Never Have so Many Known so Little About so Much
HO, CANADA ! by R. Rogers Smith, ( Chief Wapanatak )
Canada is merely a geographical expression, not a political entity, says R. Rogers Smith, long-time battler
for the right of Canadians to vote as Canadians, a right he claims they have never possessed.
In his final chapter the author proposes a “ do-it-yourself ” method whereby the individual Canadian
can assert this right.
Writing often in a style, which has brought consternation to officialdom, R. Rogers Smith blends a
scholar’s knowledge of Canada’s political history with a formidable array of facts, which cannot be
disputed.
Here you will learn why the author states that: the American Civil War cost Canada more than the
combined losses of North and South; that the British North America Act of 1867 was designed to keep Canada in
colonial status; that as regards the Governor-General, there has been no alteration in the constitution of
Canada since the capitulation of Montreal in 1760; that there is not now, nor ever has been a confederation of the
provinces of Canada; nor has provision ever been made for the Canadian to exercise his franchise by voting as
a Canadian*.
Challenging controversial, plain spoken, HO, CANADA ! has not triggered any lively discussion but has
prompted cover up action by the Canadian Government since its first publication, in 1965.
*
The Canadian Elections Act since 1971, has been revised to exclude 17 British subjects requirements.
Reedited in 1996, by: Jean-Paul RHEAUME, 3291 rue Armand-Hamelin, Sainte Foy, (Que.)
G1W 2X1 Canada. Tel: (418) 656-0370 — jpiii@aei.ca
About the Author
Time rolls on. The Canadian Pacific Railway (the first across Canada) was building. The Royal Canadian
Mounted Police was being formed **, and the buffalo herds were almost gone when the author was born
February 16, 1884, at Fort Qu’Appelle, in the District of Assiniboia in the North West Territories.
Twenty-one years later, the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were carved from what were then
these Territories.
His father, Richard James Smith, who was employed by the C.P.R. in building the wooden bridges for
the railroad, and three others of his crew induced surveyor Dewdney, in charge of surveys for the railway,
to survey homesteads for them in the Qu’Appelle valley. These were the first homesteads surveyed in what
is now the Province of Saskatchewan. [ Staking land grants property rights to whomever pays for the stakes in English
common law; ask Louis Riel. Ed ].
Because his parents fed the natives when they were starving, his father was made a blood brother of the
Crees and later the author was made a chief of the tribe (Chief Wapanatak, “ Morning Star ” in Cree).
He
became a mechanical engineer and as a hobby a student of international and constitutional law, and forty
years ago drafted the Resolution which the Rt. Hon. Mackenzie King presented to the Imperial Conference
of 1926, which is recognized as being the basis for the enactment by the United Kingdom of the Statute of
Westminster, December 11, 1931.***
** The RCMP’s motto is “Maintiens le droit” which at the time it was granted, could have easily insinuated : “Keep it
strait” … the CPR mainline.
*** We’re faced here with a special misdemeanor on the part of the Canadian Judicial System.
If Canada claims its
independence from the text of the Statute, the Provinces are equally mentioned, and are no less independent.
More than
70 years after its enactment, provincials have yet to grasp the historical implication of their status. Les Québecois are not
less part of the same stupidity by running referendum after referendum .
HO, CANADA !
by
R. ROGERS SMITH
( Chief Wapanatak )
First Edition
VANTAGE PRESS
NEW YORK
[ Out of Print since 1972 ]
Copyright 1965, R. Rogers Smith
The blue text in this edition is the opinion of the editor. He was prompted to check
the veracity of such an endeavour.
OTHER WRITINGS by R. Rogers
Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit (1937)
Inside Canada (1939)
Our Sovereign Right ( ? )
Ask Your Banker ( ? )
Doit-on me fusiller ? (1942)
Doit-on s’unir ? (1942)
SMITH has INSPIRED to SPEAK , WRITE or LEGISLATE
Walter F. Kuhl, M.P. 1936-1949
for Jasper-Edson
Dr. Gabriel Lambert
Comment en sortir ? (Éditions Serge Brousseau 1947)
Elmer Knutson of Edmonton
Confederation of Regions
René Chaloult and Maurice Duplessis
Quebec’s fleurdelisé
CONTENTS
EDITOR’S TERMINOLOGY .............................................7
THE GOVERNOR AND THE CONSTITUTION............ 9
RECAPITULATION............................................................12
FAIRY STORY......................................................................13
INTRODUCTION..................................................................6
SEARCH FOR THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT OF 1867 .........................................................................................8
THE BIRTH OF GREAT BRITAIN ................................ 14
THE CITIZEN AND THE FLAG..................................... 20
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ENGLAND ......................................................................... 24
THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION ................................. 26
THE BURNING OF THE CONSTITUTION ( 1661 ).... 29
REBELLION OF 1835 - 1837 ........................................... 30
THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT, 1867 ............ 34
SEVEN TRAGIC YEARS, 1860 - 1867............................ 40
RUSSIA’S INTERVENTION ............................................ 44
TREATY OF WASHINGTON 1871 ................................. 60
THE STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER ............................. 61
CORRESPONDENCE ON INCOME TAX.......................70
COURT TRIALS, 1942-1947 ............................................ 80
THE GOVERNOR - GENERAL ..................................... 83
THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA............................. 90
BY HIS MAJESTY’S COMMAND, ................................ 93
SOVEREIGNTY .................................................................97
DO IT YOURSELF − [1965] ..............................................99
THE TREATY OF PARIS ................................................ 104
EDITOR’S TERMINOLOGY
Authority : A person, an institution, increasing certain properties, certain possessions, certain qualities. The opposite of
what governments are.
