the actual report and investigate it, and I
have no doubt what you would think then.

So far as this particular point is concerned, so far as the
war is concerned, I think we should take the position taken by
Abraham Lincoln on the battlefield of Gettysberg and should
listen to his words so far as possible and act upon them. You
remember that short and noble speech, and I am only going
to give you a few lines. I want that they should be our prin-
ciples.

"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task
remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take
increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the
last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve
that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation,
under God, shall have a new birth of freedom: and that
government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall
not perish from the earth."

We have heard a good many imaginary conversations' I
do not want you to convict me on imaginary conversations.
Mr. Phillipps says suppose Dixon is saying this and that to34

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

Robinson and Ivens; and could we suppose a conversation with
Woodsworth; that is pure supposition. There is nothing in
evidence so far as that is concerned.

Court adjourned at 5 p.m. until 10 o'clock tomorrow
morning.

February 34, 1920. 10 a.m.

Roll call of jury.

Mr. Dixon continuing his address to the Jury:

My lord, and gentlemen of the jury: I wish at/the outset
to make a slight correction. When I said that I was having trial
by jury as a matter of indulgence; I said Canadians had not
that right under the Immigration Act; I should have said they
have that right if they were born or naturalized Canadians,
subjects that is of Europe naturalized; these have right of
trial by jury; a British subject born in the British Isles and
not naturalized in Canada can be arrested on suspicion and
tried by a committee appointed by the Union Government. I
am in a position where I might be tried by a Union Govern-
ment committee instead of by the twelve men before me at the
present time. I wish to have that as correct as possible. I
wish to make no incorrect statement if I can possibly avoid it.

There were some questions yesterday, raised by Mr. Phil-
lips, about the Committee of One Thousand being likened to
the scribes and pharisees. You will understand the evidence
of Mr. Mclntyre, the post master, when he said the Committee
of One Thousand volunteered to take out the ultimatum to the
postal employees to come back to work, but they did not volun-
teer to take out the cheques for the widows and disabled sol-
diers ; but the postal employees did offer to do that very thing,
and their offer to sort out the mail for the widows and soldiers
and get the cheques for the soldiers and widows was refused;
so I think there is perhaps some parallel along that line. Then
Mr. Phillipps referred to the unlawful assemblies and there is
a law against unlawful assemblies. I am not here charged with
being a member of an unlawful assembly, but charged with
publishing a seditious libel; that is the charge I think to which
your attention should be directed. We are not interested in
seeing what Dixon said at the Soldiers' Parliament, so called.
I want to refer to the witness Percy. He said he meant byDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

35

parliament, some place where they got together to talk, and
he agreed if it would be a farmers' meeting it would be a
farmers' parliament, or if soldiers it would be a soldiers' par-
liament.

Anyway, Dixon is quoted as speaking at the Soldiers' Par-
liament, and I wish to read you the last paragraph in which
reference was made to the special policemen and the real police-
men. Mr. Phillipps did not read the whole paragraph. The
whole paragraph reads as follows:

"F. J. Dixon also spoke, giving a resume of the city coun-
cil meeting and advising political action. Two thousand spe-
cial police were getting six dollars a day each for attempting
to do the work of 200 real men. A simple sum in arithmetic
would prove that if imitation policemen were worth $6 per day,
real policemen should get $60 per day."

That is the whole thing.

Then there is the reference "Those who live by the sword
must perish by the sword." That comes from the Bible. Christ
said that to Peter when he cut off the ear of the servant of the
High Priest; he j^aid "Put up the sword; those who live by the
sword shall die by the sword." Whoever made that statement
attributed to Pritchard might very well have given it the same
interpretation.

Then Mr. Phillipps again refers to the men who were ar-
rested as the strike leaders. I want to call your attention to
the fact that I was not arrested as a strike leader. Those men
that were arrested and taken to Stony Mountain were called
strike leaders and I was not one of them.

Again, he said they had conspired to overthrow the gov-
ernment. I want to remind you once more I am not accused
or charged in that indictment with conspiracy. If I was to
be accused with that I should be accused right in the indict-
ment of conspiracy, and then there would be something for me
to argue about the question of conspiracy. The matter of con-
spiracy is not relevant to this case. These men were arrested
under The Immgration Act, they were threatened with deporta-
tion under that act; that will give you some idea what I was
thinking about in August in the Columbia Theatre, saying T36	DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

had not the power, but if I had the power I might possibly
suggest another general strike to get these men out on bail.
They were being refused bail at that time. It is another one
of the fundamental principles of British justice and has been
through ages that when a man is arrested we do not consider
him guilty, for the law says he is innocent until he is proven
guilty. The law says he is entitled to bail that he may be at
liberty to prepare his defence against any action brought
against him. These men were not on bail.

The workman who has no money in the bank to withdraw,
and many are in that position, do not lightly vote for a strike-
and lay down their tools which are a means of existence; that
is only a last resort: I had no power—a witness said I was
not a member of a trade union, and what did I recommend
them to do—write to the Minister of Justice urging that these
men be allowed out on bail. Is that a seditious proceeding or
seditious action?

In this connection McLaughlin saich mv text was "What
shall Canada do to be saved;" and I said "Elect a Labor Gov-
ernment,'- and I refer you to the Dominion Labor Party plat-
form I put in, of which I happen to be president, for the de-
fination of Labor. In includes all who work, mental or manual,
male or female, organized or unorganized. I want you to sav if
that was seditious or even indicative of seditious intent?

Then you were told I spoke at the Industrial Bureau in
connection with the O.B.IL, and I was in favor of the O.B.U.
I want to say there is 110 evidence that I was in favor of the
O.B.U. and 110 language I spoke in favor of the O.B.U., and
if I ever uttered one word about the O.B.U. there is no doubt
it would have been placed in evidence before you. I went there
to ask the men to subscribe to Liberty Bonds, not bonds to
bring them in five and a half i>er cent., but bonds to liberate
the men arrested, and I said "Money alone could defend them."
Don't you think it takes a lot of money to conduct a legal de-
fence? That is all I was there for on that occasion—to make
an appeal to that audience as I was making appeals to other
audiences for them to subscribe to the Defence Fund in order
that those being charged should have the best trial possible
under the circumstances.DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

37

Then there is a reference to the article called "Bloody
Saturday," saying that open air meetings had been banned.
There is no evidence that open air meeting had been banned
at that time. If you look at the proclamation you will find it
dated the 23rd of June, while the riot occurred on the 21st. On
the Saturday the open air meetings were not banned; they
were on the following Monday, the 23rd.

Then in connection with the language—as I said before I
think Mr. Phillipps tries to be fair, but I ask you what he
would do if he tried to be unfair, and he made the statement
(and it was a startling statement) that the blood of that man
who was killed on the Saturday is on the head of the man who
wrote this article. I want to point out to you that the article
wras written after the man had been killed, and what coul<l
that article have to do with the killing of that man. Do you
think that is a fair inference to draw from that article? The
man was dead and the article was written after he was dead.
How could a man say that the blood of that man is on the
head of the man who wrote the article after the man had
been killed. Well, he savs, when Dixon suggested a general
strike to get the men out of jail or out on bail, he was suggest-
ing force; but you remember I suggested something else; I
suggesting writing to the Minister of Justice. Mr. Phillipps
said the only way they could be got out was by force; I sug-
gest there are other ways—there is such a thing as habeas
corpus and other ways of getting them out instead of by force
and you cannot find a suggestion within the four corners of
these articles that the men should be taken out of jail by force.
You have the evidence. They came out without force; they
came out on bail, and that is something we wrere working for
at that time, and which we believed they were entitled to and
obtained very largely owing to the agitation over getting bail
at that time.

The witnesses that were called to give evidence against
me are also in my favor. I want you to listen to the words of
Batsford when we were debating towards the end of the strike,
he had an argument with me, and I said that it was no re-
volution—that we could get what we wanted by the ballot.
Pingle said for many years I have written articles for the Voice
and th6 Labor News and this is the first suggestion there has
been of sedition.3?

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

Hamilton testifying said that every summer I went out
on the farm. That is not a place, I think you will agree with
me, where sedition is likely to be bred. Then we have the
testimony of Mayor Gray. He would not fix the date of that
meeting, but I think it is fair to suggest that the meeting of
the Labor Church was on the 22nd June in Victoria Park, the
day after the riot; he remettibered he had not issued the pro-
clamation banning open air meetings, and remembered me go-
ing iji with Woodsworth and pleading that he would first ask
the theatre manager to open the doors and let the people go
in, and he would not take the responsibility for that. I said
"Well, we must get the people off the street and take them out-
side the city limits," and he said "if you will promise it will be
a lawful and orderly meeting you can hold the meeting; the
proclamation is not yet issued. At any rate he said if I would
gi\e my word it would be a lawful and orderly meeting we could
hold it. I want you to believe that he heard nothing about any
disorder and it was an orderly and lawful meeting, and that
he was willing to take my word so far as conducting a lawful
and orderly meeting. I want you to remember it was the day
after the riot, so wu see what estimate he placed on my ac-
tivities and think whether he would grant permission to a man
who he thought was guilty of seditious activity.

I am going to ask you to conclude in this case there was
no conspiracy and ask you how it would be possible for a man
like Ivens, the disciple of Dr. Bland to conspire with a man
like Pritchard who is alleged to have used the words "the late
member, Mr. Christ" I ask how is it possible for me to con-
spire with George Armstrong who ran against me in two elec-
tions. I of the Dominion Labor Party and Armstrong of the
Socialist Party of Canada, and Russell engaged in knocking
hell out of the Labor Party. It is suggested that in some way
we had prevented them from getting the Walker Theatre on
the Sunday after the 22nd of December, 1918; that we had
thrust a monkey wrench in the machinery. Russell said the
Labor Aldermen should have a bottle of glue to get them to
stick together with the other Aldermen in the City Council.
How is it possible for these men to have a common design. The
thing is ridiculous, and even if you find a conspiracy you must
find I was not a member of that conspiracy. The docu-
ments themselves they proclaim my innocence. If I was
a member of any conspiracy, if there was one, don't you thinkDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

39

my name would be somewhere in prominence, that they would
find some letter that I wrote to somebody or somebody wrote
to me. Yet in all the telegrams and letters, as I stated yester-
day, my name appears once with reference to the Walker
Theatre meeting, the reference made is I was there and I think
in another letter, two times at the most, and both times the
reference to that Walker Theatre meeting just mentioning that
I happened to be there.

Now I ask if I was a member of any conspiracy, if there
was one, would my name not appear oftener than that? If
they would pack the meetings with Reds, if I was a Red,
don't you think my name would be in there? Gentlemen, it is
ridiculous to think I was a member of any conspiracy, even if
there was one. I was not at Quebec, or Calgary, or the Miners
Conference, or B.C Federation; I was not a member of any
union, or strike committee, or any sub-committee of the Strike
Committee. I ask how is it possible for me to be considered a
member of any conspiracy, even if there was one.

Then we have heard something about unlawful acts. I
want to show you that strike notice that was sent out and I
want you to look at the names on the headline of that letter
head. I have referred to it time and time again when the wit-
nesses were in the box. The strike notice was sent out by the
Trades and Labor Council of Winnipeg and then the names—
James Winning, A. C. Hay, J. L. McBride and E. Robinson,—
my name is not there. I suggest to you if that strike was un-
lawful that these men should be charged and not F. J. Dixon.
Yet I Jim the man charged here with seditious libel and at the
same time accused of furthering things unlawful. I want you
to look that over and see the names if you have not already
done so. Read them yourselves. You do not see my name on
that strike notice.

Now gentlemen, T suggest to you that if that was an un-
lawful strike these are the men who should be arrested and
charged with an unlawful act, and not that I should have been
arrested and charged with seditious libel and then accused of
being a party to some unlawful act.

T want to refer to some articles Mr. Phillipps read. I want
to call your attention to some of the things Russell said in the
Industrial Bureau that Mr. Phillipps left out.40

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

NO DESIRE TO USURP AUTHORITY

"The strikers had no desire to usurp authority. They had
gone to the city hall and asked for co-operation so that none
could say we were trying to establish a soviet rule. The city
council had appointed a committee to co-operate with the
strikers in the matter of food supplies, etc. (Applause).

The employers association were asking that the permit
cards be removed from the delivery rigs. (Cries of NO). He
cared little who issued the permits so long as the interests of
the workers were conserved, but those cards were there for
the protection of the drivers and they must stay there. (Ap-
plause).

We will not allow mob violence, said the speaker. We
shall take all steps necessary to prevent violence. Smiie are
inciting unrest, but these are not of the workers.

He outined the readiness of outside cities to act on the
call of this city. And noted the steps that would be adopted
to increase the pressure as the da}rs go by. The position of
the bosses was clearly set forth and their inconsistencies
pointed out.

THINK, AND THINK BOLDLY

Lloyd George had said,—Think, and think boldly. That
was the speakers message to the workers now. Think boldly..
Think fearlessly. But think carefully.

We appeal to the people who are not members of labor
unions. Do not congregate in crowds. The situation is now
approaching the crisis. A few days and we shall see the way
open to victory."

Then we have another quotation and I am going to ask
why Mr. Phillipps left off the name of Abraham Lincoln in a
quotation of "wise words" which are proved to be in my hand
writing.

WISE WORDS

Know, prudent, cautious, self-control is wisdom's root."
—Burns.

"Of no use are the men who study to do exactly as wasDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

41

done before, who can never understand that today is a new
day."—Trine.

"I will be wise,

And just, and free, and mild, if in me lies

Such power, for I grow w^ary to behold

The selfish and the strong still tyrannize

Without reproach or check."

"You cannot maintain the.workers working for their
daily bread, the people who feed and clothe and house the
world, and at the same time maintain in idleness a group of
automobile bums who clip the coupons of privilege and live
upon the labor of the working world."—Raymond Robbins.

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital
is only the fruit of labor, could never have existed if labor
had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and de-
serves much the higher consideration."—Abraham Lincoln

"Don't ask f'r rights. Take thim. An' don't let anny
wan give thim to ye. A right that is handed to ye fr
nawthin' has somethin' the matther with it. It's more than
likely it's pn'y a wrong turned inside out."—Mr. Dooley.

Now I ask if it is fair to take the last three of these para-
graphs and leave out the other three, as Mr. Phillipps did?

Then again in Bulletin No. 6, pag£ 3, Mr. Phillipps did
not read the reference there to Senator Robertson under the
heading "Central Strike Committee" under date of May 23.

PREPARED TO HEAR SENATOR ROBERTSON

"Delegates Anderson and Russell are appointed a com-
mittee to interview Senator Robertson, and to inform him
that the Strike Committee would be prepared to hear him at
such a time as he desired.

This committee later replied that the senator deemed it
best that the Strike Committee appoint a committee to pre-
sent their case to him. This might avoid misunderstanding."

Now you have the evidence of Lovatt; he did take a com-
mittee down to the Royal Alexandra to see Senator Robertson.

Then in Number 13, page 3, Mr. Phillipps quoted from ar-
ticle "Let well enough alone;" it is proved, I believe, to be in42

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

my handwriting. He only quoted the last paragraph, "Hence
the general strike. It is better that many should suffer tem-
porary inconvenience rather than many should suffer per-
manently." I am going to read the whole article

LET WELL ENOUGH ALONE

"The butterfly upon the road
Preaches contentment to the toad.

But the toad beneath beneath the harrow
Knows where every tooth-print goes."

The attitude of some to this strike if put into words,
would be something like this:—"I was pretty comfortable;
why didn't you let things alone." Such a position will not
be taken, of course, by any man of sympathy and conscience
—he will not be satisfied till other men have comfort, liberty,
justice; nor by any man of energy and intelligence, for he will
not be satisfied with present conditions while improvement-
is possible.

The conservative does not generally put the true psycho-
logy of the position into words, but finds some specific fault
with the movement. He says: "Everybody admits that collec-
tive bargaining is ri^ht but you should have found some other
way of getting it." Let these wise men show us any other
way by which we could have obtained collective bargaining
at this time and we will enroll their names on the list of
great discoverers.

Another remarks in a fretful or maybe a pugilistic tone,
"Things are getting better, why can't you let 'em alone."
They never would have got any better if they had been let
alone and the less they are let alone the faster they will get
better.

These objectors talk about any change as the Chinese
talk about the introduction of the railroad: "The loco-
motive is a noisy monster. It screeches and keeps people
awake. The railroad will overturn our methods of trans-
portation and destroy the dignity of our carts and palan-DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

43

quins. The manners of trainmen are bad and travelling in
cars makes many people ill. Sometimes persons are killed by
passing trains and property rights are disturbed by railroads.
It is true they carry freight and passengers more quickly
and cheaply than our methods can, and people would get
what they want when they want it more nearly than they do
now, but that is nothing compared to the noise and trouble
of change." It is almost impossible to convince these chronic
rebels against progress, because it is not a matter of reason
with them, but of ieeling. Logic is a thing they have little
acquaintance with, or congeniality for, if it threatens their
ease or impinges upon their mental, moral or physical inertia.

Men of this description must be appealed to through their
feelings They must be taught that they cannot close their
doors and imagine all the world is well clothed and fed.

Hence the general strike. It is better that some should
suffer temporary inconvience than that many should suffer
permanent injustice."

I think you will see a difference there when the whole ar-
ticle is read.

I don't want to weary you with too long reading but I
think it is necessary to cover one or two of these articles read
to you. There is another one in No. 15 on "Interference with
the right to organize." Now you will remember that the Ameri-
can Federation is held up as a conservative organization. The
article reads as follows:—

INTERFERENCE WITH" RIGHT TO ORGANIZE

Interference with the right of employees to organize
should be made a crime says the American Federation of
Labor.

"Confirmation of this can be found in "The Labor Gaz-
ette," February, 1919, published by the Dominion Govern-
ment. There we find that the reconstruction programme of
the A.F. of L. includes a demand for "legislation making any
interference with the rights of employees to organize a crim-
inal offence." The A.F. of L. has been considered by our op-
ponents as a safe and sane organizatioa yet this demand goes
beyond any demand of Winnipeg strikers. How would Dea-u

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

con, Barrett, Warren, Eaton, Robinson. Ingram. Grossin,
Fowler, McLean, Robertson, et al., like to have "interference
with the right of employees to organize made a criminal of-
fence."

If that were law the federal government's mandate to
the postal employees wonld be a violation of it.

If that were law the action of the City Council abrogat-
ing collective bargaining, and substituting therefore a wage
slave contract would be illegal.

If that were law Deacon, Barrett, Warren, Eaton, Rob-3
inson, and all employers who interfere with the right of em-
ployees to organize would be criminals.

The A. F. of L.—we thank the committee of 1,000 for
referring to that august body. After considering their pro-
gramme we have come to the conclusion that we are not
radical enough, we should ask for "legislation making inter-
ference with the rights of employees to organize a criminal
offence."

You will see the irony of that article; here were the strik-
ers out for collective bargaining, the right to speak to their em-
ployers through their chosen representatives and the A.F. of L.
says any interference with the right to organize should be made
a crime, and this is a conservative body. We were not asking
for anything like such a radical proposition as that.

There was a reference to the Dominion Labor Party plat-
form, and you will remember it was pointed out to you that
the application form was to be sent to Room 1, Labor Temple,
and the Central Strike Committee met in Room .1 when the
Strike Committee was in existence, and you were asked to see
some connection between the Labor Party and the Strike Com-
mittee on that account: I want to say that you have the evid-
ence that Room 1, Labor Temple, is occupied bv Robinson,
secretary of the Trades and Labor Council, and McBride who
is affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and they
have occupied this room for a long time. The Dominion Labor
Party had no paid secretary, and the address was put on there
so that if anv one wanted to ioin the party they could pay their
monev, and it would be received that way. They are still there,
though the Dominion Labor Party is not occupying that office.
I want to call your attention to a citation made showing thereDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

45

was a similarity between the Labor Party and the proposal
for mass action, and I will read the whole paragraph.

"The interests of all workers, mental and manual, male and
female, organized and unorganized, are identical. Though
much has been accomplished by the industrially organized
workers, the ultimate emancipation of all workers lies in the
fullest use of political as well as industrial action. The unit-
ing of all these forces in a Labor Party is necessary to obtain
the desired result. For such purpose this Party is organized."

