be
impossible to suppose it in the larger arena of the Dominion
or of its great prototype, the Imperial Parliament. One
explanation of the exercise of it in the small provinces is,
that the lieutenant-governors are, in a manner, officers of
the Dominion Government, and may assume to exercise the veto
in cases where there is a clear infraction of the federal
authority; but this is hardly a sufficient reason in the
face of the fact that the constitution plainly provides for
reserving such legislation for the consideration of the
Dominion Government itself, which should alone consider its
bearing and effect, and disallow it If necessary
under the fundamental law giving them such a power. Here I
may conveniently refer to the fact, that the
Governor-General, in the exercise of his authority as the
head of the Executive in the dominion, has the right to
disallow the acts of any provincial legislature—a power not
given to the President—but it is a power he exercises only
on the advice of his official advisers and not on his own
responsibility. This question of disallowance, I have shown
elsewhere,3 is
one of the subjects which have evoked much discussion since
the adoption of the constitution. It is a power clearly to
be exercised with great discretion, since the acts of
political bodies are always regarded with more or less
suspicion by those whom they affect. It is one of the
features of the Canadian constitution that are viewed with
doubt by many thoughtful statesmen and publicists in Canada,
and there is a growing consensus of opinion that the more
frequently all cases of constitutional difficulty are left
to the courts, the greater will be the harmony and stability
of the whole federal union.
In a brief summary I can, perhaps, best show
the important distinctions between the respective systems of
the government of the two countries. The American Federal
State is governed by the following authorities :—
A President, elected by the people in the
several states for four years, irremovable except by
impeachment, exercising among the most important of his
powers the right to refuse to approve of bills passed by the
two Houses, which can only over-ride his decision by a
majority two-thirds in whose body; having the power to remit
fines, reprieve and pardon for offences against the United
States except in cases of impeachment, and the right to make
treaties and appoint public officials subject to the
ratification and confirmation of the Senate.
A Cabinet popularly so-called, consisting,
strictly speaking, of heads of eight executive departments,
without seats in congress, appointed by and responsible to
the president, and without control over congressional
legislation.
A Congress composed of two Houses—a Senate
and a House of Representatives—called together at fixed
dates under the constitution, but liable to be convened on
extraordinary occasions by the President, not to be
dissolved by the executive. The Senate is elected for six
years, not by the people directly, but by the legislatures
of the states which are equally represented,—one-third being
renewed or changed every two years; having co-ordinate
powers of legislation with the House of Representatives
except as to the initiation of revenue bills, which,
however, they can amend ; having the right to ratify
treaties presented by the President, and to confirm
nominations to office made by the executive. The House of
Representatives is composed of 330 members (including the
new states), chosen every second year by the people of the
several states, elected under the same franchises which
elect members to the popular house of the state
legislatures.
A Federal Judiciary, composed of a supreme
court of nine members, of nine circuit courts, of
fifty-eight district judges, of a court of claims, and of
territorial courts—the judges being appointed by the
president with the advice and consent of the senate,
removable only for cause assigned and subject to
impeachment.
A Civil Service, composed of officers ^of
various grades, appointed generally by the president, whose
nominations on certain cases require to be ratified by the
senate—the tenure of office being still uncertain in
consequence of the political difficulties that stand in the
way of carrying out the Pendleton Act, which was the first
practical move in the direction of a wise reform.
In Canada, on the other hand, the Dominion
Government may be divided into the following departments:—
The Queen, legally the Executive, but
represented for all governmental purposes by a
Governor-General, appointed by her Majesty in council during
pleasure, though practically irremovable except for cause
during his term of office, responsible to the Imperial
Government as an imperial officer, having the right to
pardon for all offences, but exercising this and all
executive powers under the advice and consent of a
responsible ministry.
A Cabinet composed of thirteen or more privy
councillors, having seats in the two houses of the
parliament, requiring to be elected by the people of their
respective constituencies in case of the acceptance of
office, acting as a council of advice to the
Governor-General, responsible to parliament for all
legislation and administration, holding office only whilst
in a majority of the popular branch.
A Senate composed of 78 members, with a
representation of 24 for the Maritime provinces (Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island), Quebec and
Ontario respectively, and the remaining members scattered
over the other provinces and the territories, appointed by
the Crown for life, though removable by the house for
bankruptcy or crime, having coordinate powers of legislation
with the House of Commons except in the case of money or tax
bills, having no power to try impeachments.