Canada : Geographical expression where
liars have credibility and honest citizens are sincere political cuckolds, or
a colony of sincere federalists.
Competence : L, competens proper, [what is
more proper than property ?]
Confederation: A union of sovereign states
desired by the unanimous consent of
all the delegates; union that can eventually be dissolved. Compare this to a
Protestant marriage.
Contract: Four requirements are needed for a
valid contract: 1. Free and clear consent of the parties; 2. The capacity to
contract; 3. Sufficiently determined
object; 4. A legally considered case.
The BNA Act was not a contract between the Provinces.
Cuckoldom : Not a sin; but a political organisation enjoyed by Canadians since
1867, to the delight of American institutions.
Federation: A union of sovereign states subscribed to by …the majority of their
delegates. This union is perpetual.
Compare it to what used to be a
Catholic marriage.
Law abiding citizen : A political cuckold, in
Canada. A Canadian federalist is like
someone preaching the virtues of his
matrimony while living a common law
union; ignoring marriage is a contract.
Legitimacy: An act is said to be legitimate
when it coincides with historical authenticity.
Power: That capacity to guarantee continuity
in the act, or in the state, whether you
are looking at the engine, the Hydro,
the State, or the old man.
Sovereign State: A nominal territory, owned
and exploited by its own citizens,
solely responsible for its administration. A territory where the head of
state enjoys permanent residence. Otherwise…
Impéritie : The word as such is translated as
Incapacity in English, but the French
dictionary says: Ignorance of what one
should know in his profession. ex.
L’impéritie of de La Feuillade caused Torino
to be part of Italy instead of being French
territory. [Larousse.]
PROLOGUE
THE GOVERNOR AND THE CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTION
The Constitution of the government of Canada was drafted by Yorke and Yorke, attorneys for the Board of Trade (Sessional
Papers 18 ).
The first Governor Gen. James Murray was
accredited and appointed by the Earl of Egremont, President of the “ Lords of Trade and
Plantations ”, to be a “ Corporation Sole, ”
immediately following the capitulation of
Montreal, 1763.
It is recorded that the first amendment to
the Constitution of the Government of Canada
was to provide that Roman Catholics could
vote and serve as Judges ; Lawyers ; Bailiffs ;
Prothonotaries, etc. Sept. 2, 1765. (Roman
Catholics could not vote in Britain until
1805.)
The Lords of Trade and Plantations was
composed of a group of London merchants
who were authorised by the Crown in Chancery to be the government of the New England
colonies. Canada was added to their administration.
The Lords of Trade and Plantations was
later known as the Board of Trade and Plantations, and finally as the Board of Trade.
The Crown in Chancery was established in
the reign of Queen Elizabeth. It is the department of lands of Britain and it is from this
name we derive the term Crown Lands.
Sovereignty and the ownership of land are
inseparable. When the ruler possessed the
land he was Sovereign. When the people possess the land, the ruler is demoted to a monarch.
Queen Elizabeth ascended the throne as a
Sovereign. After granting a Charter to Sir
Humphrey Gilbert, without the knowledge or
assent of Her Council, she was demoted to a
Monarch by the following :
Members of Her Majesty’s Most
Learned and Honourable Privy Council,
( Divers Orders thereunto called ) conceived and established the Crown in
Chancery to administer Affairs in connection with and exercise authority over
the waste lands or Commons of England.
The Lord High Chancellor is the custodian
of the Sovereignty of the people and all possessions of the Nation including the lands of
England and the Dominions thereunto belonging are in the custody or the offices of the
‘Crown in Chancery’ at Whitehall. Henceforth
England was known as a Limited Monarchy
[or a Republican Monarchy… Ed.].
The Golden Age of Queen Elizabeth was
not due to any action taken by the Queen personally, but for the reason she could not take
any.
1
The next Charter, which was for Virginia,
was granted to Sir Walter Rawleigh by Parliament and includes the clause : ‘that the
colonists are to have all the privileges of Englishmen and be governed by laws of their own
making.’
There is nothing in Magna Carta to compare in importance with this act of the Privy
Council. King John was not demoted. Queen
Elizabeth was.
This Revolution ended the Feudal System
and released the bonds which had restricted
Queen Elizabeth II could neither repatriate the Constitution of Canada in 1982. First, that B.N.A Act
was not expatriated, it was in the hands of those who
had made it. Furthermore, has the deleted page of
that document been included in these repatriation papers? Also, did the three Honourable Members of
Parliament, namely: André Ouellette, Jean Chrétien
and P.E. Trudeau, present on the podium that rainy
day, have the capacity to accept what Her Majesty
could not offer? That day in 1982, Canadians had an
advanced edition of Montreal’s cynical "Bleue Poudre. " All three Honourables are still living. Please…
keep on reading. Ed.
literature, arts and science. The Spanish Armada was defeated because the Admirals
could now act upon their own volition as urgency dictated.