So you see what the aims of the Dominion Labor Party are.
You can judge from its activities. It is a political and not an
industrial organization.

We come now to the queston of the strike, and how the
vote was taken, and I want once more to remind you that while
Mr. Phillipps rebelled against the idea of the Calgary Confer-
ence, that those who did not vote at all should be counted in
the affirmative, he is trying to have you assume because I was
not at the Calgary Conference, I was not at the Quebec Con-
ference, I was not at the Miners Convention or B.C. Federation
of Labor or a member of the Trades and Labor Council, or of
the Strike Committee, and yet I am assumed to have been,
though I was not present—even though I did not vote at all,
1 am assumed to vote in the affirmative because I wrote a few
articles for the Western Labor News. He rebelled at that idea.
I think I should rebel at it as applied to myself.

Here is the strike vote, a partial vote as reported on Wed-
nesday morning..

For Against

Boilermakers 126
Boilermakers 529
Boilermakers 566
Boilermakers 451

Carmen 550 ........

Carmen 6..............

Carmen 371 .........

Blacksmiths 147
Blacksmiths 61 ..

706 68
.. 113	8

.. 121 6

124	26

82	0

152	0

101	8

656	26

133	1046

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

Railway Clerks 613 ...........................................91	14

Railways Clerks, Unity ........................................................126	15

Municipal Employees, Winnipeg ........................173	86

Municipal Employees, Assiniboia.................28	3

Municipal Employees, St. Boniface................14	0

Firemen, City .............................................................149	6

Firemen, St. Boniface ............................................................14	0

Police, City ..............................f.................................149	11

Waterworks ............................................................................44	9

Electrical Workers ........................................................................222	8

Bakers and Confectioners ................................................272	2

Retail Clerks (partial vote) ........................................450	10

Lithographers ........................................................................................28	2

Printing Pressmen ........................................................................50	21

Bookbinders ................................................................................................37	24

Sleeping Car Porters ....................................67	2

Caretakers ....................................................................................................133	5

Upholsterers (partial vote) ............................................11	8

Stationary Engineers 498 ............................................182	4

Brewery Workers ............................................................................152	22

Flour Mill Workers.......-..........................................................58	34

Machinists 122 ...............................................................269	75

Machinists 189 ....................................................................................80	0

Machinists 457 ......................................................................................138	1

Machinists 484 ....................................................................................292	7

Machinists 863 ......-.......................................106	15

mil Hands 172 ............................................................................283	5

Carpenters 343 ....................................................................................371	4

Postal Workers .....................................................250	19

Pipe Fitters 479 ....................................................................................181	10

Plumbers 254 ............................................................................................60	0

Sheet Metal Workers 420 ....................................................56	2

Cooks and Waiters (partial vote) ..................278	0

Garment Workers .................................................................143	27

Motion Picture Operators ................................................26	0

Moulders ........................................................................................................59	1

Patternmakers ( partial vote) ....................................4	0

Tailors ..................................................................................................................155	13

Teamsters ......................................................................................................611	3

C.B. of R.E. (Transcona Stores) ........................17	1

C.B. of R.E. (Transcona) ................................................112	4

C.B. of R.E. 67 ..........................................................................78	3

Jewelry Workers ..................................................70	6DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

47

Plasterers 84
Other votes ..
Other Votes ~
Other Votes
Other Votes
Other Votes

72
31
62
118
21
56

0
1
6
1
1
2

You can go on down the list and you will fail to find one
union that voted against -the proposal to come out on strike.
The evidence is there was an overwhelming majority of the
votes received for going out on strike and even if there was a
pooling of the votes it was not necessary, and you will remem-
ber while the Trades and Labor Council, properly speaking, had
no right or power to pool the votes, it was not an illegal pro-
position ; it was simply over-reaching the power they had from
their unions, as Witness Percy testified. If they had voted
against a strike they could not force the unions to strike, but
when they voted for it, then the Trades and Labor Council had
to obey the-mandate of the different unions. They had no
power to even force a union to take a vote; you had the Typo-
graphical Onion that steadily refused to vote. The Trades and
Labor Council could not make that union vote. Other unions
not affiliated with the Trades and Labor Council like the
Telegraphers Union came out on their own strike vote, so you
can see in some manner how the vote was taken; at the same
time there was no law against it; it was not illegal and, any
way, it does not make any difference—every union voted over-
whelmingly in favor of coming out on strike.

Then we have the object of the strike. I am going to af-
firm this was a lawful strike. If not, it is up to the authorities
to take action against the men who called the strike. The
names of the men are on that letterhead in plain black and
white—those men have not been arrested for any unlawful
act. You will remember Premier Norris went so far as to my
that he did not believe there should be a law making sym-
pathetic strikes illegal. So you see there was a general idea
that they were legal and you will remember the testimony of
Mayor Gray with regard to Senator Robertson when he came
up in 1918. The Firemen, he said, had an ultimate right t©
strike, and the other unions had a right to "sympathetic strike.*
So the generally prevailing idea was a sympathetic strike was
a legal proposition, and it is rather late in the day to suggest48

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

it is not legal. It should have been done, if it was an unlawful
act, when the strike was called; and not as an after thought
when men had been charged with conspiracy and seditious libel.

Now there was a lawful strike for a lawful object and the
real object was collective bargaining, as found in Bulletin No.
16. There has been a good deal said about not knowing what
collective bargaining is or what was meant by collective bar-
gaining. Now I want to suggest if there was any doubt along
that line it was not owing to the lack of definition on the part
of the strikers.

On page 3 of Bulletin 16, we have an article on Ool lee tire
Bargaining

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Politicians and plutes galore say they are in favor of
collective bargaining and then turn around and say it is im-
possible to define collective bargaining. Leaving aside their
evident insincerity in professing to believe in something they
do not understand., it is very evident they have raised a dust
and now complain that they cannot see.

We commend these bewildered gentlemen to the Labor
Gazette, August, 1918, where they will find a declaration of
a war labor policy by the Dominion government embodied in
an order-in-council, passed July 11, 1918, which proclaims
aThat all employees have the right to organize in trade un-
ions, and this right shall not be denied or interfered with in
any manner whatsoever, and through their chosen representa-
tives should be permitted and encouraged to negotiate with
employers, concerning working conditions, rates of pay, or
other grievances."

THROUGH THEIR CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVES.

The point is that collective bargaining should be done
through the chosen representatives of the employees. Get
that clear, O ye of little vision and muddled beads. The
dhosen representatives. That's the point. No matter whether
those representatives are chosen by individual crafts, by
federations, or by councils. They are the chosen represen-
tatives of the employees.DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.

One of the principles endorsed by the peace conference
and approyed by Premier Borden is that of freedom of asso-
ciation for workers. Now freedom means liberty to form
any kind of a legal association. But freedom in the forma-
tion of an organization is worse than useless if the chosen
representatives of that organization are not recognized by
the employers.

THE LOCAL SITUATION.

In Winnipeg the workers in the building trades exer-
cised their freedom of association by forming a Building
Trades' Council. For a time the bosses recognized the chosen
representatives of Labor on that body, but finally they an-
nounced a change of policy, they said they would deal with
each union individually. They denied the workers freedom
©f association and the right to negotiate through their chosen
representatives.

The Metal Trades' employers, better known as the iron
masters, have never acknowledged the right of their em-
ployees to freedom of association. They have refused to
deal with their chosen representatives on the Metal Trades'
council.

THE ISSUE TS CLEAR.

Collective bargaining means the right of the workers to
negotiate with the employers through their chosen repre-
sentatives.

Those four words contain the kernel of collective bar-
gaining. All quibbling about definitions is merely an at-
tempt to becloud the issue. We stick to the point and de-
mand collective bargaining through the chosen representa-
tives of the employees.

A wayfaring man, though a fool, could not err in his
definition of collective bargaining if he would stick to the
riffhf of employees to negotiate through their chosen repre-
mtatives."50

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

1 want to suggest to you that if there are any illegal asso-
ciations, then action should be taken against those that are
illegal. While I was not advocating the O.B.U.; it is common
knowledge it is in existence and there is no action taken
against the O.B.U. as an illegal association.

By way of interpretation of the Metal Trades Council.
The iron masters say "We will deal with employees in our own
shops/' but the men said "We want a council of our own to
pick out a man to come to you, so he will not be discriminated
against." The masters said "No, we have refused to deal with
the representatives of the Metal Trades Council."

Now is it possible to misunderstand the language of that
particular article? The workers were satisfied with a defini-
tion laid down by the Union Government. It is in the Labor
Gazette of August, 1918. It was not a question of whether
it was to be craft or industrial union. The fact was the men
wanted to be represented through the men they chose to see
the bosses, just as the Street Railway Company here retained
the lawyer to put their interests before the City Council or
Legislature. The employers have the right to speak through
their chosen representatives and the employees simply wanted
the same thing. I submit that is a lawful object and was the
real object so far as the strike was concerned, although some
secondary matter came in. I want to emphasize that point by
reading Mayor Gray's telegram early in the strike. You re-
member the evidence upon that point where Mayor Gray was -
\sked the question: "When you found you could not effect a
setlement did you send a telegram to Ottawa?" and he answer-
ed "Yes." Then he was asked: "Who did you send that to in
Ottawa?" and he replied, "I think that was sent to Senator
Robertson, or the acting premier." I then asked Mayor Gray,
'"Did that telegram read to this effect: "General strike of all
trades except Typographical takes place here 11 o'clock Thurs-
day morning. All efforts of reaching settlement have failed.
Strike started two weeks ago when metal workers and build-
ing trade workers walked out; building trades striking for in-
creased wages and shorter hours. Metal trades, the chief thing
in dispute, employers refusing to deal with union; employers
in question in metal trades the Manitoba Bridge and Iron
Works, the Dominion Bridge Company, and the Yulcan Iron
Works, respectively. Metal trades workers endeavored to
negotiate scales through business agent of the Metal TradesDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

51

Oouncil, employers declare willingness to discuss question of
wages and hours, but refuse to deal with Metal Trades Coun-
cil or to recognize tliis union or council, of unions by dealing
with them as such. Employers declare they did not oppose
rights to organize, did not discriminate against employees be-
ing members of unions, but would not recognize the unions
by dealing with them as such. Each employer willing to deal
with his own employees but not with union. Men consider
this is a challenge to the right to organize and to the principle
of collective bargaining. Trades council announced if would
take a general strike vote of all unions in support of right of
collective bargaining. Vote announced Tuesday night over-
whelmingly in favor of mass action by all workers. Negotia-
tions last Thursday night, led to employers agreeing to meet
strikers. Delegates of building and metal trades, respectively,
met with myself and Premier Norris, Monday, Tuesday and
Wednesday of this week. Building trades workers and em-
ployers virtually agree on acceptability of proposed settlement,
but workers will not execute until metal trades workers are
satisfied by their employers. Employers absolutely refuse to
concede principle demanded by metal trade workers. Workers
absolutely refuse to sacrifice their principles either. General
strike accordingly called for 11 a.m. Situation extremely cri-
tical; postal employees, fire brigade, waterworks and electrical
light and power employees, street railwaymen, railroad car men
and shop men, and possibly running trades of this division,
telephone operators, retail and wholesale clerks, teamsters, and
all newspaper typos, will likely walk out. Fully 27,000 work-
ers involved in strike. Fullest co-operation of government re-
quired towards effecting early settlement." "'Did you send
that wire to Ottawa?" That is what I asked Mayor Gray, and
lie replied, "Yes, and I supplemented that with another wire,
It has gone into one of the previous trials to the effect that I
had forgotten to state that the metal trades employers had of-
fered to arbitrate, but that is torn out here (Mayor Gray was
referring to his file of papers) and gone into the previous trial."
Then I asked Mayor Gray the following questions: Question:
"Who suggested you send the supplement?" Answer: "The
iron workers called to mind I had forgotten, and very regret-
able that T had, that they had offered to arbitrate." Question:
"The iron workers or iron masters?" Answer: "I mean the
iron masters." Question : "They offered to arbitrate the prin-
ciple?" Answer: "Yes, they thought that."52

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

There is a difference of opinion there. So far as trade
unionism is concerned according to the peace treaty they have
a right to organize. There is no question of arbitrating
through their chosen representatives. They wanted it laid
down in plain black and white whether they had a right to
speak through their chosen representatives or not. There is
no use arbitrating a point like that. It is either one thing or
the other. It is a matter of principle and while it may be
argued that some of these men broke their contract, I want to
point out that Italy was not blamed because she broke her con-
tract with Germany; she broke that in order to come to the
support of the allies. It was in support of a righteous prin-
ciple.

THE COURT—You must not say that, not only because it
has nothing to do with the case, but because it is not true.

MR. DIXON—I think it is a matter of general knowledge.
I will leave that to the jury. Now we have the mayor with
regard to the strikers terms. Is is hardly necessary for me to
say he received a letter setting out the terms of the strikers,
the recognition of collective bargaining and the recognition of
the building and metal trades councils and the reinstatement
of employees on strike. He received that letter very early Jn
the strike from the strike committee and then we have his re-
port about the iron masters and he submitted those terms to
the iron masters. You will remember the strike committee
always,came when he called them, he said. They were not
always together. They were always ready to come over and
discuss matters. I said they were really trying to make a
settlement during the first ten days. They went to see Premier
Norris and Mayor Gray and Senator Robertson and it was
only when they found it was impossible to bring about a settle-
ment that they sought to win by spreading the strike and get-
ting the support of men in other cities. You will remember
Mayor Gray reporting to his council he had laid the strikers'
terms before the iron masters and they said they had been re-
quested by the Citizens' committee not to open negotiations at
this time, and they had promised to do so, and were going to
abide by that promise. You see there the entering of a certain
body.

Then you remember the cards put on the milk wagons and
so far as the evidence here is concerned, Mr. Riley was not
present at the conclusion of that meeting. I want to suggestDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY	53

to you that the milk drivers finished their rounds and so did
the bread drivers on the 15th of May and the next day there
was a complaint to the strike committee that babies were suf-
fering from the want of milk. That very day they went over to
the City Hall with the master bakers and owners of the milk
factories, and they conferred together and an arrangement was
made for a supply of bread and milk. So far as being in con-
trol of the city, Mr. Carruthers said the strike committee sug-
gested ration cards, and he said: '"No; everybody is going to
get milk," and his suggestion was accepted. It is easy to see
who was in control. The strike committee were ready to con-
cede anything to give the citizens bread and milk. Mr. Riley
left before the end of the meeting, and so did the mayor be-
cause they wanted to get the things out. The milk men and
bakers wanted to get their men to work, and I want you to
remember that this meeting was run, as the evidence is, until
half past six or seven o'clock, and the bakers wanted to get to
work that night. Things were in a hurry at the close of that
particular meeting, and a great many people were relieved that
the situation was overcome. I want to suggest something was
said to this effect "get the men back. Get the cards out." I
want to suggest that the men did go back, and the cards were
got out. Perhaps it was a pity there was not more careful at-
tention given to the wording of these cards. Mayor Gray
testified they were given to protect the men on the rigs. You
can easily understand the situation—a great city involved and
these men going back to work. How were their fellow work-
ers to know they had been released by the strike committee?
I am going to suggest to you it was wisdom to give these men
cards to display in a prominent place until this business could
be resumed. Later on these cards came down; they were
misunderstood, and there is no doubt that they were taken
down, and I want to read you about that. Here is an ex-
planation of the card in Bulletin No. 5, May 22:

THOSE CARDS

"Any unfounded ill feeling which may have been created
by false impressions about the motive and purpose of the
cards issued by the Strike Committee to facilitate the deliv-
ery of bread and milk should now be entirely eliminated.

When it was decided tp release men in certain industries
from strike duty, for the purpose of supplying the necessities
of life, and for the preservation of law and order, the men54	DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURJ

and their employers asked for some card that would protect
them from effects that might result from misunderstanding.
For this purpose cards were issued.

the wording on the cards has been misconstrued and
misinterpreted and our opponents have made much fuss
about a small thing.

The cards are not essential to winning the strike so in
order to avoid being put in a false light and to demonstrate
that we are after essentials, not trivialities, the strike com-
mittee has agreed that in future the men released will be
given badges to wear for their personal protection and cards
on rigs may be discarded.

This decision was reached on Tuesday night at a joint
special meeting of sub-committees from the city council and
the strike committee.

Thus, another side issue is cleared out of the way. The
strike committee is not to be diverted from the main issue by
red herrings drawn across the trail—so long as the men re-
leased to supply necessities are protected in the form of card
or badge does not matter—the main issue is the recognition of
organized labor by the employers.

That achieved the rest is easy. This strike is not to de-
cide who shall issue a card, or what wording shall be on that
card. It is to compel recognition of organized labor by em-
ployers and the right to a living wage. All other issues
raised are to divert attention. Let us stick to the main
question. Get on with the strike."

I have already pointed out to you that there were re-
peated efforts made to effect a settlement early in the strike.
I want to recall to your minds the evidence of Percy on the
strike committee, with regard to these acts, showing these men
on strike were anxious to establish that principle of collec-
tive bargaining as speedily as possible. I submit to you the
easiest way to prove there was no revolution, or revolution if it
was so, would have been to grant collective bargaining. That
once established then any excuse for the strike would have
gone. The only thing that kept these men on strike was that
they believed, and we all believed, it was for collective bargain-
ing. You see how when Blumenberg went to the Policemen's
Union and mentioned Soviet, he had to get out. They did not
want any Soviet; but they wanted to come out and help theirDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

56

fellow workers and finally they were locked out. I want to
suggest that they were union men and knew what they wer*
doing when they supported the strike.

When Bray went down to the parliament buildings, and,
according to the evidence, spoke to the Premier of Soviet, the
soldiers made him take it back. They were soldier-sympathiz-
ers and soldier-strikers, and they would not stand for the
Soviet. They were out for collective bargaining. That is what
they went down to see the Premier about, and it is an imputa-
tion on their loyalty to suggest they were attempting anything
else.

We have also the Bulletin No. 7, where it is stated the
strikers were in favor of legislation and wanted to get it
settled as soon as possible, They passed a resolution to that
effect. This is as early in the strike as May 24. The strike
was not ten days old; there is a notice in a box on the front
page.

STRIKERS FAVOR LEGISLATION

"At 11 p.m. Thursday night the general strike commit-
tee placed itself on record as in favor Compulsory Legisla-
tion favoring Collective Bargaining. This makes it clear
to the whole world that they fully recognize the existing
. Governments and have nd desire to usurp control. The
resolution reads:—

"That this committee go on record as being in favor
of Legislation making it Compulsory for employers to
recognize the right of their employees to Collective Bar-
gaining through the representatives of their organizations
as expressed in Craft Unions, Industrial Unions, Trades
Councils and Trade Federations."

In other words, through the chosen representatives of the
men, no matter whether it be an individual union or group of
industrial unions or trade council or trades federations (as
grouped on the railroad.) The idea was whoever the men
picked as their chosen representatives they sh^ll be the ones
to negotiate with the employers, and they wanted that point
recognized by legislation.

You also have the point brought out by witness Percy that56

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

even though the Trades and Labor Council opposed the Norris
Industrial Commission, the Bill discussed and passed in the
session early in 1919, when the strike was on, so anxious were
the strike committee to effect a settlement that they appointed
two members to sit on that commission, but these men were
never recognized and the Industrial Commission was not put
into effect for settlement. So the story goes on. We have
heard a great deal about what happened during the strike. All
the good and bad was not on one side.

In Strike Bulletin No. 8, page 2, you will see a reference
to volunteer workers.

VOUNTEER WORKERS RECEIVE THANKS OF
PATIENTS AT HOSPITAL

"Volunteers who had been sent to remove storm sashes
and put on screens at the King George Hospital received the
hearty thanks of the patients."

When they would not work for money, but found the
patients wanted the storm sashes removed, they went over
and did it for nothing. Did that look as if they were very
vicious men ?

Then on page 4, No. 8, May 26th, there is another matter.
This is a report of this meeting that took place in the City
Hall, where they were discussing collecting bargaining.