A House of Commons of 215 members, elected
for five years on a very liberal franchise and in electoral
districts in every province, fixed in both cases by the
Dominion Parliament, liable to be prorogued and dissolved at
any time by the governor-general on the advice of his
council, and having alone the right to initiate money and
tax bills.
A Supreme Court of Canada, composed of a
chief justice and five judges, acting as a court of appeal
for all the provincial courts, but subject to have its
judgments reversed on appeal to the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council in England, irremovable except on the
address of the two houses to the governor-general.
A Civil Service, appointed by the
governor-general on the advice of his council—that is,
practically by the government of the day,—irremovable except
for cause, governed by statutes providing in specified cases
for examinations and promotions, certain important positions
being still political appointments but not subject to
removal in case of a change of parties.
Coming now to the various State and
Provincial organizations we find that in the several states,
generally speaking, the government is distributed as follows
:—
A Governor elected directly by the people for
a term of office varying from four years to one, and
exercising in all the states except four a veto over the
acts of the legislature which, however, can over-ride his
determination by a majority varying in the different states.
Four states place all legislative authority in the
legislature alone. Generally in the states the governor has
the pardoning power within certain limitations.
A Lieutenant-Governor elected by the people
of the state at the same time as the governor, exercising no
special functions except what arise from his position as a
presiding officer of the senate, filling the place of the
governor in case of death or incapacity.
Executive Councils in only three states,
which practically represent an advisory cabinet; in the
others, there are certain executive officials elected by the
people for terms varying in the different states, having no
seats in the legislature, and not exercising any control
over its legislation.
A Legislature composed of two Houses in every
state of the union. First, a Senate chosen by popular vote,
generally in districts larger than those of the house,
having a term varying from four years in the majority of
cases, in others from three to one, half the members going
out on the completion of their term and a new half being
chosen. In all the states except one it is a tribunal of
impeachment for certain officials, including governors.
A House of Representatives, or an assembly,
or house of delegates in a few states, chosen by popular
vote in the states, generally manhood suffrage, only limited
by certain disqualifications of crime or bribery—the number
varying from 21 to 321. Both houses have equal rights of
legislation, except that the house of representatives in
certain states can alone originate money bills.
A Judiciary elected by the people in the
majority of states, in a few by the legislature, in others
appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by the
houses or by the council, as in Massachusetts, holding
office for a term on the average varying from eight to ten
years, except in four states where the British system of
life tenure exists.
A Civil Service, small in numbers and poorly
paid, elected by the people generally, holding their
positions on the uncertain tenure of political success and
popular caprice.
The several Provinces of Canada have a system
similar to that of the Federal Government, which may be
generally distributed into parts as follows :—
A Lieutenant-Governor, appointed by the
governor-general in council practically for five years,
removable by the same authority for cause which must be
communicated to parliament, exercising all the political
powers and responsibilities of the governor-general under
the system of responsible or parliamentary government,
having no right to reprieve or pardon criminals.
A Cabinet composed of certain heads of
departments varying from twelve to five in the provinces,
called to office by the lieutenant-governor, having seats in
either branch of the legislature, holding their positions as
long as they have the confidence of the majority of the
people's representatives, responsible for and directing
legislation, and conducting generally the administration of
public affairs in accordance with the law and the
conventions of the constitution.
A Legislature composed of two houses — a
Legislative Council and a House of Assembly or Legislative
Assembly—in four provinces, and of only oue house, an
elected body, in three provinces. The legislative
councillors are appointed for life by the
lieutenant-governor in council removable for same reasons as
senators, must have a property qualification except in
Prince Edward Island, where the upper house is elective ;
like the senate, the councils cannot initiate revenue or
money bills, but otherwise have the same legislative powers
as the lower houses. They have no right to sit as courts of
impeachment.
The Legislative Assemblies are elected for
four years (except in Quebec, where the term is five), but
are liable to be dissolved at any time by the
lieutenant-governor, acting under the advice of his council;
elected on a franchise which is manhood suffrage in the
largest and most populous province of Ontario, and
practically the same in the smallest—Prince Edward
Island—the suffrage being most liberal in the other
sections, though generally based on property and incomes.
A Judiciary appointed by the governor-general
in council —stipendiary magistrates, justices of the peace,
and judges of probate being provincial nominees—only
removable on the address of the two houses of the Dominion
Parliament, except in the case of county judges, who may be
removed by order in council for cause.
A Civil Service appointed by the
lieutenant-governor in council, nominees in the first
instance of the political party in power, but once appointed
irremovable except for sufficient reasons.