Since then : ‘The King can do no wrong.’
Hallsbury says : ‘This is an immunity by way
of compensation for the absence of despotic
power.’
Charles I lost his head by attempting to
usurp the Sovereignty of the people.
The Quebec Act 1774, the Constitution Act
1791, the Union Act 1840, and the British
North America Act 1867 do not alter in any
essential respect the Constitution of Canada
drafted by Yorke and Yorke in 1763.
It is important to know that there was no
Confederation of the Provinces of Canada.
The Interpretations Act 1889, enacted 22
years after the British North American Act,
states :
Sec. 18, Par. 3 : ‘The expression Colony’
shall mean any of Her Majesty’s dominions (exclusive of the British Islands and
of British India ) and where parts of such
dominions are under both a central legislature and local legislatures all parts under the Central Legislature shall for the
purposes of this definition be deemed to
be ‘One Colony.’
In 1889, Canada was the only Colony with
a Central Legislature and Local Legislatures.
This is affirmation of what has been said
here that the Acts previously mentioned did
not alter in any essential respect the Constitution of the government of Canada as drafted
by Yorke and Yorke of the Board of Trade.
This is further re-affirmed in that in the
present revised Statutes of Canada it is stated :
"The Governor-General is a Corporation
Sole." Chap. 85 - R.S.
If the Governor-General is a “Corporation
Sole’’ today, the story of Confederation is a
much overrated fiction.
Since 1783, the administration of affairs in
the Colonies were transferred to the Office of
Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Sir George Fiddes in his book, Dominion
and Colonial Offices, states : ‘It is equivalent
to a rejection of any person as a Governor if
his name be even mentioned to the Secretary
prior to his appointment.’
Why ? The Secretary for the Colonies is a
member of the Cabinet. He would resign if the
Premier, any other member of the Cabinet, or
the King, should suggest to him how he
should run his office.
After a Governor is appointed by the Secretary, he is introduced to the Lord High Chancellor where he is granted ‘Letters Patent,’
which grant him the power to be a ‘Corporation Sole’ over the colony to which he is accredited by the Secretary of State for the
Colonies.
These ‘Letters Patent’ were usually signed
by Sir Claude Schuster, Clerk of the Crown in
Chancery.
Since the enactment of the Statute of
Westminster 1931, Canada is no longer a
‘Colony’. Consequently, the Secretary of State
was no longer interested in the appointment of
a Governor-General.
Further, Canada and the
lands of Canada were no longer under the
Crown in Chancery.
I have stated that Sovereignty and the
power to exercise the right of Eminent Domain are inseparable.
This means that the Sovereign power is
now transferred to the Provinces of Canada.
Section 109 of the British North American
Act states : ‘All lands, mines, minerals and
royalties , etc., belong to the Provinces in
which they are situate or arise.’
The Sovereign power has thus been transferred from the Crown in Chancery to the
Provinces.
The King or Queen of Great Britain are
‘Limited Monarchs’. They have not now or
ever did have anything to do with the colonies.
Prior to the visit of King George V and
Queen Mary to Canada in 1935, the Parliamentary Guide 1935 states : Members of the
Royal family when in Canada take precedence
next after the Governor-General.
The Chicago Tribune in 1946 decided to
inaugurate a press service for their paper in
Ottawa. Mr. Frank Hughes, one of the officials
was to inaugurate this service. He requested
me to introduce him to leading officials in
Ottawa. ( At this time Sir Harold Alexander
was delayed in coming to Canada as no credentials could be issued to him by any department of the Government of Great Britain.)
I suggested to Mr. Hughes that he meet Dr.
Arthur Beauchesne, Clerk of the House of
Commons.
However, as Dr. Beauchesne was at the
moment engaged, I suggested that we call
upon Dr. Maurice Ollivier, joint law clerk of
the House. After introducing Mr. Hughes, I
opened the conversation by asking Dr. Ollivier, ‘What are you going to do about Sir Harold Alexander ?’ He replied, ‘You will be
surprised to know that this department in conjunction with the department of External Affairs is redrafting credentials for him right
now.’
We left shortly and descended the stairway
to the Press Gallery.
Mr. Hughes immediately picked up the
phone and called the department of External
Affairs. After stating who he was, he said : ‘I
understand that your department in conjunction with the Law Department of the House is
drafting credentials for Sir Harold Alexander.’
‘That’s the first we have heard about it,’
was the answer. I concluded that Dr. Ollivier’s
statement was simply a joke or most probably,
made to impress Mr. Hughes with the importance of his department.
Dr. Ollivier had known me for ten years.
He knew that I was an expert in constitutional
law. He knew that I knew that neither his department nor the Department of External Affairs had any power or authority to draft credentials for a Governor-General.
As I had been out of Canada, it was years
later before I found that credentials had actually been drafted by Dr. Ollivier and had been
signed : W. L. Mackenzie King by ‘His Majesty’s Command.’
This statement, by ‘His Majesty’s Command’ is tantamount to a forgery.
By the Constitution there is no other Government in Canada, only the Governor General. He is a ‘Corporation Sole.’
If the document signed by W. L.
Mackenzie King by His Majesty’s Command
is fraudulent, there is no Governor-General.
[or the one sitting there is an impostor. Ed.]