MIDNIGHT SESSION ABORTIVE
(Fine Debate But No Decision)

"Mayor Gray, on Friday night, called together a commit-
tee to consider the strike and, if possible, recommend some
solution. The committee consisted of his worship, in the
chair, Aldermen Fisher and Simpson, Messrs. Winning and
Russell, of the strike committee, Messrs. Andrews and Sweat-
man, who said they were acting as individuals, Messrs. Car-
rol and English, of the running trades, and D. J. Scott.

No Big Five

Mr. Anderson, chairman of the Central strike commit-
tee, explained that there were 300 men on the strikke com-
mittee which had elected 15 of their number to a Central com-
mittee. The members of this Central committee would attend
all conferences or negotiations to give the lie to the state-DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

57

ment that five men were running this strike. This commit-
tee is composed of Messrs. Anderson, Pickup, Allen, Veitch,
Russell, Flye, Robinson, Smith, Miller, Lovatt, Shaw, Mc-
Bride, Winning, Greer and Scoble.

Russell Reviews Strike

R. B. Russell reviewed the history of the strike and the
efforts of the Strike committee to get a settlement. Much
capital was being made out of the iron master's statement
that they had submitted a plan of collective bargaining to
the Mathers commission on May 10th. Their insincerity
was shown by the fact that on May 13th, in the presence of
the Mayor, they had refused to deal with the Metal Trades
Council. This council had written every Metal trades em-
ployer and never received one reply.

More Chicanery

Members of the Strike committee had been told that the
iron masters were prepared to recognize collective bargain-
ing under the auspices of the Industrial Commission Bill.
The Strike committee did not object to this course—but it
now appeared that the employers were not free to act on their
own behalf but were controlled by the Committee of 1,000.

Collective Bargaining

A lengthy discussion occurred on different forms of col-
lective bargaining. Alderman Fisher said: "The man who
opposes eolleetive 'bargaining is 20 years behind the time "
A. J. Andrews said very few were opposed to it.

J. Winning—"Will the T. Eaton Co. recognize it in any
form ?"

A. J. Andrews Explodes

A. J. Andrews said this strike had gone beyond the orig-
inal issue. So far as he was concerned there would be no
negotiations until the postal elmployees, firemen, water-
works employees and telephone operators were back at work.
It would be splendid diplomacy for the Strike committee to
yield that point. Afterwards the principle of collective bar-
gaining would be recognized.58

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

R. B. Russell—"What assurance can you give us?"

A. J. Andrews—"'We can't give you any."

R. B. Russell explained that governments had violated
agreements in order to uphold a principle. Italy had broken
her agreement with Germany to support the cause of the
Allies. This was right. The firemen had acted from the
same motive.—But this was held to be wrong.

Insurrection Ridiculous Claim

The labor movement was not attempting to overthrow
the state. This strike had not the slightest semblance of ail
attack on the state. Everything had to be done in a consti-
tutional manner. The onus for the trouble was on the em-
ployers.

J. Winnings—We are fighting under constitutional Trade
Union rules. The duty, of the Trades Council is to render
assistance to any part of the movement that is in jeopardy.
We have conferred with the City council, the Provincial gov-
ernment and Senator Robertson; that shows we recognize
constituted authority. We cannot request postal employees,
firemen, etc., to go back to work. If they did that where
would our economic power be? We have a solution to offer.
Give us a guarantee that collective bargaining will be recog-
nized and we will all be back at work in 48 hours. §

A. J. Andrews—"We say you've done a wrong. Yqu
now have a chance to retire gracefully. If you do not do this
we will line up against you the Dominion, Provincial, and
Civic governments"

Rem°ve The Cause.

R. B. Russell—"We would remove the cause of this
trouble that is the lack of collective bargaining."

J. Winning—"Our action is quite constitutional. The
American Federation of Labor, a very conservative body, has
a clause in its constitution which says that no local council
shall enter into any agreement which forbids a sympathetic
strike."

A. J. Andrews—"If your attitude is that the causes
must be removed we shall have to wait for the millenium."DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY	69

J. Winning—"This discussion is on the wrong track."

A. J. Andrews—"I'm not here to go into causes but to
advise a certain line of action."

R. B. Russell—"We are prepared to go further and re-
move the cause of sympathetic strikes."

A. J. Andrews—"This matter is within the rights of the
Provincial government. Legislation should be passed guar-
anteeing the right of collective bargaining, accompanied by
a Dominion law making it a crime for unions to violate
agreements."

R. B. Russell—"How would this do?" presenting reso-
lution passed by Strike committee.

Strikers Favor Legislation

"That we go on record as being in favor of legislation,
making it compulsory on employers to recognize the right
of their employees to collective bargaining, through the re-
presentatives of their organizations, as expressed in Craft
Unions, Industrial Unions, Trades Councils, and Trades
Federations."

Passed by Strike committee, May 22, 1919.

Aid. Simpson—"Is it possible to get a guarantee of legis-
lation?"

A. J. Andrews—"I will not make a bargain that I am
forced to make by present conditions."

Aid. Simpson—"Let us have a guarantee of legisla-
tion backed by the Provincial government, the Mayor and
the Committee of 1,000."

A. J. Andrews—"I will not negotiate until the men on
the public utilities are back. I will not bargain "

R. B. Russell—"Senator Robertson has promised recog-
nition."

}

A. J. Andrews—"It is not a Dominion matter."

T. B. Carroll—"Mr. Andrews' position is a threat. It
resolves itself into a question of who should yield first. The
employers must yield some. I can't see that the men are
responsible. In the Running Trades we would go a long60

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

way before striking, but we can strike. Our employers fre-
quently yield points. Why can't the ironmen do the same?"

A. J. Andrews—"This is not a case between employers
and employees."

T. B. Carroll—"What about the statement made at the
Industrial Bureau that the policemen and firemen would be
put in a position where they would never strike again. Do you
intend to prevent that by giving them ideal working condi-
tions and wages?"

A. J. Andrews—"The sympathetic strike is wrong."

Aid. Simpson—"We propose to remove the cause by
legislation."

Aid. Fisher suggested that a smaller committee might
act more quickly, but his suggestion was not acted upon. The
committee rose at 12 p.m."

I think it only fair to say here, Mr. Andrews said that was
not a fair statement and it was corrected ; the correct report
was: "If you do not do this you will line up against you the
provincial, civic and Dominion governments." So you can
see they were conducting negotiations and trying to effect a
settlement early in the strike.

You also find in Number 9, page 3, a request, "Why
not call a special session." You will remember the witness
Batsford testified to the soldiers going down to the Parliament
buildings and suggesting a special session being called.

WHY NOT CALL A SPECIAL SESSION

"When the Strike Committee appointed representatives
to act on the Industrial Conditions Council with a view to
settlement it made a considerable sacrifice.

The Trades and Labor Council has persistently opposed
this measure for good reasons, but the strike committee did
not stand upon its dignity. It saidj "If there is any consti-
tutional method of effecting a satisfactory settlement, let's
use it."

It had been intimated from several semi-official sources
that there was a possibility of settlement if Labor would con-
sent to act on the Industrial Council. Thus another methodDIXON'S ADDKESS TO THE JUKY

61

of settlement lias been tried and found wanting. It is ru-
mored tilat tlie N orris government doubt if they could make
the findings of said council binding by order-m-council. Then
why not call a special session ot the legislature? is the
whole Dominion to be tied up because the Provincial gov--
eminent has not backbone enough to brush the committee
of 1000 on one side and deal with the situation in a states-
manlike maimer. Labor has made a great concession in offer-
ing to act on the Industrial Council. The Norris Government
has sung the praises of said council loudly and continuously.

If, now Labor has agreed to act upon it, the Government
holds back we shall know who really controls the Govern-
ment. There is, apparently, an invisible government in Mani-
toba and it is not located at the Labor Temple."

Then on page 4 of No. 11 you find the City Council passed
a resolution.

I want to call your attention to this: the resolution reads:
"That this council ask the Provincial Government to make
collective bargaining compulsory and sympathetic strikes
illegal.'' This was carried. Why did they want to pass this
resolution? It was not necessary to pass a resolution to make
sympathetic strikes illegal if they were already illegal.

Here is a resolution passed by the Strike Committee Thurs-
day, May 22nd:—

"That this committee go on record as being in favor of
legislation making it compulsory for employers to recognize
the right of their employees to collective bargaining through
the representatives of their organizations as expressed in
Craft Unions, Industrial Unions, Trades Councils and Trade
Federations."

Then, on Saturday, May 24th, the Central Strike Com-
mittee informed Senator Robertson, who had grossly mis-
represented Labor's definition ^of collective bargaining, that
what they meant by collective bargaining was—

"The right of any individual to belong to a labor union
if he so desires, and the right of all such unions in a given
industry to form themselves into a council to conduct nego-
tiations through their council.02

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

When negotiations have succeeded and schedules are
agreed to they shall be signed to cover all trades negotiating
within the industry mentioned."

These things make the issue so clear that no one need
misunderstand the position of Labor on collective bargain-
ing. All they ask is the same rights for all workers as are
now enjoyed by, say, the railroad workers.

Then we have the matter of soldiers' delegations in Strike
Bulletins Nos. 14 and 15.

SOLDIERS BACK STRIKERS TO LIMIT

"Ten Thousand Wearing Buttons March to Parliament Build-
ing—Tell Norris to Call Off Committee of One Thousand—
Urge Special Session to Legislate re Collective Bargaining
—Denounce Treatment of Telephone Girls—Going Back
Interview Government Monday Morning—Visit City Hall
and Demand Withdrawal of Ultimatum to Civic Em-
ployees—Insist that Police Remain on Duty—City Coun-
cil Leaves It Stand Over Till Tuesday Morning—Give
Policemen Ovation—Carry Flag to Labor Temple-^-Say
Sympathetic Strike Cannot Be Called Off Till Collective
Bargaining Established—Resent Press Campaign of Villi-
fication—Say It Must Stop—Give Three Cheers for Labor
News "

SOLDIERS INSIST ON ACTION

"Provincial Government Again Visited—Delegation Growing
in Numbers—Returned Soldiers Only Allowed in Cham-
ber—Demand Government Legislate, Resign, or Take
Referendum—Say Majority Favor Collective Bargaining—
1,000 a Bunch of Boodlers—Dixon Loudly Cheered."

You will find they were there, and that is what they are
asking for—insisting on action.

In No. 17, re the Great War Veterans, they passed a reso-
lution at a big meeting endorsing the objects of the strike.

Then, in No. 19, we find the article in reference to the alien
question. Do you believe the mayor when he said that the first
parade was composed of 75 per cent, aliens and 25 per cent,
soldiers? Not one per cent, of anybody else. Just think ofDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

63

that. Whatever its composition, when he asked them to go
outside the council chamber they went out. ^

STRIKERS STATE POSITION ON ALIEN QUESTION
WILL BACK AUTHORITIES IN EFFORTS TO

DEPORT UNDESIRABLE ALIENS

"Whereas, an attempt is being made at this time to make
it appear that the Trades and Labor Council is attempting
to protect undesirable aliens, and

"Whereas, a further attempt is being made to raise the
ire of the members of our organizations who are returned
soldiers by spreading such untruths;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the general strike
committee, representing the 35,000 workers now on strike,
many of whom are returned soldiers, again go on Record that
we will support all efforts on the part of the authorities in
their efforts to deport all the undesirable aliens in our midst.
"(Signed),

"W. H. C. Logan, Chairman Strike Committee.

"Jas. Winning, Pres. Trades and Labor Council."
Then we have Major Andrews' statement.

MAJOR G. W. ANDREWS, D.S.O., M.P., DEFENDS
WINNIPEG STRIKERS IN PARLIAMENT

Strikers Are as Loyal Citizens as Canada Ever Had—Collec-
tive Bargaining Necessary—Demands Backed by League
of Nations—Sympathetic Strike Natural and Logical—-
Repudiates Bolshevism—Time for Change of Government.

Winnipeg Member's Testimony.

Major G. W. Andrews, D.S.O., M.P. (Centre Winnipeg), in
House of Commons, June 2, 1919. (Hansard report.)

"Whjpn the election was on, a year and a half ago, it was
my privilege to address an audience of Winnipeg working-
men on the subject of winning the war. The issue at that
time was quite clear cut. I told them I was a candidate for
the Union Government, and as such stood for the conscrip-
tion of men. I pointed out that this meant the particular
men I was talking to. I also told them that I stood for the
conscription of money, which meant their money, and f@r
the conscription of the last dollar aild the last man in Can-u

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

ada, if need be, to win the war. That was pretty straight
talking. When I got through, one of the men got up and
said: "Well, we understand exactly what you mean now."
I told them I would not think of going over the tap with
men who were not prepared to go all the way. When the
17 th December came they knew exactly what it meant for
the men who were going to the war. When the election was
over, in spite of the fact that my opponent was the secretary
of a labor union, it was found that they had voted for me
in the proportion of three to one.

These are the men who today are on strike. There is
certainly something wrong somewhere. In addition to those
men, as good and as loyal citizens as Canada ever had, there
are many of my own comrades who stood in the trenches in
France; they are on strike. I say, standing in my place here,
that eighty per cent, of the returned men of Winnipeg are
in sympathy with the strikers and the object of this strike.

On the first of May the men of the metal trades went on
strike, partly because the masters refused an eight-hour day
and a larger hour wage, but chiefly because of the employers*
refusal to recognize their union. The building trade em-
ployees presented their schedule to the masters, who frankly
admitted its fairness and reasonableness, but declared their
inability to meet the demand. Here we have the two vital
causes of the strike: (1) a living wage, and (2) the right to
organize. This is the cause of the strike, in my opinion, after
the most careful consideration and after using every means
in my power to find out the facts. When the ironmasters let
it become known that they were going to make it a trial of
endurance, the Trades and Labor Council called for a sym-
pathetic strike of all organized labor in the city. A vote
was taken, and all unions, including public utilities, came
out.

The single workman is helpless against the great cor-
poration; the individual union or craft is equally so. Collec-
tive bargaining is the logical outcome of organization, and it
is now too late in the day for any corporation to refuse it—
that principle is embodied as one of the provisions of the
charter of labor formed by the League of Nations.DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

65

The sympathetic strike is the natural and logieal se-
quence of organization. What more natural than that men
who have interests in common should stand together in an
emergency? A particular union or craft may be striking for
a principle that is absolutely vital to every man in the in-
dustry, and just as the employers can down one single man,
so they can down a single union unless all stand together.
This is co-operation ; it is brotherhood, and it is absolutely
the same principle of sticking together that was employed
in France.

There is another point I want to touch upon for a mo-
ment or two. Twice this afternoon I have heard the term
"Bolsheviks" applied to the strike leaders in Winnipeg.
Gentlemen, if you apply the term to those men you apply it
to me, because they are my friends. There is a man called
James Winning, a good, level-headed Scotchman, who has
spent practically all his life working for his fellowmen. The
only erratic thing he has done in this agitation has been
closing down the press and participating in the strike. As
to the press, I had the misfortune to hear an hon. gentleman,-
one of the oldest members in the chamber, state his opinion
that the press was corrupt, and he was not called a "Bol-
shevik" for saying that. If ever a strike by workingmen in
newspaper offices was justified, it was in this case if the
newspapers were not playing the game. There is another
man called Russell in Winnipeg. Russell is a Socialist and
not a man who advocates force. I know these men, and for
them force would be absolutely the last resource. Russell
wants a change. So does Robinson, so does Simpson and
Rigg. They want a change because they are not satisfied
with present conditions. How many hon. gentlemen in this
House are satisfied? I venture to say many of them would
welcome a change of government.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Andrews: I feel a little that way myself, but I would
like to see some further action by the Union Government
first."

Then you have General Ketchen and Canon Scott
speaking in Victoria Park on June 9; that is the day before
the riot. It is also reported in the same paper with regard to
F. J. Dixon mentioning the scribes and pharisees. I have al-
ready dealt with that; also what Mr. Mclntyre spoke about66

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

the Citizens' Committee being anxious to take out the ulti-
matum and not anxious to take out the cheques.

Now, we have heard the police had an agreement. The
Breaking of agreements was not all on one side. As a matter
of fact, all contracts can be broken for cause. When the fire-
men went out they offered to leave a squad on to protect life.
The strikers left men to take care of the horses; they left men
in the hospitals and to work the elevators to take the sick up
to the doctors' offices, and they left men to supply water. Does
it make much difference whether the water goes up two or three
stories? The evidence was that 30 pounds pressure will take
it to the second story, and what pressure was on after the
union men were forced out would take it up three stories. Now,
was it worth creating that much bad feeling for one more story?
There you see the tenor of the whole thing. Then you have
them back on the bread and milk question. The citizens claim-
ed they were supplying bread and milk, and the mayor, Percy
claimed, said he was supplying it, and the men driving the
wagons got disgusted and walked out. They did not interfere
with anybody else. On the 15th the strike was called, and on
the next day they arranged that the bread and milk should be
resumed. When these men walked out again, it was conducted
by volunteer workers, and there was no interference. Mr. Car-
ruthers said in the Cecil Rhodes school the people would not
take the milk away. They said, "We will not take it from vol-
unteer workers, but when the regular men come back to work."
They did not interfere with the others in the city; they said
"if the others want it let them take it."

Then when one special policeman was in the Labor Temple
they formed a bodyguard around him to take him out safely.
Then Marrin had gone out to face a howling mob of one or two
thousand people, raving Bolsheviks, I think it is safe to say
they were not very violent when one man could do it. It is
impossible to control all the incidents of a strike; if there
were unlawful acts, there is a law to punish unlawful acts.
You will find in the speeches of the strike leaders they were de-
precating violence on the part of the strikers. There is no
evidence to show there was any great violence. There is the
evidence of the insurance agent who said there was placed with
his comoany thirty million dollars' worth of riot insurance,
and that they actualy paid out $100 in damages. See the com-DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

67

parison between the fear and the actual damage. I want to
put it to you, a great many people were fearing at that time
what really did not happen. When the mayor was going over
to get the release of the man for carrying a gun, if those 200
men had been intent on being violent he would not hare got
away as easily as he did. He would not have got out without
serious physical injury. I am submitting that for your con-
sideration.

I want to speak of the police who were locked out; in spite
of the fact that there was an agreement that there should be
no strike or lockout until 1920, they were actually locked out.

11.30 court adjourned for five minutes.

11.40. court resuming, Mr. Dixon continued address:

Now, gentlemen, you remember I laid the foundation, so
far as I was concerned, that this strike was a legal strike, and
its object was for collective bargaining. I submit that collec-
tive bargaining is a natural growth so far as industry is
concerned. In these days, when you have tremendous corpora-
tions, the shareholders never see their employees where thous-
ands and thousands are employed not directly in connection
with their employer^. This is different from the old days.
That is explained in Strike Bulletin 27, page 4, in an article
headed

"GROWTH A LAW OF NATURE"

Those who denounce the sympathetic strike might as well
denounce the wheat for ripening, the river for flowing into
the sea, or the boy for growing into a man. It is written
"First the blade, then the ear, and then the full corn in the
ear," which being translated means, first the craft union,
then the federated unions, and then the sympathetic strike.
One might as well attempt to cram the full grown wheat plant
back into its original kernel as persuade labor to abandon
the sympathetic strike.

From a thousand hills a thousand rills gather into a
mighty river which sweeps on to the ocean. An attempt to
dam the Niagara, in the hope that it would never reach the
sea, would be no more foolish than the attempt to dam labor
from its resistless onward sweep towards its natural outlet—
co-operative industry.68

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

The farmer watches his boy grow, and he knows that
some day the boy will say: "Father, I must have a voice in
the management of this farm and my fair share of the pro-
ducts or start a farm myself." The farmer may hope the
day will never come, but in his heart of hearts he knows the
boy will grow to manhood and will rightly demand a voice
and a share. Labor has grown to manhood, and is now de-
manding a voice in the management through collective bar-
gaining in order that it may get a fairer share of the wealth
it produces.

One might as well tell the full-grown man to resolve
himself into a boy again and "be seen but not heard" as tell
labor it cannot have a voice in the management of industry
through collective bargaining.

Grass will grow, the river will reach the sea, the boy
will become a man, and labor will come into its own."