As we compare these respective systems we can
trace t hroughout, as I have already observed, the
principles of the British constitution, an Executive, a
Legislature of two houses, and a Judiciary. The application
of the elective principle to the judiciary is a grave
departure from the British principle, which Canada has
carefully avoided, with most decided advantage to the
administration of justice. The upper houses appointed by the
Crown are less effective as legislative authorities than the
senates, which have larger powers, and are in a more
complete sense co-ordinate authorities in the legislative
system. But the most remarkable example of divergence from
the British system of government on the one side and of
adherence to it on the other, is seen in the relations of
the Executive in the two countries towards the Mature. In
the United States, the Executive exercises no direct control
over the Legislature through a Cabinet, and if it were not
for the veto Congress would be practically uncontrolled in
its legislation. In Canada, on the other hand, the Executive
is practically the Cabinet or Ministry, who direct and
supervise all legislation, as well as the administration of
public affairs.
In the United States, when the constitution
was formed, Parliamentary government, as it is now
understood in Britain and her self-governing dependencies,
was not understood in its complete significance ; and this
is not strange when we consider that in those days the King
appeared all-powerful— he did not merely reign, but
governed—and his councils were so many advisers always ready
to obey his wishes. Ministerial responsibility to Parliament
was still, relatively speaking, an experiment in
constitutional government—its leading principles having been
first outlined in the days of William the Third. The framers
of the American constitution saw only two prominent powers,
the King and Parliament, and their object was to impose a
system of checks and balances which would restrain the
authority of each, and prevent any one dominating in the
nation. It is true, in the course of time, this system has
become in a measure ideal, since Congress has practically
established a supremacy, though the powerful influence
exercised by the President at times can be seen from the
great number of vetoes successfully given by Mr. Cleveland.
In Canada, responsible or parliamentary government dates
back to less than half a century ago, and was won only after
years of contest with the parent state. Since the British
system has been introduced into the provinces of the
Dominion, there has been practically no friction between the
different branches of government, but the wheels of the
political machinery run with ease and safety.
The comparisons that have been drawn with
such singular ability by Professor Woodrow Wilson and
Professor Bryce between 'the systems of Congressional and
Parliamentary
government, show
clearly in favour of the British system, and it is not
necessary that I should do more than refer as briefly as
possible to the subject. Under the American system, the
executive and legislative authorities may be constantly at
variance, and there is little possibility on all occasions
of that harmonious legislative action which is necessary to
effective legislation. The President may strongly recommend
certain changes in the tariff, or in other matters of wide
public import; but unless there is in the house a decided
majority of the same political opinions as his own, there is
little prospect of his recommendations being carried out.
Indeed, even if there is such a majority, it is quite
possible that his views are not in entire accord with all
sections of his party, and the leading men of that party in
Congress may be themselves looking to a presidential
succession, and may not be prepared to strengthen the
position of the present incumbent of the executive chair.
This nominal cabinet can and do give information to Congress
and its committees on matters relating to their respective
departments, but they are powerless to initiate or promote
important legislation directly, and if they succeed in
having bills passed, it is only through the agency of, and
after many interviews with, the chairmen of the committees
having control of such matters. If Congress wishes for
information from day to day on public matters, it can only
obtain it by the inconvenient method of communicating by
messages with the departments. No minister is present to
explain in a minute or two some interesting question on
which the public wishes to receive immediate information, or
to state the views of the administration on some matter of
public policy. There is no leader present to whom the whole
party looks for guidance in the conduct of public affairs.
The President, it is true, is elected by the Republican or
Democratic party, as the case may be ; but the moment he
becomes the Executive he is practically powerless to promote
effectively the views of the people who elected him through
the instrumentality of Ministers who speak his opinions
authoritatively on the floor of Congress. His messages are
generally so many words, forgotten too often as soon as they
have been read. His influence constitutionally is
negative—the veto—not the all-important one of initiating
and directing legislation, like a
Premier in Canada. The committees of
Congress, which are the governing bodies, may stifle the
most useful legislation; while the house itself is able,
through its too rigid rules, only to give a modicum of time
to the consideration of public measures, except they happen
to be money or revenue bills. The Speaker himself is the
leader of his party so far as he has influence over the
composition of the committees, but he cannot directly
initiate or control legislation. Under all the
circumstances, it is easy to understand that when the
Executive is not immediately responsible for legislation,
and there is no section or committee of the house bound to
initiate and direct it, it must be too often ill-digested,
defective in essential respects, and ill-adapted to the
public necessities. On this point, a judicious writer
says:—'This absence of responsibility as to public
legislation, and the promotion of such legislation
exclusively by individual action, have created a degree of
mischief quite beyond computation.' And again:—'There is not
a state in the union in which the complaint is not well
grounded, that the laws passed by the legislative bodies are
slipshod in expression, are inharmonious in their nature,
are not subjected to proper revision before their passage,
are hurriedly passed, and impose upon the governors of
states a duty not intended originally to be exercised by
them, that of using the veto power in lieu of a board of
revision for the legislative body; and so badly is the
gubernatorial office organized for any such purpose, that
the best intentioned governor is compelled to permit
annually a vast body of legislation to be put upon the
statute book, which is either unnecessary, in conflict with
laws not intended to be interfered with, or passed for some
sinister and personal ends.