Having no Governor-General, there are no
Lieutenant Governors of the Provinces nor is
there any constituted government in Canada.
The Dominion Government in Canada is
therefore supposititious.
This calls for the formation of an interim
government, prior to the formation of a Federal Union.
RECAPITULATION
The Canadian People are not subject to the
laws of Great Britain and are not British
Subjects.
You may kick this problem around any
hundred acres and you will find that you are
back to the same spot.
You cannot have a Canadian government
as long as a Canadian is denied the right to
vote as a CANADIAN.
Previously I have said that Sovereignty and
the ownership of land are inseparable. The
Gypsies have a King and Queen but, having
no land, have no Sovereignty, and no Flag.
It may be necessary to quote the last line of
Section 109 of the B.N.A. Act : [ All lands
belong to the Provinces ] ‘except for any interest other than that of the Province in the
same.’
This meant the interest of the Crown in
Chancery, which interest was held as long as
the Province was a Colony. This interest of the
Crown in Chancery was relinquished in SecT
tion Eleven of the Statute of Westminster.
The Province is no longer a Colony but a
Sovereign State. When it is proven that the
statement of Mackenzie King ‘By His Majesty’s Command’ is a fabrication, there is no
‘Office’ of Governor-General. The Dominion
government is finished. The King has no despotic power to command. It has now become
the duty, responsibility, and prerogative of the
Sovereign States of Canada to create by appointment an interim government. Two officials can be appointed until a Federal Union is
consummated.
Why fight a shadow . The Dominion is but
a shadow. The provinces possess all Sovereign
power.
“ To him that hath shall be given and to
him that hath not shall be taken away that
which he seemeth to have. ” Period.
[Russell] Rogers SMITH
(Chief Wapanatak)
Washington, D.C. 20004
FAIRY STORY
There is not now nor has there ever been a
Confederation of the Provinces of Canada.
The Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald
confirms this in a letter he wrote to the Governor-General. This is a reply to his query as to
whether or not John had a list of those who
should receive honours on Her Majesty’s birthday.
He wrote: Honours should be granted only
for a service performed for the Imperial Government... Considerable feeling was aroused in
Lower Canada among the French Canadians as
what they looked upon as a slight to the representative man of their race, and a motion on the
subject was made in Parliament. Lord Monck
refused to give any information on this question
as being one of Imperial concern only; but in
order to allay this feeling obtained permission
from Her Majesty’s government to offer Mr.
Cartier a baronetcy if I did not object to it. I at
once stated I should only be too pleased to see
my colleague receive this honour. Mr. Galt was
made a K.C.M.G. All these honours were conferred upon myself and the other gentlemen on
account of the prominent part we had taken in
carrying out the Imperial Policy. (Dominion
Archives.)
Why did John sell out? One of the reasons
was to prevent the United States from annexing
Canada. It is a matter of common knowledge
that Great Britain assisted the Southern States
during the Civil War and was prevented from
declaring war on the United States only by the
prompt action of the Czar of Russia.
It will be remembered that Russia had recently defeated the combined forces of Britain;
France; Sardinia and Turkey in the Crimean
War 1854-1856.
Great Britain now threatened to declare war
T
upon the United States unless an apology was
forthcoming within 24 hours, for the action
which Captain Tom Wilkes had taken in the
Trent Affair.
The Czar immediately dispatched his Baltic
squadron under the command of Admiral
Livofsky to New York City and his Pacific
squadron under Admiral Popov from Vladivostok to San Francisco.
The Czar, who had freed the slaves of Russia in 1861, was in sympathy with Lincoln and
not only this but he was protecting Russia’s
interest in Alaska. It was upon advises from the
Russian Ambassador that Lincoln issued his
“Emancipation Proclamation” in 1863. The
seven million two hundred thousand dollars
paid to Russia by Seward for the purchase of
Russia’s interest in Alaska on March 30, 1867,
was not because Seward thought Alaska was
worth anything, but to repay the Czar for the
expenses incurred by the fleets which he had
sent and maintained in New York and San
Francisco until victory was obtained by Federal
forces ending the Civil War in 1865.
When Federal troops were mustered out and
paid by ‘Greenbacks’, they were permitted to
keep their firearms and knapsacks.
They were then enrolled in a force of
180,000 set to invade Canada. Ten thousand
were encamped in Buffalo, N.Y., and 1,500
under Col. John O’Neil invaded Ontario. Representative Banks introduced a ‘Bill’ in Washington to annex Canada.
The War Office in London sent Col. Jarvis
to Canada to investigate. He reported: ‘You
have only 10,000 troops there, veterans of the
Crimean War and scions of the British nobility
and you cannot count on more than 20,000
volunteers. You would be facing a force of
300,000 at the frontier. You cannot hope to
defend Canada, nor Canada be expected to
defend herself.’
Great Britain now agreed to negotiate. Previously the Imperial Government had refused to
consider the demands made by the United
States that Britain was responsible for 226
ships sunk by privateers, which had been built
in Britain for the Southern States by Laird &
Son in Birkenhead.
The United States claimed
these ships were British from keel to masthead,
armed by British guns, manned by British
crews and the pay office was in Liverpool.
Further Britain had forts at Nassau to supply Confederates with small arms and ammunition as
well as mines for their harbours.