I ask you, first, is there anything seditious in that? Is
not that an explanation of what you know? Does not that
occur on your own farm ? Do not the boys grow up and say,
"Father, I am a man, not a boy any longer. If I stay 011 this
farm I want to have something to say about it and have this
quarter to run myself or you run the other one; at any rate,
I am a man, and if I cannot share in the management and pro-
fits, I am going to have a farm of my own"? It does not mat-
ter how the father may feel about it. We may wish that our
children will remain two to five years old in their happy, prat-
tling days. But we know they will grow up. So in our indus-
tries labor is growing up and demanding a share of the man-
agement looking towards co-operation. Do we not hear co-
operation preached on every side as a desirable thing? Is it
seditious to write such an article as that?

I want to read you from Strike Bulletin No. 30 a letter by
A. MacDonald, and you will remember the strike leaders have
been arrested, and that F. J. Dixon had not been arrested, so
the government did not consider him to be one of the strike
leaders. I want you to pay special attention to this letter
about those arrests by A. MacDonald, wholesale grocer of
Winnipeg.DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

69

A. MACDONALD & CO.

Winnipeg, Man., June 18th, 1919.

A BIG BLUNDER

"Whoever ordered the arrest of those strikers, at mid-
night, and had them taken to Stony Mountain, should be
severely punished. The men were get-at-able at any time.
Why this midnight raid on their homes, and why were they
taken to Stony Mountain? The wiiole transaction was ill-
advised and cowardly in the extreme. I have it on what I
believe to be good authority that arrangements were being
made for a settlement with a fair prospect of success. Now,
where are we?

The cause of this Dominion-wide unrest is due largely to
the profiteering, bungling mismanagement and incompetency
of men in high places. Something has got to be done, and
that soon. Let^us hope that Senator Robertson, who is here,
looking after this matter, will be able to get things satisfac-
torily arranged soon." Yours,

A. MACDONALD.
The Editor, Western Labor News, Winnipeg, Man.

"Dear Sir—I sent a copy of the enclosed letter to the
other papers, and thought I would send you one, as I don't
think those men were fairly treated. You can publish it if
you wish. Yours respectfully."

A. MACDONALD.

Now, I want you to look through my articles, and remem-
ber they were written after the riot, and this letter was writ-
ten before the riot, but MacDonald is not accused of inciting
a riot nor publishing a seditious libel, and he is criticizing the
authorities. Is there anything stronger in my articles than
the statement that whoever ordered the arrest of the strike
leaders should be severely punished. He speaks of constituted
authority, and says the cause of this world-wide unrest is
largely due to profiteering ,bungling and mismanagement. Can
you find a greater condemnation of constituted authority in
these articles than that?

He was free to write that and he was not arrested, though
he wrote before the riot. Then why was I arrested for writing
these articles after the riot? I just want you to bear that in
mind when considering the evidence.70

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

Then in Strike Bulletin No. 30 we read the strike leaders
are free, allowed out owing to the agitation oyer trial without
a jury, and now arrangements are being made to give them
trial by jury. Now you find there Ivens, Heaps, Queen, Bray
and Russell leaving Stony Mountain, so it is quite evident I
am not classed as one of them. Then we have the article I re-
ferred to in the "Enlightener." You can draw your own con-
clusions. I want to call your attention to the fact that this
was written on the day the strike was called off. The Strike
Committee was forced to a conclusion of unconditional sur-
render. What do you think the natural feelings of a man would
be under such conditions? He for a long time had been writ-
ing articles for the paper, and I was certainly interested in
the strike, believing it to be a lawful strike for a lawful object,
and I certainly wanted to see these men win; there is no ques-
tion a;bout that. I believe the great rank and file wanted to
win, and I believe they showed a splendid determination in
suffering hardships. Imagine the circumstances. Who is down
on their knees now? What is there in that article, I ask you?
Read it over. That is written on the day of unconditional
surrender.

THE WORKERS

"The workers have simply gone to school once more.
They have experienced another demonstration that in union
there is strength. That the way to greater victory is through
greater unity. Their conviction that it must be each for all
and all for each has been deepened. The bond of union be-
tween all workers has been strengthened by common sacri-
fice for a common end. While impressing the need for col-
lective bargaining and better wages upon the community
mind, the workers have themselves been taking a university
course in politics and economics.

They realize now that economic conditions are a reflex
of the laws of the land, and that if they would secure justice
they must get into politics. That the average politician is
ever strong upon the stronger side, and that stronger side is
the one which has a majority in the government. This lesson
will not be forgotten."

Is there anything of the doctrine of hate in there? And re-
member the circumstances under which that article is written
and published.DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JUEY

71

Now, I want to go once more with you over the evidence.
I want to call to your mind the men with different ideas, one
in the Labor party and one not in the Labor party, and all this
kind of thing. I am going to ask you to pay not too much
attention to a man like Zaneth. He is the man who poses as
a bohunk before the labor organizations. When he was in the
box he said he was an Italian, and when I asked him if he had
ever heard of Michael Angelo, he said, "No, I never heard of
him." And Mazzini? "No." He never heard of him. And
nearly everyone else in the room had heard of them. I ask if
everyone else did not know who they were and if the Italian in
the box was not the only one who did not know who I was
asking about when I spoke of Michael Angelo, Marcus Aurelius
and Mazzini. We might have forgiven him if he did not know
of Mazzini, who stood for a united Italy and the doing away
with the temporal power of the Pope—perhaps he never heard
of Marcus Aurelius, a great emperor philosopher; but do you
think he would have gone to school in a convent and not heard
of Michael Angelo, renowned for his great religious paintings
and sculpture? His pictures of "The Crucifixion," "The Day
of Judgment," and "The Entombment" are the things he is
noted for. Do you not think Zaneth in a convent would not
be likely to hear something about this? I want you to look
and see if you do not think he would know about that. At any
rate, you have heard the witness and seen his demeanor, and I
ask you to take this into consideration. I want you to remem-
ber, so far as the conspiracy is concerned, there is nothing to
show that I was a member of any conspiracy, and it would be
practically imposible for me to conspire with Armstrong, who
ran against me in two elections, or Russell, engaged in knock-
ing hell out of the Labor party—I suggest the thing is ridicu-
lous. I suggest they were certainly a fine bunch of conspirators
leaving letters around where other people could get them and
keeping carbon copies in order to show evidence of conspiracy.
So far as the Socialist Party of Canada is concerned, they have
opposed me in the elections of 1910, 1914, and 1915, and I think
it is very probable they will oppose me the next time. I want
to point out that I was not at the Calgary Convention. There
was no secrecy about that thing. Did it look as if they cared
whether police spies were there or not? When one was sus-
pected they voted against his removal. Then, forsooth, these
men accused of conspiracy, had a verbatim report taken
of the convention, and the evidence is that 20,000 copies were72

I)IXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

printed, so everybody could read what was going on. I was
not there, and I do not think I should be held responsible for
what went on there. I do not want to be held as voting in the
affirmative for things done at conventions at which I was not
present.

\

Then because they fixed a date to strike on the first of
June in regard to certain matters, this strike in Winnipeg*
was part of that conspiracy. It cuts right across the line of
their suggestion. The suggestion is that the Calgary Confer-
ence wanted a six hour day, the release of political prisoners,
and withdrawal of troops from Russia. This strike in Win-
nipeg came up over the question of collective bargaining.
When this strike started they were busy taking a vote and the
O.R.I I. was not in existence. So it is ridiculous to say that
is part of the conspiracy.

I have already dealt with the question of pooling the votes,
and all hough it was unusual, it was not illegal. So far as the
Trades Council is concerned, I want to suggest the strike was
for a lawful object alld conducted by lawful means ,and gen-
erally it was peaceful. As I said before, if it was unlawful,
there are laws. The proper thing to do is to enforce them
against those who incite to violence; if anybody had incited to
violence they would probably be punished for so doing. So far
as this strike was concerned, we were all actually in a condi-
tion to believe it was a legal strike, and did believe it was a
legal strike. What other deduction are we to draw when Sena-
tor Robertson says in 1918 the firemen have a right to strike
and other unions have a right to a sympathetic strike, and we
have requests to have legislation to make sympathetic strikes
illegal, and Premier Norris says "I do not think we should
legislate, but it should be agreed between the parties." The.
idea that it should be an illegal strike is something that occur-
red to the minds of legal gentlemen after we had been arrested;
they thought it would be a good point to secure a conviction
on.

So far as the law is concerned, I am not going to try to
follow Mr. Phillipps through, all the legal labyrinth he has

tnicted. You v^ill listen respectfully to the instructions
from his lordship on the law; if it was merely a question of law
the crown counsel and his lordship could handle the law. What
is the jury for? It is to see that the accused man is gettingDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

73

justice, and that is what I want you to mete out to me when
you render your verdict—what you will consider as justice in
all the circumstances of th>e case, If you accept Mr. Phillips'
interpretation of the law you would not be able to criticize
the weed inspector. I do not know whether any of you gentle-
men are weed inspectors. At the same'time, it might be said
he is a public official, and when elections are nigh, if you wrote
a letter to the press criticizing the weed inspector, and advised
him to cut down his crop, as his farm was dirtier than vours>
you would be criticizing a public official when public feeling
was running high, and you might be charged with publishing
seditious libel.

I want to say a word about the nature of the charge.

I do not profess to know much about law, but when a man
is charged with publishing seditious libel, he begins to look up
and see what kind of a charge this is. It is a thing we so sel-
dom hear about that we have to go and look at the books. 1
took the trouble to look that up for my own satisfaction to dis-
cover the nature of the charge. I found, for instance, that, ac-
cording to the code, seditious libel is a libel expressive of a
seditious intention. I want you to mark that word expressive.
I consider that is the key to the whole situation ; a seditious
libel is expressive of a .seditious intenton. I want you to mark
the word expressive and believe that when the legislators put
that in, they meant what they said. It is not enough to read
it in. I submit they had seen enough of reading it in when
they were advocating adult suffrage and the abolition of the
corn laws, and that they said, "Here, we will make this thing
to be that a seditious libel is a libel expressive of a seditious
intention." It cannot be read in. It cannot be built into these
articles, even if it takes two weeks in the effort to do so. You
must look into these articles and see if they are expressive of
a seditious intention or not. I want to quote Webster's defi-
nition of the word "expressive"—serving to express; utter or
represent, indicative, full of expression, significant, emphatic.
"Has he sent a letter couched in terms expressive of his grati-
tude?" If the letter did not express gratitude yon could not read
it in. Again, "each word expressive of her woes." Then a fur-
ther definition by Webster, full of expression, vividly represent-
ing the meaning or feeling meant to be conveyed; significant;
as expressive looks or words.74

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

The synonyms are clear, plain, open, explicit, unambigu-
ous. That is what the legislators meant when they put that
word in there, when they said it must be expressive of seditious
intention they meant what they said. If it is not there in plain,
unmistakable language you cannot read it in. Here is a lump
of sugar; if it expresses whiteness to your eye and sweetness
to your taste it is white and sweet, but it is not to be suggested
that if you color it with red ink and flavor it with bitter aloes
you can say it is not white and sweet. So with these articles.
These articles are the things in the indictment. There is noth-
ing about blasphemy or hypocrisy or unlawful strikes or any-
thing of that kind. Nothing in the indictment about bread and
milk. The only thing in the indictment is these three articles,
and I am accused of publishing those three articles. I ask you
to look at them and see if they express seditious intention.

A farmer expresses himself by his work, and you can tell
whether he intends to be a good farmer or a bad farmer; you
can soon tell whether he is or is not a good farmer. It may be
he has a bad field of sow thistle, but you can see by looking at
that field whether he is trying to keep his farm clean or not.
It is expressed right there on the farm. The same with the
artist; he expreses his mind in his pictures. It does not matter
whether you see that picture in a gilded salon or a humble
home, you can see whether the artist had an obscene or a beau-
tiful mind. It is not the frame, trimming or location. The
artist expresses himself in the picture, just as the farmer ex-
presses himself in the farm, and just as the writer expresses
himself in the article. It does not matter about the, frame or
trimming or associations we find around. There are the ar-
ticles, and the law says they must be expressive of seditious
libel and intention. And this is what it says in regard to pun-
ishment—that a man shall be subjected to two years in jail
if he publishes something expressive of a seditious intention.

I consider this is the key to the whole situation. If these
articles are seditious, it must be expressed in the articles them-
selves; if it is not expressed there it cannot be read in, even
though crown counsel bring a thousand witnesses.

That is the point I want to emphasize. If seditious in-
tention is not expressed in these articles, it cannot be read in,
and it would not matter if I was convicted or proven a con-
spirator. I am not here to be found guilty as a conspirator;DIXON'S ADDBE8S TO THE JURY

75

it is onlj for publishing these articles that I am here. If I
was guilty of blasphemy or any of the other charges that would
not prore seditious intention.

If I was a member of an unlawful assembly it would not
prove a seditious intention in these articles, unless the articles
expressed it. Then we might go down the whole calendar of
things of which I have been accused here. The law says a
seditious libel, is a libel expressive of a seditious intention.

There is no definition of seditious .intention in the Cana-
dian Criminal Code . But legal precedent has pretty welf
defined seditious libel as one which tends to bring into hatred
or contempt the person of the reigning sovereign, his heirs
and successors, the government or constitution of the United
Kingdom as by law established, or either House of Parlia-
ment, or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt the
alteration of any matter in Church or State as by law estab-
lished otherwise than by lawful means.

The law regarding seditious libel has been insensibly
modified by the law of defamatory libel. The effect of this
modification has been to give the right to criticize fairly,
that is honestly, even if mistakenly, public conduct of pub-
lic men: and to comment honestly, even if mistakenly, upofe
the proceedings of Parliaments and Courts.

The issue then i« not the truth or falsehood of the as-
sertions made—though I would be prepared to assert the
truth of the statements made in these particular articles.
But that is not the issue The issue is what was my object tin
writing those articles t Was it to promote disaffection and
bring about riots, or was it to procure a remedy by peaceful
means?

It is well established that anything said, or written,
with a genuine intention to promote the general welfare by
lawful means is not seditious.	'

No one shall be deemed to have a seditious intention only
because he intends in good faith:—

To show that His Majesty was misled or mistaken in
measures.

To point out errors or defects in the government or
constitution of the United Kingdom, or any part of it;
Canada, or any province of it: or in either House of Par-76

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

liament in the United Kingdom or Canada, or any legislature,
or administration of justice, or to excite His Majesty's sub-
jects to attempt to procure, by lawful means, the alteration
of any matter in the state.

To point out, in order to their removal, matters, pro-
ducing or tending to produce feelings of hatred or ill will

between different classes of His Majesty's subjects."

At the present day, when the right of forming political
organizations, of holding political meetings, and of giving,
through the press and on the public platform, free expres-
sion to our thoughts upon and criticism of public men and
affairs, is so well recognized, a written or printed publica-
tion, or a public speech, would have to be of an extremely
vicious, inflammatory and dangerous character to form the
basis of a successful prosecution for seditious libel.

Now, I am going to submit to you gentlemen, that these
articles are not extremely inflammatory, nor dangerous and
that they were written after the riot and so far as the effect
was concerned, there was perfect peace after they were writ-
ten until the strike was called off the next Thursday. You have
certainly some right to see the consequences of these articles, if
any. I am going to suggest to you they are not extremely
dangerous nor inflamatory. Just think of the situation under
which they were written. Here we had been for five weeks or
more trying to keep peace within the city. Although I was not
a member of the Strike Committee you will find an item in
one article saying the Strike Committee have nothing to do
with the silent parade. The Strike Committee deprecated any
such parade; but people congregated on the streets. Then the
mounties came down there with baseball bats swinging on their
saddles. Are not governments and government officials to be
responsible for the consequences of their acts. What would
be the effect of the sight of those baseball bats on those return-
ed men who had been fighting for democracy and were assem-
bled there to have a silent parade? You must draw your own
conclusions about that. I want to call your attention to what
Judge Cave said. I am not going to quote at any great length
for law is not my long suit. There have been a few such trials,
this one was in 1886, John Burns and others had spoken to a
crowd in Hyde Park, London, and windows had been broken
in a riot and he was charged among other things with seditious
utterance and the Judge said in his charge quoting from Rett
v. Sullivan:DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

77

"I invite you to deal with the case, which is a grave and
important one, in a fair, free and liberal spirit. In dealing
with the articles yon should not pause upon an objectionable
sentence here, or a.strong word there. It is not mere strong
language, such as 'desecrated a court of justice' or tall lan-
guage, or turgid language that should influence you. You
should, I repeat, deal with the articles in a free, fair and
liberal manner. You should recollect that to public articles
great latitude is given. Dealing as they do with the
affairs of the day, such articles if written in a fair spirit and
bona fide, often result in the production of great public good.
I advise you and recommend you to deal with these
publications in a spirit of freedom, and not to view them
with an eye of narrow criticism. Again I say you should
not look merely to a strong word, or a strong phrase, but to
the whole article, and so regarding each article, you should
recollect that you are the guardians of liberty of the press,
and that whilst you check its abuse, you will preserve its
freedom. You will recollect how valuable a blessing the
liberty of the press1 is to all of us, and sure I am that liberty
will meet no injury, suffer no diminution at your hands.
Viewing the case in a free, bold, manly and generous spirit
toward the defendant. If you come to the conclusion that
the publications indicted are not seditious libels or were not
published in the sense imputed to them, you are bound, and I
ask you in the name of free discussion to find a verdict for
the defendant."

"You should not be too swift to mark any hasty or ill-
considered expression which they might utter in the excite-
ment of the moment. Some persons are more led on, more
open to excitement than others and one of the defendants,
Burns, even when he was defending himself before you, so
prone was he to feeling strongly what he does feel, could
not refrain from saying that he was unable to see misery and
degradation without being moved to strong language and
strong action. I mention that to you to shew you the kind
of man he is, and for the purpose of seeing (if you come t©
the conclusion that he was honestly endeavoring to call th®
attention of the authorities to this misery and honestly en-
deavoring to keep within the limits of the law and the con-
stitution) that you should not be too strong to mark if
made use of ill-considered, or too strong an expression."78

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

That is what Judge Gave said about Burns who spoke be-
fore the rioting.occurred. Now these articles were written after
the riot and following these articles there was no riot. A man
is supposed to be responsible for the consequences of his acts
and you will look at these articles and draw your own con-
clusions from them.

I contend, Gentlemen, that I am innocent. I hare pleaded
not guilty to this charge, and in order to win, the prosecution
must prove I wrote those articles with a seditious intention.
The intention is the whole issue and I think Mr. Phillips re-
cognized that when he spent nearly two weeks building up a
case, to use his own words to "build up" a case of conspiracy,
why build up a case? If sedition is not in these articles you
cannot build in it. The idea of building up a case is one way
of trying to do that. If it was expressed in the articles them-
selves he need not then try for two weeks to build up a case.
Intention is the whole issue and he realized that or he would
have spent two weeks trying to establish my seditious inten-
tion in writing these articles.

I claim that I am innocent for the indictment does not
say that I was maligning His Majesty or procuring some law-
ful object by unlawful means. The indictment does not assert
what the seditious intention was. I am not saying that ad-
vocating the O.B.U. or the Soviet would be seditious, but there
is no evidence to show I advocated either one of them or any-
thing unlawful. I advised men to use their ballots and keep
the peace. Surely that is not evidence of seditious intention
when you advise a man to keep quiet. But if you go ahead and
advise the mob to use violence or break jails—if it had been
something of that kind I submit there might be some basis for
a charge of seditious libel. I submit we cannot find that from
any of the evidence submitted here. I want to remind you it is
not a question of strong language or harsh words, here or
there, it is a question of motive. Do any of these articles ex-
press a seditious intention. They are as far from sedition as
black is from white, and north from south, I think I can show
that from the* articles themselves.

Under the British law the accused is entitled to a full and
complete defence. Tou will realize that I have not wasted a
great deal of your time; crown counsel has had the greater
part of the time in the past two weeks and if I should take anDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

79

hour or two more that is what I am entitled to under British
law,

THE COURT: If you really think, Mr. Dixon you eannot
get through your address in that time, I will give you time,
but you gave me an undertaking yesterday or I would hare
sat last evening; we must get through the case to-day.

MR. DIXON: I did go through my ^aotes last night, and
cut out a lot and I find that I will have yet to speak an hour
or three-quarters of an hour to finish my address.