Compare this state of things with the
machinery of administration in Canada or Great Britain, and
you will at once see that the results appear to be greatly
to the advantage of Canada. Long before Parliament is called
together by proclamation by the governor-genera], there are
frequent Cabinet meetings held for the purpose of
considering the matters to be submitted to that body. Each
minister in due order brings before his colleagues the
measures that he considers necessary for the efficient
administration of his department. Changes in the tariff are
carefully discussed, and all other matters of public policy
that require legislation in order to meet the public
demands. Bills that are to be presented to parliament are
drafted by competent draughtsmen under the direction of the
department they affect, and, having been confidentially
printed, are submitted to the whole Cabinet, where they are
revised and fully discussed in all cases involving large
considerations of public policy. The governor-general does
not sit in executive session with his cabinet, but is kept
accurately informed by the premier of all matters which
-require his consent or signature. When parliament meets he
reads to the two Houses a speech containing only a few
paragraphs but still outlining with sufficient clearness the
principal measures that the government intend to introduce
in the course of the session. The minister in charge of a
particular measure presents it with such remarks as are
intended to show its purport. Then it is printed in the two
languages, and when it comes up for a second reading a
debate takes place on the principle, and the government are
able to ascertain the views of the House generally on the
question. Sufficient time is always given between important
stages of measures of large public import to ascertain the
feeling of the country. In case of measures affecting the
tariff, insolvency, banking, and the financial or commercial
interests of the Dominion, the bills are printed in large
numbers so as to allow leading men in the important centres
to understand their details. In committee of the whole the
bill is discussed clause by clause, and days will frequently
elapse before a bill passes this crucial stage. Then after
it is reported from committee, it will be often reprinted if
it contains material amendments. When the House has the bill
again before it, further amendments may be made. Even on the
third reading it may be fully debated and referred back to
committee of the whole for additional changes. At no stage
of its progress is there any limitation of debate in the
Canadian House. At the various readings a man may only speak
once on the same question, but there is no limit to the
length of his speech, except what good taste and the
patience of the House impose upon him. In committee there is
no limit to the number of speeches on every part of the
bill, but as a matter of fact the remarks are generally
short and practical, unless there should be a bill under
consideration, to which there is a violent party antagonism,
and a disposition is shown to speak against time and weary
the government into making concessions or even withdrawing
the objectionable features of the measure. When the bill has
passed the House then it has to undergo the ordeal of the
Senate, and pass through similar stages, but this is not, as
'a rule, a very difficult matter, as the Upper House is
generally very reluctant to make many modifications in
government measures. If the bill is amended, then the
amendments must be considered by the House, which may be an
occasion for further debate. Then having passed the two
Houses, it receives the assent of the governor-general and
becomes law. Under modern constitutional usage he does not
refuse his assent to a measure which may immediately affect
imperial interests and obligations, but simply ' reserves '
it for the consideration of the imperial authorities, who
must within two years allow or disallow it in conformity
with statute. If the government, should be unable to pass a
bill of their own involving great questions of public
policy, it would be their duty to resign, and then another
ministry would be called upon to direct the administration
of public affairs. Or they might ask for a dissolution, and
an appeal to the people on the question at issue. At any
rate, the people make their influence felt all the while in
the progress of legislation. It is not as in Congress, where
the debates are relatively unimportant, and not fully
reported in the public press, and bills find their fate in
secret committees. As the press of Canada is fully alive to
the progress of every public measure, and the committee
meetings are open to the public, all important discussions
find their way from one end of the country to the other.
Every opportunity is given for a full expression of public
opinion, by means
of petitions, public meetings, delegations to the ministers,
and representations to the members of each constituency. The
government feel the full sense of their responsibility all
the while, for on the popularity of their measures depends
their political existence. An unfavourable vote in the House
may at any moment send them back to the people.