Britain’s only defence was that she had not
declared war. The United States replied, ‘This
is a game two can play at.’
This was the situation when our delegates
from Canada with the Quebec Resolutions were
convened in the Westminster Palace Hotel in
London, 1866.
They sat until the Christmas
holidays and were elaborately wined and dined
by members of the British government.
Col. Montague Bernard, Member of Her
Majesty’s Imperial Privy Council, introduced
John A. Macdonald to his sister, the Hon.
Susan Agnes.
John A. Macdonald was 54 and
a widower. Of course the Hon. Susan Agnes
fell in love with John and they were married
Feb. 16, 1867. It was explained to the groom
that Britain was not adverse to a Federation of
the Provinces of Canada, but this could not be
accomplished until a settlement had been made
with the government of the United States.
If John would consent to become a member
of the Commission to be sent to Washington he
would first be appointed and sworn as a member of Her Majesty’s Imperial Privy Council. (
The minimum salary of a member is £ 2,000
per annum.)
Further if the Commission were successful
he would undoubtedly be granted a title of Sir.
John knew a ‘Bill’ was pending in Washington and if Canada were annexed he would be
only a very little frog in a very large puddle.
John A. Macdonald and his brother-in-law,
the Rt. Hon. Col. Montague Bernard, were accredited and created Ministers Plenipotentiary,
and when the Commission was convened in the
Arlington Hotel in Washington it was agreed
that Emperor William of Germany be ap-
pointed arbitrator. The agreement consummated is embodied in the Treaty of Washington, May 8, 1871.
This stipulates that Great Britain shall grant
the government of the United States an apology; pay a direct indemnity of $37,500,000;
pay for the shipping sunk as would be decided
by an Admiralty Court in New York City; grant
to the United States equal rights in perpetuity
of the navigation of the St. Lawrence River
through Quebec; the disputed boundaries
Lake of the Woods and Point Roberts, B.C., to
be granted to the United States.
The question of ownership of the San Juan
Islands to be left to the arbitrator.
Emperor William of Germany decided Oct.
25, 1872, that the San Juan Islands should belong to the United States and $15,000,000 more
to pay the expenses incurred by Federal Cruisers in chasing the privateers.
Viscount Bury said of the apology:
“A national expression of regret is an act of
the gravest importance. If England had been
clearly in the wrong an expression of regret
would be consistent with her dignity, but it has
hitherto not been usual for nations of the highest rank to apologise for acts which they never
committed. The same Englishmen who offered
the apology framed the British case. The case is
elaborate statement that Britain is in the right. It
is hard to escape from this dilemma. Either the
apology was unnecessary or the British case is
a tissue of mis-statements .”
Delegates from Canada had no part in drafting the British North America Act, March 29,
1867, and no certified copy of this act was
brought to Canada.
The Act was drafted by Lord Thring, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury.
It is not a Constitution for it constitute nothing. It simply emphasises the power of the
Governor-General to appoint and remove a
Privy Council to ‘aid and advise’ him and to
state that the Governor-General has the power
to pass an ‘order-in-council’ by himself individually as the case requires. ( An ‘order-incouncil’ is equal to an Act of Parliament.)
One score and two years later the Interpretations Act, 1889, was passed, stating that Canada is a Colony. This gives the lie to the story
of Confederation and brands it as a reductio ad
absurdum. Another recent absurdity is that a
House and Senate of British Subjects debating
the adoption of a Flag and Anthem.
You say you have never heard of this before! You are not alone in this.
Since 1931, Canadian citizens are not subject to laws enacted by the British Government
and are not recognised by Great Britain as British subjects.
To sum up: Canada lost everything gained
politically in the previous hundred years and
reverted back to the Constitution granted in
1763 to Governor James Murray by the Board
of Trade (Sessional Papers 18 ). Lord Monck
came back to Canada as a ‘Corporation Sole’
and his first act upon opening Parliament was
to announce that John A. Macdonald had been
granted a title of ‘Sir’.
John did very well for himself; he obtained
a titled Lady as a bride, an annual stipend as a
member of the Imperial Privy Council, and was
now the Right Honourable Sir John A. Macdonald. But at what a cost to Canada !
Twenty years ago, 98 percent of the druggists of New York State were graduates of Canadian Universities, and over three million
Canadians had migrated to the United States.
(U.S.A. immigration).
It is estimated that it costs the parents and
the state $15,000 to feed, clothe, and put a son
through high school and four years in a university. [Any graduate of any Faculty does well for
himself whenever he moves south to practice
his profession south of the friendly border, but
at what cost to Canada. I have a son in Chicago
occasionally roaming Canada to swindle new
talent and business for his new employer, under
the watchful eye of Canadian politicians harping for Canadian Unity. Study closely the Gov.-
General’s annual scholarships feedback to Can-
ada and see who benefits. Ed.]
In case your computer is not working, I
might as well state this amounts to 45 billion
dollars [in 1965].
Late in 1939, I was most courteously received by Beaudry Leman, President of the
Bankers Association. After an inter-view of
about an hour, he asked if I had any objection
to seeing Mr. W. Wilson, President of the
Royal Bank of Canada. I immediately stated I
would be pleased. He phoned Mr. Wilson’s
office in the Royal Bank. Mr. Wilson listened
attentively to the evidence I submitted and said,
‘I think your information should be presented to
our chief legal advisor, Mr. Robert C.