THE COURT: I will not cut you off in the full defence
you think right. It it was the case of a lawyer undertaking t*
do so and not doing it he would get stronger language than I
propose to administer to you.

Court adjourned for luncheon at 12.30 noon.

Court resumed at two o'clock this afternoon.

MR. DIXON: My lord, and gentlemen of the jury; you will
remember when we adjourned I was dealing with the question
of the expressiveness of the word "expressive." I have here
the Criminal Code, section 132 in which it says a seditious libel
is a libel expressive of a seditions intention. That is what the
Canada Criminal Code says. In regard to punishment. Sec-
tion 134 reads: "Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and
liable to two years imprisonment who speaks any seditious
words or publishes any seditious libel or is a party to any sedi-
tious conspiracy." I submit when the legislators put that
clause in they knew what the meaning of the word "expressive"
was; they put that in there because they assumed they did not
want anything to be implied and that the libel must be expres-
sive of a seditious intention. When we look at the articles
themselves, we will see how far,, they, are expressive of a sedi-
tious intention—I want to emphasize that point. If you had
a diamond and wanted to have it tested you would take it to
a jeweller and would not ask him to look at the frame but test
the stone to see if it was a diamond. It may be a rough dia-
mond it may not be one of the best, but he can tell you whether
it is a diamond or a fake, and I am going to ask you to do the
same thing with the articles in this indictment. I want you to
look at them and see if in your opinion they are the expression
of an honest man, expressive of honest intention. That is the
question before you—whether I wrote these articles witk am80

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JUEY

honest intention, or whether I did not, is after all the question
you have to find.

With regard to the article "Kaiserism in Canada" the in-
dictment reads "that F. J. Dixon in or about the month of
June, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and
nineteen at the City of Winnipeg in the Province of Manitoba
unlawfully and seditiously published seditious libels in the
words and figures following:—"

Now there is nothing about conspiracy—it is that in the
month of June he did publish a seditious libel—.that is the
charge, and this one is headed "Kaiserism in Canada."

"What shall the sacrifice profit Canada if she who has
helped to destroy Kaiserism in Germany shall allow Kaiserism
to be established at home." Do you give your assent to that as
a fair statement? I submit, gentlemen, it is not seditious.
Then the article goes on "Whoever ordered the shooting last
Saturday is a Kaiser of the deepest dye." You have the evid-
ence—at any rate they were pretty well prepared. The Mayor
had The Riot Act in his pocket and the horses were standing
in the stables ready; you have the testimony of Captain Dun-
woody that he was well prepared, good and ready, and the
forces under Bintiie, who said that the horses they were riding
were horses used to the work, and I ask where would you get
horses used to that kind of work in Canada? I think you will
agree with me that is the first work of that kind in Canada and
I think you will agree with me in the hope it will be the last.

There is the evidence that there was some preparation. At
any rate we know it was not the men who did the shooting;
they simply obeyed the orders of the commanding officer, but
someone behind that who believed might was right—that is the
essence of the Kaiserism. Somebody who believes the principle
laid down that if the Mayor gives an order it is not for any
one to criticise it whether he is right or wrong. I submit that
is not in accordance with British traditious. We have reserved
to ourselves the right as British subjects to criticise public
officials.

I submit to you that when I left England I might have
gone to the United States if I was looking for a republic, but
I came here because I thought I would find more liberty and
freedom here. We know there is a monarch in England at theDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

81

present time, it is a matter of common knowledge he is a
democratic man. At times he goes down to the post office and
mingles with the people. He wants to hear what is being said;
he is not afraid of sedition, and so far as singing National
Anthems are concerned we will agree with Burns who wrote:

"Who will not sing God Save the King
Shall hang as high as the steeple.

But while we sing God Save the King
We'll not forget the people."

I submit that is the principle upon which British public
affairs have been carried on. But somewhere back of this
thing somebody believes might is right. Then the article goes on
"the responsibility must be placed and the criminal brought be-
fore the bar of justice." Is there anything seditious about
that? Think of the better written by A. MacDonald, he was
speaking of somebody, he did not know who, when he said
they should be punished and show cause at the bar of justice
why the arrests were made. Do you think the blood of the
people on the streets is preferable to a silent parade? Do you
think it is better to have the people shot down or have soldiers
shoot them down. I submit human life is a sacred thing, and
should not be taken except under the most extreme provoca-
tion, and I still say it would be better to allow a silent parade
than to shoot men down on the street. The article reads:—

"There may be those who think their dignity must be up-
held at all costs, but we fail to see the slightest justification
for the murderous assault which was committed." What was
it? You have the witnesses who came here telling you
how the soldiers rode down the street with the baseball bats at
the saddle. They were swinging them; it does not matter
whether they were swinging them in their hands or were
carrying them on their saddles—the bats were there. If you
think a man is assumed to intend the natural consequences of
his act what about government officials. What would be the
incitement to these people who wanted a silent parade on the
street? What would be the likely effect, I ask you? I leave
you, gentlemen of the jury, to draw your own conclusions
whether there was justification for a murderous assault. It may
be strong language. We have the testimony of Binning. Do
you remember I asked him "Did they run?" "Yes, they ran
fast." "Did you shoot as they ran?" "Yes, we were shooting
as they ran." I ask is there any justification for that,
that men and women should be shot like rabbits as they run;DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JUBY

there is no justification for that kind of thing. I do not know
who ordered it, but whoever it was acted in the spirit of
Kaiser Wilhelm.

The article then reads quoting the words of the Kaiser
when he said "Recruits! before the altar and the servant of
God you have given me the oath of allegiance. You are too
young to know the full meaning of what you have said, but
your first care must be to obey implicitly all orders and direc-
tions. You have sworn fidelity to me, you are the children of
my guard, body and soul. Only one enemy can exist for you
—my enemy. With the present Socialist machinations it may
happen that I shall order you to shoot your own relations, your
brothers, or even your parents—which God forbid—and then
you are bound in duty implicitly to obey my orders.*

What were those orders—sent down with pistols loaded
and Binning said "When we pull our pistols we pull them to
use." They had the baseball bats on the saddle. At any rate
that whole paragraph is simply a deprecation of Kaiserism in
Canada. Is it a thing we want to deprecate? We want some
better doctrine than "might is right" to work upon.

Then the article goes on "The events of last week show
to what lengths the opponents of labor will go in their efforts
to fasten despotism on this city and this country."

You will remember Mayor Gray testified he had been jam-
med, and jammed and jammed, to put the military on the
•treets. When I asked if it was a member of the Strike Com-
mittee, who asked this—no he did not know he was one of the
Strike Committee or of the Citizen's Committee; he said there
were a number of unreasonable people; it was the unreasonable
people who were jamming him to put the military on the streets.

Then the article says "The midnight^ arrest of men whose
only crime seems to be that of lese majeste against the pro-
flteers and the shooting of innocent and defenceless citizens
mark the depths of desperation to which the Kaiserlike crowd
at the Industrial Bureau are prepared to go in order to turn
their defeat into a temporary victory."

I want to ask you about that, whether they were innocent
©r guilty. There is the testimony of Binning again, when I
asked him "Did you see one man with a gun in the crowd,"
and he answered "No." That is his testimony; he wvm there and
saw what was going on, and went through the @r#wd severalDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

8fS

times. True, he heard several shots; he did not see any Me
fire them, and he did not see one gun. If guns had been there
he would have seen them and—they shot them running away.

Then the articles goes on "But they must not be allowei
even temporary satisfaction. Organized labor must contintie
the magnificent fight of the last five weeks until its just and
moderate demands are granted. It were better that the whole
35,000 strikers languish in jail." Is that rebellion? Is that
sedition ?

"Better that the whole 35,000 strikers languish in jail;
better, even, that we all rested beside the men who were slain
on Saturday than that the forces of Kaiserism should prevail."

To rest beside the men—is that resistance to authority?
No, I say it is better that they were in prison, that they were
martyrs, not rebels, than that this spirit of Kaiserism should
prevail in Canada.

Then again "There have always been those who imagine
'a whiff of grape shot' would fttop the cry of the people for
justice."

Is not that a true statement. I say, that time and time
again when the people have risen up asking for something, nd
matter whether it was the abolition of chattel slavery, or the
corn laws, they have been met with grape shot. It has not set-
tled anything. There is only one agitator and that is injustice,
and where there is injustice there will be agitators whether
they be grape-shot or not.

Then again the article says: "There are some in Winnipeg
who think the shooting on Saturday taught labor a lesson. But
labor did not need the lesson. The parade was attempted and
the blood of innocent men spilled 'without permission of the
strike committee.'"

Some of our soldiers said "our leaders are in jail and they
should not be there; we want them out. We want a silent par-
ade." the returned men said to the strike committee. "You keep
out of this." The Strike Committee had all along tried t#
keep away from martial law and here is something done with-
out permission of the Strike Committee and certainly so far
as calling up the mounties was concerned, that was done with-
out the permission of the Strike Committee.Si

DIXON'S ADDBESS TO THE JX7ET

Then again—"Labor already knew that two dozen men ©n
horseback shooting to kill could disperse a crowd of several
thousand unarmed men and women."

Everybody knows that. One does not need to be a prophet
or the son of a prophet to know that. When a dozen or two
men go down to pull pistols they will clear the streets when
there are thousands there.

Then again—"The committee of One Thousand has, how-
ever, many lessons to learn, among other things the members
of that committee must be taught that ideas are more power-
ful than bullets." Is there any sedition in that? I want you
to read the whole article. "The members of that citizens' com-
mittee must be taught that ideas are more powerful than bul-
lets," even if some have been ridden down, remember that
ideas are more powerful than bullets. Do not meet bullet with
bullet or violence with violence, but remember that you must
teach this committee that ideas are more powerful than bul-
lets. They are the things we are fighting with. I submit
there is no sedition in that.

Then again—"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the
church. We shall 'carry on' in spite of hell, till the victory is
won." Did you ever read the hymn "Gates of hell shall never
'gainst the truth prevail ?"

I submit that is the origin of that thought. We shall
carry on in spite of hell; we shall carry on though there are
mounted men upon the streets, we will demonstrate that ideas
are more powerful than bullets and carry on so that the gates
of hell shall never prevail against the truth. There is no use
talking about Victory, it meant victory for the strikers and for
collective baragining and that is the idea, and the idea of all the
people on the side of the strikers at that time. The idea they
had in regard to victory was the establishment of collective
bargaining. Unfortunately, we did not succeed. I submit that
is the idea. I ask if there is any sedition in telling people they
had better be in jail or martyrs? The soldiers on this parade
were all for peace and law and order.

There is no sedition in saying don't give up, better we
sfeeuld go to jail and that if we should be ridden down, it were
better to be ridden down than give-up—there ia no suggestion
of getting a gun or meeting violence with violence; the ®nly
suggestion is that Ideas are more powerful than bullets—I sub-DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

m

mit that is the truth, as I did yesterday, when I said the
Christians were burned to light the streets of Rome. Many
men then thought might was right, and that they could crush
Christianity by that method. I say to-day that Christianity is
more powerful than the Roman Empire. That Empire has
passed away. Labor will go on in spite of opposition, al-
though we have no collective bargaining, we will have it, and
no bullets or anything else can stop it. Ideas are more power-
ful than bullets and that is what was being advocated.

We come now to this article entitled "Bloody Saturday.''
You notice the indictment reads the same way. What about
it. Was it Peace Saturday or Violet Saturday or Rose Satur-
day. I should think the heading aptly described it. "R.N.W.M.P.
make gory debut." Did they? Noble riders of the plains? I
suggest they were not engaged in the noble business of hunt-
ing cattle thieves and it certainly was a gory business, for the
ambulance wagons came down and carried away the wounded.
"Peaceful citizens shot without warning." They were not
warned. Of course there were some stones thrown. That is
shown in the article. At the same time . I want you to know
that the mounted police rode down, and the crowd opened up
and let them go through with their bats swinging at the saddle
bows. They were largely returned soldiers; you remember
them asking Mayor Gray to take the street cars off the streets;
he did not do it; some of the horses got entangled in the
fender of that car and the rider of one unhorsed. "City under
military control; strikers more determined. One dead and a
number injured, probably thirty or more, as a result of the
forcible prevention of the 'silent parade" which had been
planned by returned men to start at 2.30 o'clock last Saturday
afternoon. Apparently the bloody business was carefully
planned." It does not say the blood business was planned, but
it looked as if it were, and you have heard the evidence of
Mayor Gray that he read The Riot Act which he had in his
pocket since the 10th of the month and the horses were stand-
ing in their stables and the special police were good and ready.
WTien a request was made for a permit to parade the soldiers
were told they would not be allowed to parade,—"for Mayor
Gray"—goes on the article—"issued a proclamation in the
morning stating that 'any women taking part in a parade d©
so at their own risk.'" When he issued that proclamation the
mayor intended to stop the parade whether there were women
in it or not. "Nevertheless a vast crowd of men, women and
children assembled to witness the 'silent parade."' Tliere86

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

might have been a lot of excitement. They would be there from
natural curiosity. A lot of people went out to see the 'silent
parade/' "The soldiers committee which had been interviewing
Senator Robertson had not returned to their comrades when
the latter commenced to line up on Main Street, near the city
hall." There is no evidence they had returned. I am going
to ask you to assume they had not returned. And the men
were waiting for their committee to come back from seeing
Mayor Gray and Senator Robertson. "No attempt was made
to use the special city police to prevent the parade." I want
to ask you to review the evidence on that, Mayor Gray says he
was called from the Royal Alexandra Hotel at quarter to
two, and that the Chief of Police told him he would not have
enough men to handle the situation. The mayor said the fight-
ing had started at 2.30. The mounted police left barracks be-
fore 2.30. When asked the time the special police came out
Binning said 3.15. That would be a considerable time after
2.30 when the Mayor said the riot had started. When Dun-
woody was asked he said he left the police station at 2.30. How
would that tally with the acting chief constable? Dunwoody
said he was standing good and ready until 2.30 with his men.

Then the article says "On a previous occasion a dozen of the
old regular city police had persuaded the returned men to aban-
don a parade which had commenced to move." There is evid-
ence of that. The evidence is that some six men came out of
the police station and persuaded the returned soldiers to go
back to Victoria Park, and the police went with them. You will
remember at the meeting at which the soldiers were asking the
mayor for permission to parade he refused them, and this man
Bray we hear so much about, got up and said "Comrades if
there is any parade today it will be over the dead bodies of
your committee." That statement was made before the arrests
and then some of their comrades were thrown into jail. They
said "These men are in jail and we do not think they ought to
be, and we want this parade to try and get them out." "On
Saturday about 2.30 p.m. when the parade was scheduled to
start, about 50 mounted men swinging baseball bats rode down
Main Street." I do not think it is material whether they were
in their hands or on the pommel of their saddles. I ask does it
look like preparation when men came down swinging baseball
bats? That has been denied. i Whether it is true or false is
really not am issue. There may be some immaterial differences.
The point is the intention in writing this article. I am pre-DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

87

pared to assert that it is true. I am going to ask you to be
lieve, although there is no evidence, that I as a reporter, sta-
tioned at the corner of Portage and Main—

MR. PHILLIPPS: There is no evidence of that.

MR. DIXON: There is no evidence of that, but I ask the
jurv to believe that.

THE COURT: You must not; you gave us some statements
yesterday that were not in evidence at all.

MR. DIXON: I said there was no evidence—nor was
there evidence of imaginary conversations that might have
taken place between this that and the other man.

The articles then goes on "They quickened their pace as
they passed the Union Bank." I think that is brought out in
the evidence. Then again—

"The crowd opened, let them through and closed in behind
them. They turned and charged through the crowd again,
greeted by hisses, boos and some stones." I think that is
brought in the evidence. Then again—

"There were two riderless horses with the squad when it
emerged and galloped up Main street. The men in khaki dis-
appeared at this juncture but the redcoats reined their horses
and reformed opposite the old post office."

I ask you if that substantially agrees with the evidence
here. The men had green horses, and the horses got the better
of the men and carried them away, and the red coats had
horses used to the work, and they reformed. The witness said
they reformed 150 yards from William Avenue. I do not know
if you are familiar with the city; that is about near the old
post office. Then the article goes on—

"Then, with revolvers drawn, they galloped down Main
street, turned, and charged right into the crowd on William
Avenue firing as they charged."

The evidence is that is substantially correct, and the
evidence is that so far as any attack is concerned it was in
front of the city hall, and more to the north of the city hall than
to the south. I want you to remember that William Avenue
is south of the City hall and that is where they turned, firing
as they charged.88

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

"One man on the sidewalk" says the article "thought the
mounties were firing blank cartridges until a spectator stand-
ing beside him dropped with a bullet through his breast. An-
other standing nearby was shot through the head. We have
no exact information about the total number of casualties but
there were not less than thirty casualties. The crowd dispersed
as quickly as possible when the shooting began."

There is no disputing the testimony on that.

Binning said they ran; "Did they run?" "Yes they ran
fast." You can draw your own conclusions about that. Anyway
this one man was killed and he was not a mounted policeman
and we know there were a number of wounded in that crowd.
Then again—

"When the mounties rode back to the corner of Portage
and Main after the fray at least two of them were twirling
their reeking tubes high in the air in orthodox Deadwood Dick
style."

Sergeant Binning said he did not see that; and he was
riding behind the line, but although he did not see it it might
have happened. Then again—

"Some individuals, apparently opposed to the strike, ap-
plauded the mankillers as they rode by."

It is quite possible there might be some applause and
Binning did not hear it when he was riding up the street, the
noise of the horses hoofs on the asphalt might drown the ap-
plause.

Then "the special police swinging their big clubs, were
then thrown across Main street, and the intersecting thorough-
fares."

That corresponds with Binning's evidence when he said
he came out about 3.15.

"Dismounted red-coats lined up across Portage and Main,
an officer rode up and down Main declaring the city under
Military, control. Khaki clad men with rifles were stationed
on the street corners."

Is there any dispute about that?

"There were no open air meetings on Saturday night, but
the central strike committee met as usual and resolved to
'carry on' with redoubled vigor. If the city remains underDIXON'S ADDKESS TO THE JUBY

m

military control, meetings will likely be held outside the eity
limits."

I want you to assume that this w&s written with an honest
intention, giving a recital of events that actually occurred.
Now I ask you if that is in defiance of authority? There is
no suggestion of action in that whole article except that if the
city remains under military control, meetings will likely be
held outside the city limits. Is not that if the eity remains
under military control let us go out on the prairie and hold
our meetings? Then again—

"Indignation at the action of the authorities was forcibly
expressed by returned men. They feel that the prevention of
the parade was an infringement of the human rights they have
fought to defend and they are especially incensed by the mur-
derous assault of the mounties upon an unarmed crowd." Do
you think the soldiers would be incensed after they had been
ridden through in that way?

You Will assume the soldiers forcibly expressed themselves
on that occasion.

"One man, recently returned, said "They treated us worse
than we ever treated Fritzy."

Does that mean they did not shoot at Fritzy when he did
not have a gun? Then again—

"The returned men assumed full responsibility for the
"silent parade' proposition making a special request that the
strikers should not join them. 'This is our affair' they de-
clared. Had they intended violence they would hardly have
invited their wives to join in the parade."

What do you think of that? Do you think they would?
Do you think if they intended any violence they would have
invited their wives to the parade? Would they try and hide
behind women's skirts? I submit not What they did they did
without intending violence and did not believe the authorities
would shoot them down when their wives were there."

There is the article, and you can consider it in full. That
is evidently intended to be a recital of events, but the only line
of action suggested—the only suggestion of any action is if
the city remains under military control meetings will be held
outside the city limits, not resist the authorises or defy them,
but go outside the city. Let us go out on the open prairie and9#

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

hold our meetings there. Is there anything there to incite riot
or unlawful assembly or resistance to constituted authority I
submit there is nothing of that.