In the case of other public measures which
are not initiated by themselves, the government exercise a
careful supervision, and no bill is allowed to become law
unless it meets with their appioval. The same scrutiny is
exercised over private or local legislation—that is, bills
asking for the incorporation of banking, railways, insurance
and other companies for numerous objects, affecting private
and public interests in every community. This class of bills
falls under the denomination of local or private, as
distinguished from those involving questions of general or
public policy. In the United States Congress and State
Legislatures, the absence of a methodical supervision by
responsible or official authorities, has led to grave abuses
in connection with such legislation. The ' lobby ' has been
able to exercise its baneful influence in a way that would
not be possible in Canada where, as in Britain, there are
rules governing the introduction and passage of such
legislation, with a view of protecting the public, and at
the same time giving full information to all interests that
may be affected, and enable them to be represented before
the legislative committee. We are told on the same authority
from which I have already quoted, that ' the influence of
the lobby has proved so formidable an evil that many states
of the' Union have, within a decade, by acts of
constitutional convention, or by regular amendments to their
organic law, prevented their legislative bodies from
enacting special laws in a variety of cases.' ' But,' it is
emphatically added, ' the limitation of the power to enact
private or special legislation has created in its turn an
evil far greater than that which it was intended to stay.'
The result is that the whole body of general legislation 'is
thrown into the arena of special interests, to be changed,
modified, or destroyed, where interests may dictate.'
In Canada, there are general laws respecting
railways, banking, and other great interests, and companies
seeking incorporation must conform to them. The changing of
a general law to meet a special case is carefully avoided.
As in the parent state, there are special rules methodizing
private legislation, and bringing it under strict
legislative control. In the case of railway charters—very
common of late years— there are ' model' bills which every
company must follow. If any persons wish to obtain a charter
for a private or local object—a railway, a bank, or a toll
bridge, or other matter involving local interests and
private gain—they must first of all give due notice of their
intention in the Official Gazette, and
in the papers of the locality interested, two months before
the bill can be introduced. The time is limited when such
matters can be brought up in the legislature. Petitions must
be presented within a certain time, stating the nature of
the application to the legislative branches; and when they
have been received, they are referred to a committee, which
investigates their contents and finds whether the rules
respecting notice have been complied with. If the committee
report favourably, then the bill, which must be first
printed in the two languages, is introduced, and after its
second reading, when the principle may be discussed if
necessary—a formality, however, not generally followed in
the case of private bills— it is sent to a select committee
having jurisdiction over this class of measures. Before it
can be considered in this committee all fees must be paid to
the accountant of the House. Then, after due notice of a
week and more has been given of the consideration of the
bill in committee, it is taken up and fully discussed. All
parties interested may now appear by themselves or counsel,
and oppose or support the measure. Here the committee acts
in a judicial capacity, and hears testimony when necessary.
Ministers of the Crown have seats on these private bill
committees, to watch over the public interests, for they
never individually act as promoters of such bills. If the
bill passes successfully through this ordeal, it comes again
before the House for consideration in committee of the
whole. At this stage, and on the third reading, amendments
may be proposed after notice has been given of their nature.
When it has passed the House where it originated, it is
subject again to a similar course of procedure in the other
branch; and hardly a session passes but a private bill,
which has evoked strong opposition, is thrown out at these
last stages. From the initiation to the passage of the bill,
it is subject to the scrutiny of the legal officers of the
department, whose duty it is at the last to revise and print
it as passed. The lobby, as it is known in the United
States, is not heard of, though there may be at critical
times a little canvassing among members by those interested
in the measure. The committees are so large — some of them
two-thirds of the whole house—that a lobbyist would find it
practically useless to practise his arts. Happily for the
reputation of the country, the Canadian legislative
assemblies stand very high compared with the majority of
similar bodies in the American republic.
But it is not merely to the machinery of
administration and legislation that Canadians direct the
attention of their neighbours. The various statutes which
regulate the election of members also seem well calculated
to subserve political morality.
When Ave come now to sum up the results of
the comparisons that I have been briefly making between the
political systems of the two countries, I think Canadians
may fairly claim that they possess institutions worthy the
study of their neighbours.