McMicheal.’
The firm of Brown, Montgomery and
McMichael comprises 25 lawyers which occupy the entire fourth floor of the Royal Bank
of Canada Building on St. James Street, Montreal, except for three offices of the firm of
McKinnon & Co., chartered accountants.
As I had no need for notes, my evidence was
submitted to Robert C. McMichael orally.
I explained that Section 109 of the B.N.A.
Act states that all wealth is the possession of
the Provinces. That the City of Ottawa, which
includes the Parliament Buildings and the residence of the Governor-General, was equally an
asset as much as any farm to guarantee the
payment of Bonds issued by the Legislature of
the Province of Ontario.
Further, although the Governor-General’s
Act, Chap. 85 R.S., states that he is a ‘Corporation Sole’, it also states that he is not the owner
of any public property. That all revenue and
taxes are returnable to him and all debts are
paid by vouchers which are signed by him.
It is further submitted that the House of
Commons and Senate are not responsible for
the National debt as they are constituted only to
‘aid and advise’ the Governor-General. It is
further submitted that the Canadian people are
not shareholders in the Dominion Corporation.
That there is no provision in the Dominion
Elections Act whereby a Canadian can exercise
his franchise as a Canadian. That the Canadian
people cannot be held accountable for a National debt in which they had no part in contracting. That the issues of securities by the
Dominion should not be referred to as bonds
but be designated as debentures.
Mr. McMichael saw the point and immediately instituted a plan whereby the Banks need
not subscribe directly for debentures issued by
the Dominion.
That the Banks provide ample funds to be
extended to insurance companies at 1¾%. The
debentures draw 3%, that gives the insurance
company a profit of 1¼% for simply borrowing
the funds from the Bank.
The securities subscribed for by the insurance company to be held by the Bank as well as
a list of the assets of the insurance company
which is the security for the loan.
By this plan, the Banks do not stand to lose
anything. If the debentures prove to be of no
value, the Bank can expropriate the assets of
the insurance company to liquidate the loan.
Caveat Emptor. (Buyer, beware).
When the term of the present GovernorGeneral expires, who is to appoint his successor. The British Government can not, and there
are none in Canada who can.
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
he search for truth is one of the strongest
impulses of mankind. This may be the
reason many students turn to the back of
the book and read the last chapter first. The
author here has no objection to this procedure,
but would point out that "there is no royal road
to knowledge". This was the answer given by a
professor to a king who desired that his son be
quickly promoted.
If you planned to purchase a diamond, you
would take a magnifying glass and examine
every facet to see if you could discern a flaw
before consenting to buy.
Each chapter in this volume is designed to
shed some light on each facet of the constitutional position of Canada. In one chapter it is
stated that "Canada is merely a geographical
expression, not a political entity."
Another chapter exposes the myth of confederation.
If the reader fosters some preconceived notions or assumptions regarding the government
of Canada, he would be well advised to put
them away, so that they will not bother him
while he is engaged in reading. If you neglect to
follow this advice, you would lose them entirely and agree with the author when he says:
"Never have so may known so little about so
much."
Now that you have finished reading the last
chapter, you can start again at the beginning.
The author will endeavour to keep in step with
you so that when we reach the last chapter, you
can read it over again.
Wapanatak
De tous les organismes et des individus qui ont
insisté pour recevoir une copie du livre HO,
CANADA !, seul le chef Joe Norton, par le biais
de la Bibliothèque du Long Sault à Khanawake,
a manifesté un désir sérieux de posséder le livre
de Wapanatak. Si le chef Norton n’a pas lu HO,
CANADA !, quelqu’un là-bas l’a lu et il l’a compris ; de même qu’un septuagénaire de Kootenay, B.C. Les autochtones semblent être les
seuls à vouloir amener une solution à
l’honorable anarchie qui paralyse l’esprit sincère
de la majorité des Canadiens. Le ministre Chevrette sonne la fin de la récréation le dimanche,
et l’autoroute 132 en Gaspésie est toujours bloquée lundi soir, 2 jours après la signature dudit
protocole d’entente avec les aborigènes assimilés,
tandis que les autochtones traditionalistes flottent
toujours le drapeau américain sur leur « Timberjack » de Pointe-à-la-Croix.
C’est simple, tout le système judiciaire et ses
magistrats s’assoient sur l’AANB, et l’Acte en
question est frauduleux. Pour des Canadiens, la
compétence et la juridiction émanent des articles 91 et 92 de cette loi britannique. Les états
étrangers n’ayant pas d’articles 91 ou 92, comment leur magistrature se démêle-t-elle avec la
juridiction et la compétence. Souplat, la France
et l’Angleterre n’ont pas d’articles 91 ou 92, elles
ont pourtant une magistrature, comment fontelles. Vous me direz, elles n’ont pas
d’autochtones. Ces pays ont pourtant des Indiens et des Nigérians sur leur territoire. Ils ne
bloquent pas les routes, mais si toutefois ils les
bloquaient, les bloqueraient-elles longtemps ?
Sont-ce les articles 91 et 92 de l’Acte de
l’Amérique du nord britannique, ou est-ce tout
l’Acte responsable de nos malaises routiers et
judiciaires ? Souplat, dites-nous chers autochtones comment faites-vous pour lire et comprendre Wapanatak ? Souplat, dites-le à notre magistrature et à nos media, ça presse.