Then in article No. 3. "Alas! The poor Alien." It reads
as follows: "When is an alien not an alien?" Answer: "When
he is a rich man, a scab-herder or a scab. At first our oppon-
ents tried to divide the returned men from the labor forces by
attacking the alien in the ranks of organized labor. There are
comparatively few men of alien birth in the organized labor
movement. The returned men know this." You remember
from the evidence the resolution passed by the Strike Com-
mittee that they were willing to assist the authorities in de-
porting all undesirable aliens. Then—

"They know that so long as the alien is in this country it
is better that he would be in the union and thus assisted to
keep from scabbing on other workers. Returned men knew
that aliens have taken a very insignificant and a strictly in-
cidental part in this strike. They know that the Strike Com-
mittee has passed a resolution in favor of deporting all un-
desirable aliens."

Is there any sedition in that? Then again—

"Knowing all this, the returned men have not been divided
from labor by the alien cry which has been raised by the Com-
mittee of One Thousand, from ulterior motives."

Now, I want you to mark the date in June of this article
and the evidence that has been given in regard to the riot that
happened in January. The crown counsel, I think, said the
soldiers were insisting that certain meetings should not be
held, and he said "Rightly so." I submit what we want in this
country is to establish a condition of things where what is done
will be done by the law, not by violence on the part of soldiers
or aliens or anybody else.

Then again we have the following: "Now the opponents of
labor are trying to intimidate the aliens and separate them
from the forces of labor. If an alien will become a scab-herder
or a scab he will be protected. If he stands loyal to his fellow-
workers, he is threatened with arrest and deportation. There
is little doubt that the wholesale arrest of aliens is an attempt
to insinuate that the strike is depending largely on alien sup-
port."DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

31

The argument is keep together—don't split up. We hay#
been told, and I might submit that some of these reports ap-
pear to be exaggerated—for example, when the mayor said it
was 75 per cent, aliens and 25 per cent, returned men in that
first parade that waited upon him, I submit it was an exag-
geration. But thej were not divided bj this cry of aliens in
whatever proportion they happened to be, for, as Batsford tes-
tified, the bohunks were sticking pretty close to the soldiers.
Then the article goes on—

"Coupled with this is the idea that the British and Cana-
dian born workers who constitute the great majority of the
strikers would leave these arrested aliens in the merciless
hands of the authorities without protest."

You will remember there were some aliens who were under
arrest and threatened with deportation but were afterwards
released,

Don't you think all this is evidence that any laborers who
will take the place of the strikers will be called sane labor?
The insinuation is that all the strikers were insane—only those
staying on the job were sane, no matter what their nationali-
ties. Then the article goes on—

"If labor did this it is highly probable that the exploiters
would be able to persuade many aliens to scab on the strikers.
The bosses would have succeeded in dividing the forces of
labor, and by dividing they hope to conquer. As Alderman
Fowler said: 'We must get sane labor to defeat insane labor.'
According to the profiteers, all scab labor is sane labor, no
matter what nationality. Once again they will fail. The re-
turned men know, for instance, that some of their comrades of
foreign birth have been arrested, held without bail, and threat-
ened with deportation without the formality of a civil trial,
and they say: 'If an alien is brave enough to fight in Flanders
for British law and British justice he is entitled to all the privi-
leges of British citizenship.' Therefore neither labor nor the
returned men will desert comrades who may be called aliens."

Now, then, is there any sedition in that? Ask yourselves
the question. If an alien is brave enough to fight in Flanders
for British law and British justice he is entitled to all the
privileges of British citizenship.

Now, if you say that is sedition, send me to jail, for so
long as I am free I shall continue to make that statement. If92

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

an alien is brave enough to fight in Flanders for British law
and British justice he is entitled to all the privileges of British
citizenship. The question is, Is he, or is he not? Then it goes
on—

"Let us have British fair play and British justice for all. If
after a fair trial undesirable aliens are found let them be de-
ported. Meanwhile, how about deporting the profiteers. Every-
one knows they are undesirables."

Where is your doctrine of hate and the class struggle? Let
us have British fair play and justice for all. "All" means
everybody; there is no limitation to that. That is what we
want in this country; no threatening to be deprived of a civil
trial. But British justice and fair play for everybody, and if
a man be found guilty let him be punished, and once again I
say if that is seditious send me to jail, for so long as I am a
free man I will say "Let us have British justice for all." If
after a fair trial men are found guilty, let them be deported,
whether they be aliens or British born.

In the meantime what about the profiteer? Do we know
it or do we not? They come under the classification so that
you could even deport them. Yet you do not find thousands of
dollars being spent to prosecute the profiteers. I said the
Rosses and Flavelles and Allisons still have a place in the sun.
Let them be tried, and if proven guilty let them take the pun-
ishment as well as the meanest alien that has entered Canada.
So much for the articles. It may be the last sentence contains
the key of this prosecution. It may be because it is lese majestee
against the profiteers. I have no doubt some people would like
to see me in jail, and glad I am not able to be in the sessions
of t^iis parliament, because I am in this court, and I have no
doubt some people would like to see me driven out of public
life altogether. Gentlemen, with your assistance, I shall do
my best that that shall not happen. I ask why was I sought
out? Why did not Morris lay an information against Mac-
Donald who wrote that letter? Why did Morris the detective
select me? When they searched they went to the Winnipeg
Engraving Company and put in the files and next morning they
took them to the police station and delivered them to Mr.
Phillipps. Gentlemen, I want you to consider that in con-
sidering the whole thing, and also why this matter was delayed
from last July until this February. I believe His Majesty has
been misled into persecuting me. But I am not complaining.DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

98

I have made my decision and counted the cost. I have decided
that I would stand on the side of the poor people, and hope,
no matter what happens, I will be able to say with Henley:

"In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.

Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody but unbowed."

I am not seeking martyrdom nor running away from it. I
have all the natural feelings of a man. I like liberty and I like
the sunshine and good food, warm raiment, and a house to live
in and intercourse with my friends and myt family.

But you are not here to consider my personal feelings. An
individual in this universe is a very small thing. We are only
like the grains of sand; today we are here and tomorrow we
are gone. You are here to consider the public interest, and
take into consideration all the circumstances, remember your
oath and your conscience, and use your judgment and give us
your verdict according to the evidence which has been laid be-
fore you. I nm asking you to deal with me as I would deal
with you if I were sitting in that jury box and you were stand-
ing in my place.

You are the last hope so far as the liberty of the subject
is concerned. The crown counsel and learned judge on the
bench they handle the law. I am only asking from you justice
according to the evidence that has been laid before you, and
according to your conscience and your judgment. In your
hands is placed the question of the liberty of speech. Whether
a man has a right to criticize government officials or not. I
want to quote again the man who spent the greater part of
his life defending men from charges of publishing seditious
libel—Erskine said: "Other liberties are held under govern-
ment, but liberty of opinion keeps governments themselves in
due subjection to their duties."

I want you to look over your history and I want you to
consider that—I do not want liberty of speech to be wounded
through my body! whether my body is wounded matters not,
but it does matter that liberty of opinion be preserved for
yourselves and your children and all the inhabitants of this»4

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

eountry. We are on the ere of a great social reformation just
as there was once a great religious reformation. We should
keep open the door with regard to ideas about social problems.
There are some good and some bad ideas. Everyone seeking
for gold is not going to find the precious metal. Leave the
door open; let every idea in. There will be some foolish and
some wise, and I submit that we in Canada are grown up and
ean look over literature a^d take what we want and reject the
balance. If ideas and opinions be foolish let them be rejected;
if good let them be accepted. The more some of them are ex-
posed the flatter they get. Let ideas be exposed to the sun
and the poor ones will soon flatten down. If we are to adopt
the doctrine of crushing and suppressing ideas we are driving
their authors into the dark breeding places the same as the
Czar of Russia did. The reason we enjoy our liberties now is
because in the past they let people speak out. The people had
brains enough to see what was foolish and what was false, and
sense enough to reject what was false and hold to the truth,
and I submit that should be the basis of our public policy in
Canada today.

Gentlemen, I do not want to take up much more of your
time. I am nearly through. As I said at the beginning, I
am not being tried for this strike. There has been a great deal
of that laid before you. If I have taken rather more time than
I would under other circumstances it is because I felt I must
remove those paper bricks with which this case has been built
up. If there is any crime it must be found within the four
walls of the indictment. If there is any seditious intent, it
must be expressed within these three articles. If there is any
doubt it must be in my favor. I ask you to read these articles
and see if there is any seditious intention expressed. It must
be expressed as the intention of the farmer is expressed on his
farm or the artist in his picture. I want you to take the in-
dictment, and not look at the trimmings and insinuations.
Look at it and say if there is any sedition expressed or whether
in your opinion it is language used by an honest man trying to
express an honest opinion; there may be a sharp word or mis-
take, but were they written with an honest intention? One
learned man said: "We don't send men to jail unless they have
a guilty mind." I want you-to look me square in the eye. You
have watched me for two weeks and heard some of the articles
I have written and speeches I have made. Do I look like a
criminal with a guilty mind? Is my demeanor that? DoDIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

m

these articles express a guilty mind? I ask you to think that
oyer before you express your verdict and think over the evi-
dence before you. I want you to think of the evidence of the
various witnesses. Not one heard me advocate the O.B.U. or
Soviet. You have the testimony so far as the Socialists are
concerned; the Socialist Party of Canada have consistently
opposed me, and then R. B. Russell was knocking hell out of the
Labor party, and you have the evidence that I am president
of the Dominion Labor party.

Is there anything seditious in the Labor Party programme?
Would they elect me if I had a guilty mind? A great deal of
evidence has been put in and no connection shown. It has
been shown they have been at one meeting, I have not. Some-
times I have been held responsible for something they did at
another place. My name appears but twice in the letters put in.
I want to submit the whole thing has been built up to put some-
thing in your minds I have nothing to do with. Everything is
built up in the hope that there might be implied that there
is seditious intention. I submit if the articles were expressive
of seditious intention, then no one would need to spend two
weeks to try and build up a case. After the crown counsel has
spent two weeks trying to build up a case he has not shown
there is sedition expressed in those articles. I ask you to re-
member I am in your charge. You are the last hope of the sub-
ject so far as liberty is concerned, and you are sworn to make
a true deliverance, that is, you will turn me over to His Ma-
jesty for punishment or tell me to go free. Your verdict will
decide that. I want to submit it is a. very important verdict,
not only so far as I am concerned, but so far as the public i«
concerned, so far as whether we have a right to express our
honest opinions or whether we have not; that concerns you
and your children almost as much as it concerns me. I want
to say, as far as I am concerned, the only verdict I want from
you is the verdict I would give if I was sitting in your place
and you standing in mine. I want you to deal with this ^ase
according to your judgment and conscience. I want to say to
you, gentlemen, that whenever in the course of my life I have
had to decide on a question of principle, there is one question
I invariably ask myself—"Now, Dixon, supposing you knew
you were going to die tomorrow, what would you do in this
case?" I can tell you the answer to that question has been a
very safe guiding rule regarding conscience. Now, gentlemen, I
ask you to think in the same way; put the same question tom

DIXON'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY

yourself. What would you do in this case if you were going
to die tomorrow? What would you do in this case—if you
knew you were going to meet your maker in the morning?

I may die tomorrow; you may die tomorrow. I am going
to ask you ho^ you would feel if, when you appear before the
judgment throne, some stern accuser should want to hold you
responsible for the actions of other people. I say, gentlemen,
we shall have enough to do to answer for our own sins. I
want you to think it over in that light, and take it into con-
sideration in that light, and having in view your oath, and
using your best judgment in giving the decision, give your de-
cision as you would if you knew you were going to be before
the throne of your maker tomorrow morning.

Judge Gait's

Charge to the Jury

In

REX v. DIXON

w$

Judge Gait's Charge to the Jury

IN

REX v. DIXON

Gentlemen of the Jury: You must be glad indeed, as
I am, after these fifteen days of trial, to at last come
near the end and be relieved from the onerous duties
which have fallen on us all. For you realize, just as I do, that
a man may be performing hard work even when he is sitting
still all day, paying rigid attention to everything that goes
on before him. It is really hard work, and at the'end of two
weeks he is nearly fagged—that is the condition you and I feel
at the present moment. The case which has called forth this
exercise on our part is a very important one to the country,
although the punishment for it, as the accused has mentioned,
is only two years—people may reasonably ask, what is tlie use
of wasting two weeks over a matter of that kind, when men
are sent down for five or six years for stealing an automobile
or wheelbarrow? Why should you worry about a thing that
at most involves imprisonment for two years, and spend so
much time over it? Well, gentlemen, the circumstances of the
case are very unusual, and of wide importance. It is something
that the man accused before you of this seditious libel is a mem-
ber of the Local Legislature, Now it may have appeared to
you that it was by reason of that that I have been permitting
him to sit at the table instead of in the dock where other pris-
oners accused with crimes sit. But you will remember when he
commenced his trial he had a counsel and a great many papers,
and that is why the indulgence was extended to him, not be-
cause he was a member of the Legislature, but in order to facili-
tate him in his defence.m JUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY

Now, remember that be has been accused of writing sedi-
tious articles which are admittedly bis writing, during the
occurrence of a most lamentable strike, wbich was rife in tbe
City of Winnipeg during tbe month of May and early part of
June of last year. You must take note of tbe circumstances/
that occurred before and even after the strike, because tbe crime
that he is accused of depends upon the intention with which he
wrote the libels in question.

The Code lays down what the crime is, including its punish-
ment. Sec. 132 (2)—A seditious libel is a libel expressive of
a seditious intention. Sec. 133 "No one shall be deemed to
have a seditious intention only because be intends in good
faith—

(a)	to show that His Majesty has been misled or mis-
taken in his measures; or

(b)	to point out errors or defects in the government or
constitution of the United Kingdom, or any part of it, or of
Canada or any province thereof, or in either House of Par-
liament of the United Kingdom or of Canada, or in any

. legislature, or in the administration of justice; or to excite
His Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure, by lawful
means^ the alterations of any matter in the state; or

(c)	to point out in order to their removal, matters
which are producing or have a tendency to produce feelings
of hatred and ill-will between different classes of His
Majesty's subjects.

The next section goes on to provide that every one is guilty
of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment
who is found guilty of sedition.

That is the law under which the accused is being tried. The
government of this country has come to the conclusion that
that punishment is far too little, and has changed the law. It
does not affect the case before you, but twenty years is the limit
from now on. Now the accused has conducted his own case,
and I am sure you will agree with me in complimenting him
very highly .on the skill he has shown in conducting it. I do
not think he could have readily found in Winnipeg, a lawyerJUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY 101

who could have done it any better than he has done it for him-
self. In that respect he has lost nothing I am sure in his de-
fence.

In so conducting it, lie has spoken about the meaning of
seditious libel being expressive of a seditious intention. Well,
you have to take into account, gentlemen, when you have a
paper put before you like that, the circumstances under which
it was written. Things do not always mean exactly what they
say; they may be either stronger or weaker in the meaning,
according to the circumstances under which they are written.
I do not know that I could give you any better illustration of
that than is to be found in the case that the accused himself re-
ferred to, Regina vs. Burns et al, 16 Gox C.C. 355. It appeared
that the defendants made speeches at certain meetings in Tra-
falgar Square and that shortly afterwards many persons in the
audiences ran to certain adjoining localities and shop win-
dows were broken and the contents of the shops thrown into
the street. The Crown did not suggest that the defendants
desired the disturbances to take place, or that they directly ex-
cited the crowd to cause these disturbances, otherwise than
that they, the defendants, must have been aware of and were
answerable fqr the natural results of the language they use.
Mr. Justice Cave, in charging the jury, savs this, in the report
of the case in 16 Cox's Criminal Cases, page 359: "The law
upon which the question of what is seditious words and what is
not is to be found stated very clearly in a book by a learned
judge, my brother Stephen, who has undoubtedly a greater
knowledge of the criminal law than any other judge who sits
upon the Bench, and what he said upon the subject of sedi-
tion was submitted to the other learned judges, who some time
back were engaged with him in drafting a criminal code, and
upon their report the commissioners say that his statement of
the law appears to them to be stated accurately as it exists
at present."

This is what Mr. Justice Stephen says: "Everyone com-
mits a misdemeanour who publishes verbally or otherwise in
words or any document with a seditious intention. If the
matter so published consists of words spoken the offence is
called the speaking of seditious words. If the matter so pub-
lished is contained in anything capable of being libel the of-
fence is called the publication of a seditious libel. A seditious
intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt, orlftB JUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY

to excite disaffection against the person of Her Majesty, her
heirs or successors, or the government and constitution of the
United Kingdom, as by law established, or either House of
Parliament, or the administration of justice, or to excite
Her Majesty's subjects to attempt otherwise than by law-
ful means the alteration of any matter in Church or
State by law established, or to raise discontent or dis-
affection amongst Her Majesty's subjects, or to promote
feelings of ill-will and hostility between classes of such
subjects." Stephen, J., is a judge of very great accuracy*
and for every proposition there laid down there is to be found
undoubted authority. He goes on to point out what sort of
intention is not seditious. It is also important to consider
that, because there we get a light thrown upon the subject from
the other side. "An intention to show that Her Majesty has
been misled or mistaken in her measures, or to point out er-
rors or defects in the government or constitution as by law es-
tablished with a view to their reformation, or to excite Her
Majesty's subjects to attempt by lawful means the alteration
of any matter of Church or State by law established, or to
point out, in order to their removal, matters which are pro-
ducing, or have a tendency to produce, feelings of hatred and
ill-will between classes of Her Majesty's subjects, is not a
seditious intention." So there he gives in these two clauses*
what is and what is not sedition.

Now, gentlemen, from the above statements of the law
you will understand pretty well what the meaning of seditious
libel is. The present case had not proceeded far before the
Crown proposed to put in evidence of a totally different crime
from the one accused is charged with, namely, the crime of
seditious conspiracy, and the Crown alleges that Mr. Dixon
was one of the conspirators, in this conspiracy, and that hav-
ing been so, he was affected and obtained certain knowledge
and acquired certain principles which would be important evi-
dence for you in trying to ascertain whether the language he'
used in June, 1919, was or was not of a seditious character.
Was he really, as he says before you, endeavoring to honestly
criticize things that were wrong and have them set right, or
did he not in reality intend to stir up disaffection, hatred, ill-
will, and so on, among the people of this country? Now, a»
a rule, it is not allowable when a man is being tried for one
crime to give evidence of his complicity in some other crime
not connected with it in order to show that he was a man ofJUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY 103

evil disposition or anything such as that. But it is allowable to
give that evidence where the question is with what intent did
he do the second act, which he is being tried for? Had he an
honest or mistaken opinion of what he was doing, was he acting
honestly or was he acting dishonestly with a seditious intention
behind it? In order to show that, the Crown is at liberty to
give evidence of previous acts, in order to ascertain the intent
with which he did the acts in question. In admitting this ev-
dence, I rely upon the decision in England of Rex. v. Shellaker,
1914, 1 K.B., 414 (pages 417 and 418) and the case of Rex v.
Kelly, 27 M.R, 105, in our own courts.

Now, in regard to conspiracy, I will just tell you what
the crime of conspiracy is, not so much in order to show the
liability of the accused here, but in order to distinguish it in
•a way, because he is not being tried for conspiracy at all.
A conspiracy is an agreeing or combining together by two or
more persons, to accomplish some unlawful purpose, or to ac-
complish a lawful purpose by some unlawful means.

A seditious conspiracy is an agreement between two or
more persons to carry into execution a seditious intention.
(See Code, sec. 132.)

To prove conspiracy, there need not be evidence of direct
concert, nor even of any meeting together of the defendants;
the agreement may be inferred from collateral acts raising
& presumption of the common design. (See Phipson, Law of
Evidence, 5th ed., at p. 79.)

This statement is of importance in Mr. Dixon's case be-
cause he argues that the Crown has not produced any letters
to or from him in reference to this conspiracy. That is not
necessary; his connection with it may be inferred from colla-
teral acts raising the presumption of a common design.