We acknowledge that
in the constitution of the upper houses, in the existence of
the political veto, in the financial dependence of the
provinces to a large extent on the Dominion exchequer, there
is room for doubt whether the constitution of Canada does
not exhibit elements of weakness. The Senate of the United
States is a body of great power and varied ability to which
the people may refer with pride and gratulation. The
reference to the courts of all cases involving points of
constitutional interpretation has also worked to the
advantage of the Union. On the other hand, Canadians call
attention to the following features of their system as
worthy the serious consideration of their co-workers in the
cause of good and efficient government on this continent:
An executive working in unison with and
dependent on parliament, its members being present in both
branches, and ready to inform the House and country on all
matters of administration, holding office by the will of the
people's representatives, initiating and controlling all
measures of public policy, and directing generally private
legislation.
An effective and methodical system regulating
and controlling all legislation of a private or special
nature, so as to protect vested rights, and the public
interests.
A judiciary not dependent on popular caprice,
but holding-office during good behaviour, and only removable
by the joint action of the two Houses and the executive of
the federal state.
A large and efficient body of public servants
whose members hold office, not on an uncertain political
tenure, but as long as they are able to perform their duties
satisfactorily, and who have always before them the prospect
of a competency in old age at the close of a career of
public usefulness.
A system of voting at elections which
practically secures the secrecy and purity of the ballot,
effectually guards the voter 'against ticket-pedlers,
election workers, and spies, and takes the monopoly of
nominations out of the hands of the professional
politicians, and removes the main pretext for assessments
upon candidates which now prevent honest poor men from
running for office.
The jurisdiction possessed In the
courts of trying all cases of bribery and corruption at
elections, and giving judgments on the facts before them, in
this way relieving the legislature of a duty which could
not, as experience bad shown, be satisfactorily performed by
a political body influenced too often by impulses of party
ambition.
The placing by the constitution of the
jurisdiction over divorce in the parliament of the Dominion,
and not in the legislatures of the provinces—the upper house
being now, by usage, the court for the trial of cases of
this kind, except in the small maritime provinces which had
courts of this character previous to the federal union. The
effect of the careful regard entertained for the marriage
tie ma}7 be
estimated from the fact that from 1867 to 1886 there were
only 116 divorces granted in Canada against 328,613 in the
various states of the Union.
The differences that I have shown to exist
between the political systems of the two countries are of so
important a character as to exercise a very decided
influence on the political and social conditions of each.
Allied to a great respect for law—which, I admit, is also a
distinguishing feature of the American people, as of all
communities of the Anglo-Saxon race—they form the basis of
the present happiness and prosperity of the people of the
Dominion, and of their future national greatness. It was to
be expected that two peoples lying alongside each other
since the commencement of their history, and developing
governmental institutions drawn from the same tap-root of
British law and constitutional usages, should exhibit many
points of similarity in their respective systems and in
their capacity for self-government. But it is noteworthy
that their close neighbourhood, their means of rapid
communication with one another, the constant social and
commercial intercourse that has been going on
for years, especially for the past forty years, have not
made a deeper impress upon the political institutions of the
Canadian people, who, being very much smaller in numbers,
wealth, and national importance, might be expected to
gravitate in many respects towards a nation whose
industrial, social, and political development is one of the
marvels of the age. Canada, however, has shown a spirit of
self-reliance, independence of thought and action, in all
matters affecting the public welfare, which is certainly one
of the best evidences of the political steadiness of her
people. At the same time, she is always ready to copy,
whenever necessary or practicable, such institutions of her
neighbours as commend themselves to the sound judgment of
her statesmen. Twenty-five years ago, at Quebec, they
adapted certain features of the Federal system of the States
to their own condition, and in the nature of things they
must, continue to refer constantly to the working of that
constitution for their own guidance and instruction.
The questions will now probably occur to
many—What will be the future of this country? Is it
annexation to the United States? Is it national
independence? Or is it a continuance of the present position
of dependence on the parent state, or some condition of
closer union with all sections of the Empire which will give
greater strength to them all, and at the same time enable
Canada to have more weight in Imperial councils? I do not
wish to be drawn into the misty realm of speculative
politics, but I think I can in a few words give an answer
which will in a measure dispose of queries which may
naturally occur to a student of our political growth.
The comparisons I have made between the two
systems of government, if carefully reviewed, ought, I
submit, to show that Canada has been steadily working out
her own destiny on well-defined principles, and has in no
wise shown an inclination to make the United States her
model of imitation. I know of no political body in
Canada—indeed, of no man of widespread influence, who openly
avows himself a believer in annexation to the great United
States Commonwealths. It is quite clear that the Canadian
people, who have achieved a decided success so far in
working out their plan of federal union on well-defined
lines of action—in consolidating the union of the old
provinces, in founding new provinces and opening up a vast
territory to settlement—in covering every section of their
domain with a network of railways—in showing their ability
to put down dissension and rebellion in their midst—I think
they are not ready, in view of such achievements, to confess
failure, an absence of spirit of self-dependence, want of
courage and national ambition, or incapacity for
self-government, nor to look forward to annexation to the
American republic as their ' manifest destiny.'