Jean-Paul RHÉAUME ]
T
R. Rogers Smith 1965
Chapter 1
SEARCH FOR THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT OF 1867
arly in 1935, after lengthy talks anent the
constitutional position of the provinces to
the Dominion Government with Chief
Justice Morrison of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, I asked, “ Has British Columbia
a copy of the British North America Act ? ”
“ No, ” he informed me. “ You know that
British Columbia was united to the original
provinces by an Order in Council. This Order
in Council was signed in London by Prince
Arthur on May 10, 1871, four years after the
British North America Act was enacted, so we
have no copy.
“ Of course the original provinces, namely
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and
Ontario, would have copies of the original, but
may I suggest that you could see the original, or
a duplicate of the original, in Ottawa. ”
Thanking the Chief Justice, I mentioned that
I planned to be in Ottawa in the fall and would
visit the Archives.
Leaving Vancouver, I stopped over in Edmonton and addressed Premier Aberhart and
his newly elected Cabinet in the Macdonald
Hotel on the constitutional position of Alberta.
While there, on October 25, 1935 2
, I cabled the
Secretary of State for the Colonies in London,
protesting that any credentials issued to Lord
Tweedsmuir who was expected to leave for
Canada.
He received none. No doubt my cable is on
record in the books of the cable company.
Arriving in Ottawa the first week in No-
2
. This conference was published from Ottawa in 1937 in a
pamphlet called “ ALBERTA has the SOVEREIGN
RIGHT to ISSUE and USE its OWN CREDIT. ” Ed.
vember, I visited the Archives and was directed
to the Reference Library.
When I asked Colonel Hamilton, who was
in charge, for a certified or duplicate copy of
the British North America Act, he informed me
that as the act was still in force, the Archives
would not have the document until the Government was finished with it.
“ You had better contact the Privy Council, ” he said. “ Do you know Mr. Lemaire, the
Chief Clerk ? ”
“ No, ” I replied. “ I am here from Vancouver and I have not had an opportunity. ”
“ Very well. If you wish, I shall make an appointment for you, as I know Mr. Lemaire. In
the mean time, we have the original papers here
that were written by the delegates who presented the Quebec Resolutions when they were
in London. ”
I spent some two weeks in the Archives
where a chair and table were provided, and as I
finished with each document it was returned
and another placed before me.
The name of each delegate was across the
top of each copy which was a revision of the
Quebec Resolutions, but none were signed at
the bottom; further, no confederation agreement was drafted or signed by them.
I was most interested in Sessional Papers 18
which contained the first Constitution of Canada, drafted by Yorke and Yorke, of the Board
of Trade (1763). 3
Among these many papers are letters written
3
. Excerpts from this Constitution appear here in Chapter 11,
on the Governor-General.
E
by John A. Macdonald.
Also, Sessional Papers 18 state that the Constitution of Canada was amended September
20, 1765, to permit Roman Catholics to vote
and hold office as proctors, prothonotaries,
judges, and so forth. (This was forty years before Catholics were permitted to vote in Great
Britain - 1805.)
One day Colonel Hamilton came to my table
and said, ‘I have arranged an appointment for
you with Mr. Lemaire for to-morrow.’ He said
further, ‘Do you know, you are the first Canadian to go through these papers in the many
years I have been in charge here?’
I was received most graciously by Mr. Lemaire, who was very interested when I explained that there apparently was a typographical error in the copy I had, which had been
printed by the printer in Ottawa, and I desired
to compare my copy with the original or a
proven duplicate.
Mr. Lemaire said, “ As the Privy Council
does not have a copy of the original, I think the
best place would be the Office of the GovernorGeneral. Wait a moment and I will have my
secretary escort and introduce you to the Governor-General’s secretary. ”
When Mr. Lemaires’s secretary introduced
me to Mr. Periera, the Governor-General’s
secretary, he smiled patronizingly and, reaching
over his desk, picked up a sheet of the Governor-General’s letterhead. He wrote a note for
me and said, “ Just give this note to Mr. Hardy,
the Parliamentary Librarian. ”
Mr. Hardy laughed and said, “ This is too
important a document for us to have in the Library. I think your best plan would be to see
Mr. Coleman, Secretary of State. ”
“ Where would I find him? ”
“ He has an office in the West Block. ”
Mr. Coleman was in when I called on him
and, in answer to my question, said, “ We have
no copy that I know of . We have the Great
Seal, if you would care to see it. ”
Thanking him, I mentioned that I had seen
reproductions of the Great Seal so I was not
particularly interested, but if there were a Confederation in Canada, each province which was
a party to the agreement should have a certified
copy and I had been informed that I would find
a copy in Ottawa.
“ You should see Dr. Beauchesne, Clerk of
the House of Commons, who is an authority on
the British North America Act, and if he does
not have a certified copy, he will tell you where
to find it, ” Mr. Coleman advised me.