What was the conspiracy alleged against the accused?
I must speak very plainly to you on this subject, notwithstand-
ing that there are men upstairs being tried for this very con-
spiracy. Fortunately, the juries do not have access to one
another—they do not know what is transpiring here, nor do
you know what is transpiring there.104 JUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY

According to the evidence laid before the court here I
have to deal with this case. I am not going to take/much time
over that, because the evidence has been so clearly and fairly
summed up by counsel for the Crown that I think it would be
a waste of time to go over all these circumstances again. The
evidence is uncontradicted; there is nothing against it; and
it clearly shows, to my mind, the creation of the most infamous
conspiracy I have ever heard of in Canada. That is my opinion
about it. It was conceived down in Quebec by some of those
men whose names you will probably remember, although it
is several days ago that the matter came up. The eastern
members of that labor conference at Quebec did not like a
certain radical resolution, and the attitude of the men who
came from the west down there, so these western labor lead-
ers and delegates put their heads together to formulate a
scheme of their own, and they determined to have a labor con-
ference out in Calgary.

Now, before that conference took place there was a meet-
ing held here at the Walker Theatre, Winnipeg. You will prob-
ably remember the evidence given in regard to that meeting.
Amongst the people present at that meeting were the accused
Dixon, Ivens, George Armstrong, R. B. Russell, and Sam Blum-
enberg. Dixon, if I remember rightly, seconded the resolu-
tion with regard to the release of political prisoners. The
first resolution was aimed at abolishing orders-in-council
Now, gentlemen, at the time we had only emerged from the
war—the Armistice was only just signed—-the war was not
in any definite sense over, not legally, a great deal remained
still to be done, and peace had not been signed, but the Ar-
mistice was granted pn the 11th November, 1918. Now, this
meeting was held on the 22nd December, at the Walker Th^i-
tre, and those gentlemen whose names I have given you, in-
cluding the accused, met together on the public platform and
demanded the cancellation of all orders-in-council, the release
of political prisoners, and the withdrawal of all troops from
Russia. Some of these orders-in-council related, as you will
remember in the evidence, to the circulation of objectionable
literature. A lot of that literature has been laid before vqp,
and I am sure you will agree with me and with the govern-
ment—if I may say so respectfully—in coming to the conclu-
sion that it was of a villainously objectionable character. They
say, aWhv cannot we disseminate any literature we like, no
matter what, even though it does show that almost everybodyJUDGE (/ALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY

105

who has not got a pick and shovel in his hand is a thief and
robber or profiteer?" Some evidence before you goes that^ar.

This man Dixon was on the platform at that time. He
heard those resolutions put and approved of them too. He does
not pretend that there was any objection raised; these resolu-
tions were carried unanimously.

Now, on the face of them, they were not so seditious as
the real meaning behind them subsequently showed them to
be. We have the proceedings of the conference before us; they
have been disclosed to you, and I should be very much surprised
if you did not come to the same conclusion I have expressed,
that they expressed on the face of them the most infamous
conspiracy that can very well be imagined. Look what they
were aiming at doing. Here are some of them. I will give
them as I have them in my memorandum. They were to have
a six hour day—most of us have to work a good deal longer
than that. That is not very seditious in itself. Secondly, the
Calgary conference decided to call a general strike on the 1st
of June to carry out their intentions to subvert the govern-
ment of this country and take over .all the industries in it,
They passed another resolution, Resolution No. 3 in my notes,
approving of a Soviet government. Fourth, they were in full
accord with Russian Bolshevism. Fifth, aim at acquiring all
industries and profits. Sixth, to adopt the principles of the
O.B.U.

Now, gentlemen, is it possible to speak of these resolu-
tions otherwise than as an infamous conspiracy? And every
man who took an active part in that meeting in Calgary de-
serves to be behind the bars and kept there for much longer
than two years.

Well, they decided to call a general strike for the 1st of
June. I should tell you that they adopted all tbre& of the
resolutions that were passed at the Walker Theatre on De-
cember 22nd, one of which was seconded by the accused. But
it transpired that the 1st of June might be too late; and an
event had occurred to assist them in their seditious conspir-
acy. A strike had ^ broken out here in the metal trades and
building trades, and the thought occurred to these men, if
we have a* general strike on the 1st of June, we may get into106 JUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY

trouble over it; for there is no reason for it. We can attain
the same end by having a sympathetic strike along with these
men in Winnipeg who have gone out.

A little after the conference was over they sent a man
named Joe Knight down here to carry on their scheme. He
came to Winnipeg and made all necessary arrangements to
call a sympathetic strike to support the men who were already
out in Winnipeg.

Now, when the Calgary conference was dealing with the
question of calling a general strike in June, there was no talk
about collective bargaining, nor any complaint about wages.
But all of a sudden it was discovered that nearly all of the
unions in this vicinity were greatly oppressed because they
could not get collective bargaining or a living wage.- Nobody
had been complaining. Lots of them did not understand what
collective bargaining meant, but it was foisted upon the unions
of Winnipeg that they had grievances, and that the men out
on strike should be supported. Well, that is what actually
happened. They were called out in sympathy with those men
who were complaining about collective bargaining.

Now, gentlemen, at this stage I think I must tell you some-
thing of the law regarding strikes, as to their legality or ille-
gality, because there seems to be considerable misapprehen-
sion upon the subject.

At common law all strikes w^re considered illegal because
the purposes of a trade union were in restraint of trade. (S§e
Hilton vs. Eckersley, 6 E. & B. 47, and Reg. vs. Druitt, 10 Cox
C.C., 592.)

The law was altered by the Trade Union Act (1871), which
provided amongst other things :

"2. The purpose of any trade union shall not, by rea-
son merely that they were in restraint of trade, be deemed to
be unlawful, so as to render any member of such trade union
liable to criminal prosecution for conspiracy or otherwise.

"3. The purposes of any trade union shall not, by rea-
son merely that they are in restraint of trade, be unlawful,
so as to render void or voidable any agreement or trust."JUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY 107

The law w$s further altered by the Conspiracy and Pro-
tection of Property Act (1875), which contains the following
provisions:

"3. An agreement or combination by two or more per-
sons to do or to procure to be done any act in contempla-
tion or furtherance of a trade dispute between employers
and workmen shall not be indictable as a conspiracy if such
act committed by one person would not be punishable as a
crime.

"Nothing in this section shall exempt from punishment
any persons guilty of a conspiracy for which a punishment
is awarded by any Act of Parliament.

Nothing in this section shall affect the law relating to
riot, unlawful assembly, breach of the peace, or sedition, or
any offence against the State or the Sovereign."

Section 4 provides a penalty and imprisonment in the case
of any person employed by a municipal authority or by any
company or contractor upon whom is imposed by Act of Par-
liament the duty, or who have otherwise assumed the duty of
supplying any city, town or place with gas or water, if such
person wilfully and maliciously breaks his contract of service
vWith such company, etc., either alone or in combination with
others.

Section 5: "Where any person wilfully and maliciously
breaks a contract of service or of hiring, knowing or having
reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequences of
his so doing, either alone or in combination with others, will
be to endanger human life, or cause serious bodily injury, he
shall, on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdic-
tion, or on indictment as hereinafter mentioned, be liable either
to pay a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, or to be im-
prisoned for a term not exceeding three months, with or with-
out hard labor."

This Act of 1875 also contains the following provision :

Section 7: "Every person who, with a view to compel any
other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such
other person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing,
wrongfully and without legal authority,108 JUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY

1.	Uses violence to or intimidates such other person
or his wife or children, or injures his property; or

2.	Persistently follows such other person about from
place to place; or

3.	Hides any tools, clothes, or other property owned or
used by such other person, or deprives him of br hinders
him in the use thereof; or

4.	Watches or besets the house or other place where
such person resides, or works, or carries on business, or
happens to be, or the approach to such house or place; or

5.	Follows such person with two or more other persons
in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road,
shall, on conviction thereof by a court of summary juris-
diction, or an indictment as hereinafter mentioned, be
liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds,
or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding* three months,
with or without hard labor.

Attending at or near the house or place where a person
resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be,
or the approach to such house or place, in order merely to
obtain or communicate information, shall not be deemed
a watching or besetting within the meaning of this section.

The laws of England were introduced into Manitoba on
July 15th, 1870, but the above provisions of the English law
have all substantially been introduced into Canada and now
form part of the Criminal Code - (See sees. 496, 497, 498, 499,
501 and 590.)

The effect of the above Acts of 1871 and 1§75 was care-
fully considered by the Court of Appeal in England in Lyons
vs. Wilkins, 1896, 1 Ch. 811. There the defendants, officers of
a trade union, ordered a strike against the plaintiff manufac-
turers, and also against S., a person who made go(Ms for the
plaintiff only; and their pickets by direction watched and be-
set the works of the plaintiffs and of S., for the purpose of per-
suading workpeople to abstain from working for the plaintiffs

The Court of Appeal (affirming the decision of North, J.),
held that this kind of picketing and the strike against S. fo^JUDGE G ALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY , 109

the indirect purpose of injuring the plaintiffs, were illegal acts,
and they granted an interlocutory injunction to restrain the
defendants and their agents from watching or besetting the
plaintiffs' works for the purpose of persuading or otherwise pre-
venting persons from working for him, or for any purpose ex-
cept merely to obtain or communicate information; and also
to restrain the defendants from preventing S. or any other
person from working for the plaintiff by withdrawing his or
their workmen from their employment.

Lord Justice Lindley says at page 822 : "Strikes and trades
-unions which were formerly considered illegal have now been*
legalized—at all events, so far as the doctrines as to restraint
of trade are concerned—and a strike can be conducted up to>
a certain point with perfect legality. Persons cannot only de-
cline individually to work for a master except upon terms
which the workmen desire to obtain; but they may combine to
do that. They can combine to leave him; they can strike un-
less he will raise the wages up to what they desire, and trade
unions which assist them in withdrawing their own labor and
declining to work, and which assist thfem in supporting them-
selves during the strike, can legally do so. Then arises a dif-
ficulty, which is as well known to those who conduct trade
unions as it is to the masters, and to all persons who have
experience in these disputes, and it may be put thus: 'If that
is all that we can do, we may be defeated by the masters mak-
ing arrangements with other people who may be willing to
work for'them either by taking the work home, or by working
for less wages than we think is right, and unless we can stop
that our strike may be ineffective.'"

Then comes the struggle.

Now, Parliament has not yet conferred upon trade unions
the power to coerce people, and to prevent them from working
for whomsoever they like upon any terms that they like; and
yet in the absence of such a power it is obvious that a strike
may not be elective, and may not answer its purposes. Some
strikes are perfectly effective by virtue of the mere strike, and
other strikes were not effective unless the next step can be taken,
and unless other people can be prevented from taking the place
of the strikers. That is the pin<?h of the case in trade dis-
putes; and unless Parliament confers on trade unions the110 JUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY

power of saying to other people: "You shall not work for those
who are desirous of employing yon upon such terms as you and
they may mutually agree upon," trade unions exceed their
power when they try to compel people not to work on the
terms fixed by the unions. I need hardly say that up to the
present moment no such power as that exists. By the law of this
country no one has ever and no set of people have ever had
that right or that power. If Parliament chooses to confer it
on trade unions it will do so as and when it thinks proper,
and subject to such limitation as it thinks proper; but it is
idle to pretend not to see that this struggle exists. Trade
unions have now been recognized up to a certain point as or-
gans for good. They are the only means by Which workmen
can protect themselves from tyranny on the part of those who
employ them; but the moment that trade unions become tyrants
in their turn, they are engines for evil: they have no' right to
prevent any man from working upon such terms as he chooses,"

Lord Justice Bay says at page 828: "What has been done
is this: Messrs. Lyons & Co. were giving wages which the
Leather Trades Union thought were in some instances top
small. Thereupon the trade union give Messrs. Lyons & Co.
notice that they object to these wages, and that they shall call
out the workmen and induce a strike if these wages are not
altered. Messrs. Lyons & Co., abiding by their "particular
course of business, refuse to raise the wages, and a strike is
resolved upon, and this trade union does all in its power to
encourage and carry out and make effective the struggle. Be-
fore the Acts of 1871 and 1875 the strike itself would have been
illegal. The combination of a number of persons to induce and
encourage and bring about a strike would also have been an
illegal act. But s. 3 of the Act of 1875, which Lindley, L. J.,
has just read, rendered legal an 'agreement or combination by
two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in
contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between em-
ployers and workmen,' and provided that it should not be
indictable as a conspiracy 'if such act committed by one per-
son would not be punishable as a crime.' There it appears that
strikers are legalized by Act of Parliament, and that one person
would not be indictable for a crime by endeavoring to encour-
age or bring about that which in itself is not illegal, namely,
a strike. Therefore a combination of two or more persons to
do this would come exactly within the words of the 3rd sectionJUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY 111

of the Act, and would not, since this Act of Parliament, be
offence against the law.

But then it does not go further than that. At present the
Legislature has simply legalized strikes, and a strike is an
agreement between persons who are working for a particular
employer not to continue working for him. Also, I take it
that under the terms of the section which I have read it is
not illegal for a trade union to promote that strike. But fur-
ther than that the law has not gone."

The Lord Justice proceeds next to deal with the defend-
ants' acts in calling out the employees of one Schoenthal, who
carried on work at his own place of business and did a certain
amount of work for tie plaintiffs. "He employed workmen
under him separately; and this trade union intimated to him
that. if he went on working for the plaintiffs that they would
call out his workmen—not because there was any quarrel be-
tween him and them, not because they objected to the wages
he was giving them, not in order to make a strike of the work-
men for the sake of the workmen as between them and their
employer—but for the express and direct purpose of preventing
Schoenthal from working for Messrs. Lyons & Co. and putting
in this manner additional pressure upon Lyons & Co., so as
to induce them to come to the terms which they wished to es-
tablish between Messrs. Lyons & Co. and the workmen of
Messrs. Lyon & Co.

"Now, are those acts illegal? It seems to me that one
has only to look at the Act of Parliament to see that it is quite
impossible to maintain the legality of either of those acts. I
hold distinctly that it is illegal to picket the works or place
of business of a man t>y persons who are distributed and placed
for the purpose of trying by persuasion to induce the work-
men of that man not to work for him any longer, or to induce
people Who want to work for him to abstain from entering
into an agreement with him to do so. That seems to me to
be illegal; and still more clearly is it illegal -to induce a man
to prevent a man in the position %of Schoenthal from working
for the paintiff by calling out the workmen of that man, and
inducing them not to work for him, that being done for the
purpose of putting pressure both upon Schoenthal and upon
Messrs. Lyons & Co. by preventing Schoenthal from working112 JUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY

for Messrs. Lyons. I cannot real s. 7 without seeing dis-
tinctly that those things are not permissible by this Act of
Parliament, and no Act of Parliament can be referred to which
makes them lawful."

The case subsequently went to trial, and judgment was
given in favor of-the plaintiffs, and was affirmed by the Court
of Appeal (1899 1 ch. 255).

The calling out of SclioenthaPs employees was, to all in-
tents and purposes, a sympathetic strike, and was pronounced
to be illegal.

Section 3 of the Conspiracy Act, 1875, is the section re-
ferred to by the judges in Lyons vs. "VW-lkins, as the provision
which legalized strikes. The section contains the following
additional words: "Nothing in this section shall exempt from
punishment any persons guilty of a conspiracy for which a
punishment is awarded by an Act of Parliament."

Section 590 of -the Code is thus expressed:

"No prosecution shall be maintainable against any per-
son for conspiracy in refusing to work with or for any em-
ployer or workman, or for doing any act or causing any act
to be done for the purpose of a trade combination unless such
act is an offence punshable by statute."

I think that section 590 of our Code is substantially the
same in effect as section 3 of the English Conspiracy Act of
1875, and should receive the same interpretation. But it is
clear from the judgments in Lyons vs. Wilkins that from 1875
up to 1899 strikes in England might be legal or illegal, ac-
cording to the circumstances, and that anything in the nature
of a sympathetic strike was wholly illegal.

We also have authority in Canada in interpreting the lan-
guage of section 590. The expression, a "trade combination,"
mentioned in the section, is defined in section 2 of the Code
as "(38) 'trade combination means any combination between
masters or workmen or other persons for regulating or alter-
ing the relations between any persons being masters of work-
men, or the conduct of any master or workman in or in respectJUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY

of his business or employment, or contract or employment or
service."

In Reg. vs. Gibson, 16 O. R. 704, the evidence showed that
the defendants, members of a trade union, had conspired to
injure a non-unionist workman by depriving him of his em-
ployment.

Chief Justice Armour, at page 712, after quoting the above
definition and the clause now known as section 590 of the Code,
says: "Now, what is meant by 'the purposes of a trade com-
bination' in the second branch of this section? Clearly the
purposes defined in the first branch of the section, namely,
the regulating or altering the relations between any persons
being masters and workmen, or the conduct of any master or
workman, in or in respect of his business or employment, or
contract or employment or service.

"The members of this union were a combination of work-
men, and as such they had the right under the first branch of
this section to regulate or alter the relation between themselves
as workmen or the conduct of any one of themselves as such
workmen, in or in respect of his business or employment, or
contract of employment or service.

"But what these defendants and other members of this
union present at the meeting referred to conspired to do was
not within any of the purposes of their combination permitted
by law, nor was it even within the purposes of their constitu-
tion and rules.....

"The authorities leave me no room to doubt that the de-
fendants in conspiring as they did to injure Buscombe by de-
priving him of his employment were guilty of an indictable
misdemeanour, and I am clear that what they thus conspired
to do was not for the purposes of their trade combination with-
in the meaning of the statute."

According to the definition given by Lord Justice Kay.,
"a strike is an agreement between persons who are working for
& particular employer not to continue working for him."

That is the kind of strike, and the only kind, which was
legalizedvby the Acts of 1871 and 1875 in England. The law114 JUDGE GILT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY

mow in force in Canada is the same as it was in England under
those Acts.

But a strike, the purposes of which involved such crim-
inal offences as are set forth in sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Act
•f 1875 in England, and which now form part of our Criminal
Code, was an illegal strike in England, and is illegal in Canada
today.

The so-called sympathetic strike of last May and June in
Winnipeg and other cities in the west involved every'offence
which the Code prohibits in section 496, 498, 499, 501 and 59p;
consequently the strike was wholly illegal.

Now, gentlemen, these are the provisions which are neces-
sary to call your attention to in going on with the history of
what I call this infamous conspiracy that has been proved
by undisputed evidence. * The strike was called on the 14th
May, for the following day. The strike was an illegal strike
from the very start. Most of the people who joined in it were
simply dragged into it. Those men who knew what had taken
place in Calgary, knew perfectly well that the workers in this
town and the various industries we have had before us in evi-
dence, were not complaining at all, but they were ordered
out; they had to come out; at least, they thought they had.
I do not know how this one extreme limit was given—in one
instance where there was a union composed of 400 men. The
vote came on and only 80 of the members voted, 20 voted
against the strike and the other 60 in favor of the strike, yet
these 340 men who did not express any desire for a strike and
did not want one at all were compelled to go out by the vote
of those 60. Now, I do not doubt that that is not an exceptional
case. I wonder how many of the men of Winnipeg, decent,
honest men, working day after day, realized when they went
out on strike that they were not really summoned out in sys-
pathy with these other people at all, that they were ordered
out on strike by reason of the conspiracy hatched at Calgary,
♦weeks and weeks before, in which no question of collective
bargaining had been raised. Do you think they would have
come out on strike here if they had known that? I have far
too much confidence in the good sense and loyalty of the people
#f this town to imagine that tfen per cent, of these thirty-five
thousand men who are said to have come out ever would haveJUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY f 115

tome out if they had known the truth in relation to the facts
that have been brought before you.

Now, we have had some evidence as to how these strikes
are called, and of how some of the labor leaders regard the
men who are honestly working in their unions. One of them
spoke of the workmen as a lot of damn fools that did not know
what they were doing, and another spoke of them as suckers.
I wonder if the workers of this country realized what a posi-
tion they placed themselves in under the domination of men
of that type. They are addressed on the platform as though
they were a lot of ill-used men. They are spoken of as slaves.
Well, it must have occurred to you, gentlemen, as it has to me,
that in a very real sense of the word they have shown them-
selves to be slaves; but who are their masters? Not their em-
ployers. They had not complained to their employers. There
was not any complaint about wages or conditions of service,
hut the true slave driver was the labor leader who cracked the
whip and ordered them out on strike when they bad not a
single complaint. That is what happened in this strike. 1 do
not think anybody who realizes this state of affairs would find
fault in terming that conspiracy at Calgary a most infamous
conspiracy. Now, what connection at all had the accused, Mr.
Dixon with that? As I said before, he is not being tried for
conspiracy. He is being tried for writing three articles which
may or may not, according to the view you take of them, be
considered as seditious libel.