But if annexation is impossible, it is very
unwise to continue the strained relations that have too long
existed between the two countries. I should briefly sum up
the feeling of the people of Canada on the several questions
that have been matters of discussion for some time past in
this wise:
Annexation to the United States is a measure
generally and unequivocally disavowed by all classes of the
people as contrary to the temper and interest of Canadians
who are working out their destiny on well marked lines of
difference from their neighbours.
The settlement of the Fishery difficulty is
desired on such terms as will show that the people of the
United States acknowledge the legal and equitable claims of
Canada, and that the Canadians themselves are willing to
meet their neighbours in a spirit of fair dealing and
compromise.
Such a measure of Reciprocal Trade as will
increase the commerce in certain natural products between
the two countries would be popular on the whole—no political
party in the Dominion being, apparently, ready to support
any measure that will throw down customs' barriers, and
practically form a commercial barrier, since it would in the
opinion of all thoughtful Canadians mean the first step
towards political absorption into the United States.
A complete Extradition Treaty is required
between the two countries, which will deal effectually with
all the 'boodlers' and other criminal classes whose presence
in either country is not desirable; Canada having already
shown her practical aud prompt interest in such matters by
passing a measure a year ago which is now under the
consideration of the Imperial authorities, who in this
respect have full control over the dependencies of the
Empire.
All the people would welcome the placing of
the bonding system beyond the danger of all aggressive
measures in Congress who, by the passing of the Retaliatory
Act towards the end of Mr. Cleveland's administration,
threatened for a while the commercial and political
relations of the two countries, as much to the injury of the
United States as of the Dominion.
The opening up of all the canals and of the
coasting trade of the United States to the Canadians is
regarded as a measure tending to the consolidation of their
commercial interests, and giving each of them a greater
guarantee for friendly and uninterrupted intercourse.
The dream of the Imperial Federalists is a
grand conception which was imagined by Otis and Shirley even
in the middle of the eighteenth century. Already in Canada,
as in the parent state, leagues have been formed in all the
principal centres of thought to promote this great imperial
scheme, and it is interesting to note that they comprise
many men of standing, as writers, speakers, and thinkers.
The idea of an imperial conference of representatives from
all sections of the empire is now under consideration, and,
ere many months pass, in all probability we shall see what
immediate prospect there is of reconciling the diverse
opinions on the subject, and suggesting some common basis of
action. With the progress of self-government in Canada and
the Australasian Colonies, the people of those countries
have commenced to see that although they form part of the
empire, and participate in all the advantages that can be
derived from its obligations to assist in their defence, yet
they have not attained the full dignity of citizenship—that
they have not the same rights as the humblest voters in a
county of England, Scotland, or Ireland, who can exercise an
immediate influence on the complexion of the national
Parliament, which has under its control the destinies of the
whole Empire.
The question of national independence is
practically connected with this federation idea. It is an
argument of its advocates, that sooner or later the Empire
will fall to pieces and the Colonies become independent
nations unless they are given a voice in imperial airs and
all sections united on a basis which will preserve the
system of local self-government which each community
possesses, all of them at the same time receiving the rights
of full citizenship, and enabled to unite together for
defensive and commercial purposes. No one who studies the
history of the great colonies, especially of Australia and
of Canada, but will see that there has been, for many years,
a steady political development which has at last placed them
in the position of semi-independent nations. The word '
national' is now commonly applied in the Dominion to all
great measures affecting Canada generally as a
self-governing community, and seems to show the tendency of
political events for many years past. It is to direct the
current of this political development towards Imperial
consolidation that the Imperial Federalists are now so
earnestly and ably working in all sections of the Empire.