It is quite possible that a man of not very refined
tastes, still knowing how to write a little, might have written
these articles with a sort of honest desire to clear things up;
but Mr. Dixon has shown himself before you to be a man of
much higher attainments than ordinarily. He is able to quote
to you from Milton and the Bible and various documents, show-
ing that he is a student and a well educated man. The articles
do not do him much credit in that respect, judged from the
rough and ready style in which they are written and the ex-
pressions he has used in that "Bloody Saturday" article. Men
who want to really improve conditions in their neighborhood
do not write that way. He chose to write that way to please
men who were calling the workers suckers and damn fools
and riff raff, and that sort of thing, and so I suppose he
thought he was justified in doing this. But with what inten-
tion did he write them? A man might write like that and116 JUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO TflE JUEY

have on honest intention at the time, and not a seditious
one; on the other hand, the words he used were quite capable
of bearing ti seditious meaning, and it is for you to judge
whether they do or not. It is for you to say whether they were
calculated to stir up hatred and disaffection, and possibly in-
surrection, in this town, if people felt themselves to be down
trodden, if the authorities would send a lot of murderous police
into their midst and shoot them down in the way the article
puts it.

As to Mr. Dixon's connection with the conspiracy, you
have some evidence of and it is very strong—he was present
almost at its birth. It was born in Quebec, but the three reso-
lutions were passed here at the Walker Theatre, and Mr. Dixdn
was the seconder of one of these resolutions.

What would likely be the nature of a man like that, hav-
ing got on the platform with such men as Ivens, George Arm-
strong, R. B. Russell and Sam Blumenberg, every one of them
proved here before you, to be seditious?

Was Dixon likely or not to keep his eye on the resolutions
and see whether anything would come of them? He was hand
and glove with the men who were conspirators. JVell, we have
not much evidence between December and March, when the
Calgary conference took place. I am not sure whether there
were any meetings; I think perhaps there were, but when the
Calgary convention was over (at which Mr. Dixon did not at-
tend), all the proceedings that had been taken down were pub-
lished verbatim, published here in Winnipeg, and it is said
that 20,000 copies of them were distributed. Now, Mr. Dixon,
in his address to you this morning, admitted there was no se-
crecy about the Calgary convention. Twenty thousand copies
were published, so that it is reasonable to suppose that he made
himself thoroughly acquainted with all that had taken place
at Calgary. If so, what is the inference from that? No matter
how loyal a citizen he might be at the start, what about those
men at Calgary? They were going to upset all our industries
and take them over and have a Soviet government worked on
Bolshevik likes or O.B.U. lines, and all the rest of it Did }ie
realize that, and if so did he complain of it? Did he take tfye
stand that every honest man is bound to take if he hears and
knows of a conspiracy, and communicate with the authorities
to have the criminals brought to justice? What 4oes he do?JUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY

117

Dixon, Russell, Ivens, and Robinson all appear at a meeting,
quite friendly with those Jellows, where it is said that there
was a bigger thing to come—the big thing is said to be a Soviet
government, and crush all industry. Then, on the 15th May,
the strike took place. On the 16th of May Dixon went down
and addressed the telephone girls. What would you expect
from a man trying to preserve peace and order and make things
right? Would he not naturally say: "Well, what is the matter
with you? Are yotfc not satisfied with your wages?" Oh, no!
He goes down and urges them to keep up if they had al-
ready joined, and if not to join—to join this illegal strike. He
goes down and urges them personally to do that.

Then again, on the 26th May, he goes down to a meeting
with this man Ivens, this sanctimonious preacher—it makes
your blood boil when you hear what this man did—going down
to a so-called labor church and offering a prayer to the Al-
mighty and then starting in to create nothing but hatred and
discord and animosity between the people who surround him.
It is an awful thing to think a man would do that. Of course,
a man is not to be held responsible for the opinions expressed
by all his friends, but Ivens was not too bad a man for Dixon
to associate with, and so he goes down on the 26th of May.

Then, on the 1st of June, Dixon goes with Ivens and Clan-
cey to another meeting. Is he wholly ignorant of what is going '
on? Is he still under the same impression that nothing but
law and order is to be observed, and all the rest of it ? Does
not he know by this time what the conspirators at Calgary
had in view? Is it possible that he knew but did not agree with
them? That is for you to say, gentlemen, not for me; it is for
you to say what you think.

On the 6th June Ivens, Bray, Queen and Dixon again. He
has not shaken them off yet—Woodsworth, Dixon an<J Rob-
inson.

Now, gentlemen, you have to use your common sen^e when
dealing with a case of this kind, and no matter what construc-
tion is placed before you in the matter, you must use your
common sense, and say here is the man who comes forward
with so much skill and ability and cleverness; is he really the
kind of man he would have us believe? If so, what does118 JUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY

lie mean by associating with fellows of this kind on the plat-
form and advocating ideas with the end in view which Khe
Calgary conference had? The most I can say in respect of that
is that it is possible, but I can hardly say even that.

Now, with regard to the rights of the men that belonged
to unions and all the men who did not belong to unions, I would
like to tell you what the position is, for you have to take these
things to a certain extent into account in judging of the state
of affairs regarding this strike. I am now referring to a case
decided by Baron Bramwell, Regina vs. Druitt, reported in 10
Cox's Criminal Cases (pages 600 and 601).

Now, this is what Baron Bramwell says: "Having made
these general remarks, he would mate another, which was also
familiar to all Englishmen—namely, that there was no right
in this country under our laws so sacred as the right of per-
sonal liberty. No right of property or capital, about which
there had been so much declamation, was so sacred or so care-
fully guarded by the law of this land as that of personal liberty.
They were quite aware of the pains taken by the common law,
by the writ, as it was called, of habeas corpus? and supplement-
ed by statute, to secure to every man his personal freedom—■
that he should not be put in prison without lawful cause, and
that if he was he should be brought before a competent magis-
trate within a given time and be set at liberty or undergo pun-
ishment. But that liberty was not liberty of the body only.
It was also a liberty of the mind and will, and the liberty of
a man's mind and will, to say how he should bestow himself
and his means, his talents and his |ndustry, was as much a sub-
ject of the law's protection as was that of his body. Generally
speaking, the way in which people had endeavored to control
the operation of the minds of men was by putting restraint on
their bodies, and therefore we had not so many instances in
which the liberty of the mind was vindicated as was that of the
body. Still, if any set of men agreed among themselves to
coerce that liberty of mind and thought by compulsion and re-
straint, they would be guilty of a criminal offence, namely, that
of conspiring against the liberty of mind and freedom of will
of those towards whom they so conducted themselves. He was
referring to coercion or compulsion—something that was un-
pleasant and annoying to the mind operated upon; and he laid
it down as clear and undoubted law that if two or more per-JUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY fi 119

sons agreed that they would by such means co-operate together
against that liberty they would be guilty of an indictable
•ffeace."

Now, gentlemen, that is the law of Canada today. No one
had a right, if you have somebody coming to work for you—
nobody has a right to interfere with you. If a man is engaged
in some industry here, if he is called a scab, the chances are it
will lead to a breach of the peace. Why should not a man be at
liberty to dispose of his labor as he sees fit? People who go
into these unions are overridden by the people who manage
these unions and their affairs, very much against their own
will.

Under the law of the land; no trade union has a right to
say to you, "Don't you go to work—we will not allow you,"
and if you do call you a scab. People willing to go to work are
freely allowed to do so, but in the late strike there were 35,000
people on strike; numbers of whom were quite willing to work.
That is the state of affairs brought on by that conspiracy hatch-
ed in Quebec and the Walker Theatre and consummated iii Cal-
gary. Did the accused Dixon know about that? The strike
seemed to be going rather against the unions at the time he
wrote these letters; was it the intention to incite them to fur-
ther unlawful acts? All their acts up to that time had beerf
unlawful; they had no right to cut off the bread and milk from
the people of this town or stop the postal authorities or call out
the policemen; they had no right to do any of these things.
Their whole conduct was illegal from beginning to end. At that
particular time this man Dixon writes these articles. Did he do
so with the honest intent of calling attention to certain abuses
oi the government or was he intending to stir up those mis-
guided men who were out on strike and perpetuate the hatred
and ill-will that had been already raised amongst the citizens?.
Was that his intention ? I do not know there is anything else
I need point out to you, except jthis—in all these matters the law
leans on the side of the accused. If you have any real
doubt in your mind as to his intention it will be your duty
to give him the benefit of the doubt. If, on the other hand, you
are quite satisfied that these articles were written with the in-
tention of furthering the conspiracy that had already occurred,
and taking part in that and helping those men who were carry-
ing it out, you cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that his
iatentioft was a seditious one; if so, you will not hevsitate to120 JUDGE . GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY

find him guilty. It is a lamentable state of affairs that we
have a case of a member of our local legislature on trial, but our
law calls for no distinction of that kind; we have got to obey
the laws of this country, and if we do not we have gfot to suffer
for them, no matter who we are.

Consider the circumstances carefully; take with you what
papers and books you like and weigh carefullyv if you have
not already pretty well made up your minds one way or the
other, and if you have any reasonable doubt, it has got to be
a really substantial doubt, not an imaginary one, you must
give the accused the benefit of it.

You cannX)t fail to bear in mind the circumstances to
which I have drawn your attention, or the horrors imposed
upon this city, and from which we were only saved by the
pluck and courage and self-denial of the citizens who did not
belong to the unions. Now you will retirfc and consider your
verdict.

4.50 p.m. The jury having retired,

Mr. Phillipps: My lord, may I call your lordship's atten-
tion to one statement made by your lordship in reference to the
taking of a certain vote and the method by wliich it was taken?
I think your lordship remembers you said there were 140 votes
and 60 one way and 80 the other.

The Court: Eighty votes; 20 against $hd 60 for.

Mr. Phitiipps: The point I wish to bring to your lordship's
attention was this: I think your lordship indicated to the jury
that that had reference to the strike vote, whereas perhaps
your lordship may have overlooked the fact it was given so
stated at the Calgary conference, and was then expressed as
an illustration of ,what had taken place on some previous oc-
casion.

The Court: Yes; I intended it only as an illustration.

Mr. Phillips: I rather thought the jury might have taken
that as the particular method in regard to the strike vote here.JUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY 121

The Court: That is what I understood. That did not occur.
I only gave it as an illustration.

Mr. Phillipps: There is one matter I should like jour lord-
ship to instruct the jury on, and that is that the libel must
either itself express seditious intention or thatt the jury should
consider whether it is calculated to have the effect of inciting
class against class, or any one of the several conditions that go
to make up sedition.

The Court: I thought I put that pretty clearly.

Mr. Phillipps: My learned colleagues with me thought you
did not put that to the jury that they should consider whether
the articles, the individual three articles, and if so each and any
dr all of them were calculated to induce or excite any one of
these things which go to make up or had a tendency to produce
any one of these factors which go to \ make up sedition.
If your lordship so instructs the jury I would like to
mention to your lordship that you mentioned to the jury
that very .little took place after the Walker Theatre meeting
until the Calgarj^ conference in March, whereas there'is in evi-
dence the minutes of the Trades and Labor Council in Robin-
son's handwriting a determination to call a general strike for
three specific things, and that was before the Calgary confer-
ence and after the Walker Theatre meeting, and is so express-
ed, and the fact that that was known as exhibited in the letter
of January 22 or 25 that was written by Russell.

The Court: Yes, but was Dixon at that meeting?

Mr. Phillipps: No; lie had been at the Walker Theatre
meetingsjny lord, and the Trades and Labor Council had them-
selves passed that resolution favoring a general strike for the
three same resolutions passed at the Walker Theatre.

The Court: The first thing was the illustration of the union
of 400.

Mr. Phillipps: Yes, that was, my lord, mentioned as an
illustration.

The Court: Yes, the second.122 JUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY

Mr. Phillipps: The second was that the libels may either
express an intention in themselves or they m$y be calculated
to have them effected to have any one of the several seditious
effects.

The Court: I do not think I told them that according t©
the circumstances under which and with the knowledge that
the writer had.

Mr. Phillipps: What I had more in mind, my lord, was
this—a man may read an article and really, after all, from ©ne
aspect it is immaterial whether it is the intent at all if the ar-
ticle itself is calculated to produce an effect, even if it had n®
tendency which the jury will say have a tendency, then he may
be found guilty. They have to consider these three estimates.
Then the last matter I wanted your lordship to direct the jury's
attention to—there were three meetings at the Walker Theatre.
Your lordship instructed that nothing of any particular mo-
ment took place until the Calgary conference. I would re-
spectfully ask your lordship to direct the jury's attention to
the fact that there is evidence that the Trades and Labor Coun-
cil of Winnipeg, when instructing the delegates to the Calgary
eonvention, instructed them in respect of the same three reso-
lutions, and there is evidence from which may be drawn the
inference that the accused was present on that occasion; al-
though mentioned by name Dixon, and not by initial.

The Court: Well, does that carry it any further than the
very same three resolutions coming up at Calgary?

Mr. Phillipps: Well, my lord, I just mentioned-

The Court: Unless Dixon was there.

Mr. Phillipps: The accused stated to the jury that he was
there, and spoke at the Industrial Bureau.

The Court: At that very meeting?

Mr. Phillipps: That was the only occasion that has bee*
referred to in the evidence; that is in these minutes, and that
was the occasion when the delegates were instructed t© atte»iJUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY 128

the Calgary conference and were instructed to support at the
Calgary conference the same resolutions.

Mr. Dixon: My lord, if they find I was not a member of
the conspiracy, then they will not draw the inference of intent
from all the evidence in regard to the conspiracy.

The Court: Yes, I will go further in your favor than that;
I will tell them that even if you were a member merely for the
purpose of showing your intent on this other occasion that you
would not be bound by things that went on behind your back
like an ordinary conspirator would. What was the particular
thing I spoke of?

Mr. Dixon: The particular question was if the jury found
I was a member of the conspiracy will you ask them not to
draw any inference of intent from all the evidence of conspir-
acy, and the matter Mr. Phillipps referred to about the Trades
and Labor Council instructing the delegates. It is true I ad-
mitted I was present; I am not sure I was at that meeting to
discuss the Industrial Commission Bill, but there is no evi-
dence to show I was present when these delegates were in-
structed, and no evidence to show I was a member of the Trades-
and Labor Council.

5.03—Jury recalled to court room.

The Court: Gentlemen of the jury, there are one or two
matters I have been asked to clear up to you that I may have
made a mistake in or omitted. One was, Mr. Phillipps points
out, I told you a case of one union of 400 w^iere only 80 voted—
20 for and 60 against striking. That was not an actual case
of the strike here. It was only an illustration given from an-
other part of the evidence given at Calgary in the discussions
up there. It was not a case of any particular union here. The
thing may have occurred; in fact, we have the evidence of a
vast number—I think 800 unions—but a very small percentage
of them actually voted in connection with the strike—a very
small minority. So there may have been some other cases like
that. I only gave it by way of illustration. Then, with regard
to the expression of intention in the article itself. Of coiirse,
if an article plainly and on the face of it expresses a seditious
iateation, there is no trouble at all about it, but it may very124 JUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JUBY

well be that an article may be highly seditious under the cir-
cumstances in which it was written or at the time, and you
would be justified in finding it was a seditious libel. It is not
necessary for it to appear absolutely on the face of it, as Mr.
Dixon is trying to show you.

Then I was asked also, after the meeting at the Walker
Theatre, nothing else occurred that Mr. Dixon was involved in
until the Calgary convention; well, that is not quite so, because
it turns out, you will remember, there was a meeting of the
Trades and Labor Council before the Calgary convention, when
the delegates were instructed as to their duties in going to
Calgary, and it was admitted by Mr. Dixon this morning to
you that he was present—that he was the Dixon, and he went
there for the purpose of either discussing the Industrial Com-
mission ; it was not his business to listen to these instructions.'
Whether or not he heard them does not appear. But he was
present at that meeting for as certain length of time.

Then Dixon asks me himself to tell you that if you find
he was not a member of the conspiracy that you must not draw
inference of his intent from the facts of the conspiracy. Weill,
that is certainly so. If you find he was not a member of that
conspiracy, you should not draw any inference, and not only
should you not do so of things he did not actually \ake part in,
but even if you found he was a member of the conspiracy, I
would ask you and instruct you not to take into account any-
thing done behind his back and without his knowledge unless
you find that he consented to them in some way afterwards.
An ordinary conspirator would be bound, but in this case the
fkcts relating to conspiracy have only been received in evidence
in order to show the actual intent with which these articles
were written.

Now, you can readily see it would be unfair for a man to
be alfected by the intent to do a certain thing by reason of
something that he never heard of; therefore, it is only the
matters which either Mr. Dixon himself took part in—like these
meetings that he personally attended and information that he
must have got through his connection with the paper and with
its publication, and with the 20,000 copies of the Calgary meet-
ing, and so forth. It is only such things as that that you will be
entitled to look at, and of course his own personal connectionJUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY 125

in supporting the strike, not only at the time oi the strike and
afterwards, but right here in court before you, gentlemen. He
has come and supported it all the way through. All that you
-are entitled to look at. That is all I have to say.

5.10 p.m.—Jury retire,

6.15 p.m.—Court adjourned until 8.30 p.m.

8.30 p.m.—Court resumed.

8.45 p.m.—Jury return and request that they be given until
10 o'clock on Monday morning next, February 16, to further
consider their verdict.

Court adjourned at 8.50 until Monday morning, next at
10 o'clock.

February 16th, 1920.

Court resumed this morning at 10 a.m.

Roll call of jury.

Clerk of the Court: Gentlemen of the Jury, have you agreed
upon your verdict, and if so who shall speak for you?

Foreman of the Jury: We have.

Clerk of the Court: How say you ? Do you find the prisoner
guilty or not guilty on the first charge?

Foreman of the Jury: Not guilty.

Clerk of the Court: How say you on the second cotint?

Foreman of the Jury: Not guilty.

Clerk of the Court: How say you on the third count ?

Foreman of the Jury: Not guilty.

Clerk of the Court: And so say you all ?12S JUDGE GALT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY

l&e Juvj: Yes.

The Court (to the accused) : The jury, you have just heard,,
hare found you not guilty in respect of any of these charges
brought against you, and I congratulate you npon that verdict.
At the same time I would like to warn you for the future
against engaging in such transactions as you have taken part
in—they lend a bad color to a man's actions, and probably led v
to this prosecution. You have shown by your demeanor here,
in court and by your address to the jury that you are a man of
very considerable attainments, high abilities and a good deal
of education. Such a man is likely and ought to be an honor
to his country, and ought to be doing good amongst us.
Whether from ignorance of the true circumstances or not, you
certainly assisted in fomenting what I have found to be, and
more than one judge has found to be, an absolutely illegal and
unjustifiable strike, but in that you may simply have been mis-
taken in your ideas. But, the whole question before
the court was as to whether you had been guilty of a seditious
intent in writing those libels complained of, and you were able,
fortunately, to point to several writings by your own pen which
showed that certainly on other occasions you had recommended
ordinary constitutional action. That is, of course, quite allow*
able and praiseworthy, and any fair criticism of the gov-
ernment is perfectly allowable in this country, and
free speech is, of course, allowable under our constitutional
right, but I do hope that in the future you will cease to &lly
vourself with such men as those conspirators, for I can call
them no less, who took part in the Calgary conference. You
were not there, it is true, and the only connection you could
have had was that you would know of all these proceedings
and approve them. Well, you were not there, and the jury have
accordingly acquitted you. I congratulate you upon it, antl
hope that never again will a man of your attainments, educa-
tion and power in the community come before a court on such
a charge as this. You are discharged.

The Court (to the jurors): Gentlemen of the Jury, you are
discharged also. I congratulate you in getting through such
a lengthy case.

Court then adjourned.This book is a preservation facsimile produced for
the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
It is made in compliance with copyright law
and produced on acid-free archival

60# book weight paper
which meets the requirements of
ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (permanence of paper).

Preservation facsimile printing and binding
by

Northern Micrographics
Brookhaven Bindery
La Crosse, Wisconsin
2014