It may be said—indeed I have myself heard it
urged by Mr. Gold win Smith, a gloomy thinker it is true,
but worthy of attention in this connection since he appears
to voice the opinions of a few others beside himself—that
Canada can never form a united people, and agree as such in
favour of a federation of the Empire, or become an
independent nation. One staple argument of these pessimistic
writers is the existence of a distinct French nationality,
increasing rapidly in numbers, and exercising now, even more
than in the past, a powerful influence on the political
fortunes of the whole country. The history of this French
race, who still remain to attest the ambitious designs of
France on this continent, is deeply interesting to the
political and historical student, but
the fortunes of the peoples who inhabit the valleys of the
Mississippi and St. Lawrence have been very different. A
number of French still live on the banks of the Mississippi
and' its devious bayous; a few acred farmers,' who speak a
French patois, still live by the lakes of the Atchafalaya,
or
'On the Acadian coast and the prairies of
fair Opelousas.'"
And the old city of New Orleans has a Creole
quarter, where the curious stranger can see quaint,
balconied houses and many other objects of interest; but the
remnant of the old French population of Louisiana cannot be
said to exercise any influence on the political institutions
of the state, and it seems likely in the nature of things
that the French language will eventually disappear in a
great measure from the country and few evidences remain of
the old regime. But in the Dominion the picturesque banks of
the St. Lawrence and its tributaries are the home of a
million and a quarter of people, still speaking the French
language, professing the Roman Catholic religion, and
adhering with remarkable tenacity to the main features of
the civil law, aud to other institutions of the land of
their origin. The history of this French population proves
very clearly the beneficent operation of the liberal system
of government which Canada has now enjoyed for nearly half a
century. French Canada now occupies a prominent place among
the communities of the continent, and many of her sons have
been able to win for themselves a conspicuous place in the
administration of public affairs, in education, in
literature, in art and in other pursuits of life. They have
thoroughly identified themselves with every movement to make
the confederation a success. The influence of this people
can be seen in the constitution and laws that govern the
country. It is not strange that jealousies and rivalries at
times arise between the two races that inhabit Canada, but
the time is past, I certainly would fain believe, when the
difference of race and religion can be stimulated into the
bitterness of word and deed that existed previous to 1840,
which was a turning point in the history of Canada; for from
the moment Canadians, irrespective of nationality, were
granted a full measure of self-government, and the French
Canadian felt he had all the rights of manhood, the
statesmen of all races and sects and opinions have laboured
to build up a new England on this continent, with a
sincerity and zeal that has already produced
the most precious fruit. The existence of a federal union
has given the French Canadians complete control of their own
province, and the right to maintain their special
institutions, and is the best possible guarantee for 4he
harmony and integrity of the Dominion. Their best men
believe that absorption into the United States would be a
death blow to their influence as a French Canadian people,
and the history of their compatriots in Louisiana would be
eventually reproduced in their own case. They are ready to
work out their own destiny in unison with their British
co-workers in the Dominion, and no influential man amongst
them openly asserts so impossible and suicidal a scheme as
the foundation of an independent French nationality on the
banks of the St. Lawrence. The brilliant leader of the
opposition in parliament only voiced the sentiments of his
compatriots, conservative as well as liberal, when he said
quite recently, in the face of a large British audience, in
a western city: ' If there are any amongst my
fellow-countrymen who have ever dreamed of closing
themselves into a small community of Frenchmen on the banks
of the St. Lawrence, I am not one of them. It would be an
act of black ingratitude if, after we had sought from
Britain the privileges and rights of British subjects, we
were now to reject the responsibilities of subjects; if
having sought the protection of Britain to grow strong, we
were, when strong enough, to attempt to stab the friendly
hand, and to refuse to cast in our lot with those who are
fellow-countrymen of ours, and whose birthright we claim as
our inheritance. When confederation was established, it
was
not intended that it should be based upon the
humiliation of any one race ; that any one should give up
its characteristics; but it was expected that though every
nationality might retain its individuality, yet that all
would be actuated by one aspiration and would endeavour to
form one nation.'
But whatever may be the destiny of this
youthful and energetic community, it is the earnest wish of
every Canadian that, while the political fortunes of Canada
and the United States may never be united, yet each will
endeavour to maintain that friendly, social, and commercial
intercourse which should naturally exist between peoples
allied to each other by ties of a common neighbourhood and a
common interest, and that the only rivalry between them will
be that which should prevail among countries equally
interested in peopling this continent from north to south,
from east to west, and in extending the blessings of free
institutions, respect for law, public morality, electoral
purity, free thought, the sanctity of the home, and
intellectual culture.
Full of the vigour of early manhood,
conscious of the success which has already crowned her
achievements in the contest for national life, possessed of
self-reliance and confidence to hold her own on this
continent, Canada looks forward to the future in the hope
that the destiny which is now shaping her ends must sooner
or later give her a higher position among the communities of
the world.