Dr. Beauchesne, venerable Chief Clerk of
the House of Parliament in Ottawa and author
of Beauchesnes’s Parliamentary Rules and
Forms, said, after I had been introduced,
“ What did they send you to me for? They
know that I keep no valuable documents here,
and this most valuable document would be kept
closely guarded somewhere in a vault. There is
such a vault under the Senate Chamber but you
would have to see Dr. Blount, Clerk of the
Senate. ”
Thanking him, I traversed the lofty corridors
of the House of Parliament, on the walls of
which are hung the paintings of former premiers of Canada, to the office of Dr. Blount,
who, after introduction to me said:
“ You know, you have me very much interested. Do you mean to say that you have been
to all these places and you have not found any
certified copy of the Act? Well! We have a
vault under the Senate, but I do not know of
any copy there. If you would care to look, you
are welcome. ”
When I expressed my pleasure at having
him extend this courtesy, he said, “ I will call
an assistant. ”
Dr. Blount, the assistant and I descended to
a high ceiling vault about twenty by forty feet
which had shelves about ten feet up from the
floor along the south and east sides.
Certified copies, which must be stamped
with the seal of the Senate, as well as certified
copies of orders in council, are in hardwood
cases on the shelves, each case marked with the
year’s date.
The assistant handed down two cases as he
stood on a step-ladder 1867 and 1868
which Dr. Blount turned over to me for my
inspection.
Not finding a copy of the British North
America Act, I asked if it had been destroyed in
the fire.
“ No, ” Dr. Blount assured me. “ The Parliament buildings were destroyed but we saved
the Library and this vault. All that the Government lost were some paintings in the corridors.
Some members lost personal files in their
rooms. You will be interested in seeing this, no
doubt, ” and he produced a polished hardwood
case and showed me the gallon measure in
bronze and the platinum ounce and pound. In
another case were the inch, foot and yard standards. He explained that the Bureau of Weights
and Measures, by law, must check their sets
with these every two years.
“ Was this British North America Act ever
presented to the Senate? ” I asked.
“ We can check the records in my office. ”
Dr. Blount replied.
After consulting his book of records, he assured me it had not been presented to the Senate.
“ Was it ever presented to Parliament? ” was
my next question.
“ You will have to ask Dr. Beauchesne, ” he
said.
Retracing my steps to the office of Dr.
Beauchesne, I related to him my failure to find
any certified copy and that Dr. Blount could
find no record of it in his office. Would it have
been placed before Parliament?
Dr. Beauchesne called for the records of the
House of Commons, and after looking over the
records, he told me that it had never been
placed before Parliament.
“ Well, Doctor, if a copy of this Act had
ever been brought to Canada, it would be here,
would it not? ” I asked.
“ Yes, of course, ” the Doctor replied.
“ Then, Doctor, I think we can say that no
copy of this Act was ever brought to Canada, is
that correct? ”
“ I am very much afraid that you are correct, ” was his answer. [The perfect excuse for
repatriation. Ed.]
Dr. Kenny, Dominion Architect, met me on
Sparks Street a few weeks later and said, “ So
many people have been asking me, writing me,
and phoning me to know if there is a copy of
the British North America Act in Canada that I
think I should write London for a photostat. ”
“ An excellent idea, ” I said.
Hearing that a photostat was being sought, a
friend of mine in London had one made for me,
as he knew I would be interested. On receipt of
this, however, I was disappointed, for it stated
that this was a photostat of a copy.
Why Dominion officials should put any
value upon this, I do not know. My copy is a
duplicate of the one which they have and I cannot conceive of any intelligent person being
satisfied with a photostat of a copy. [Ever seen
a cop accept a photocopy of a driver’s permit ?
Ed.]
It would not be more difficult for a photographer to make a copy of the original, would it?
It means that after a hundred years we cannot get a photostat even of a document which is
supposed to have created a Confederation of
the Provinces.
Lord Thring, who drafted the British North
America Act, tells us in his book Parliamentary Rules and Forms that it is mandatory that
any Act be printed before it is introduced to the
House of Commons.
Mr. Hadfield, who was a back-bencher in
the House of Commons in 1867 and was not in
on the scheme of the Secretary of the Colonies,
asked the following question:
“ Why all the haste in enacting this measure ? I am not sure I will have anything against
it, but it affects four million people and we
should have an opportunity to study the measure, which is now in second reading and it has
not been printed. ” 4
Britain’s national economy was sustained by
her possessions or colonies. These were her
sources for raw materials, which could be imported at a price which Britain could set. In
return, the colonies became the main market for
her exports which, because of tariffs imposed
by Britain, could be marketed at a noncompetitive price.
The Conservative and Liberal Parties had
differences which were fought over and they
vied with each other for office. But when the
national economy was threatened they could
bury the hatchet and unite to fend off any threat
to the economy, which was of paramount interest to both, and to the national welfare of Britain. This is exemplified in the following passages.
The Earl of Carnarvon, Secretary of the
Colonies, presented the Bill to the House of
Lords with these words: “ The Bill opens by
reciting the desire of the several provinces to be
Federally United. ”
Lord Campbell, leader of the opposition,
said in reply on February 9, 1867: “ The Bill is
founded, I believe, on what is termed the Quebec Scheme of 1864... Our lights may be imperfect upon this part of the subject and I will
not dwell upon it... but one thing is clear, the
preamble of the Resolution comes before us in
clear and perfect authenticity, it cites the expediency of federating the Provinces of British
North America. ” 5
4
. Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 185, p. 1016. (Volume
missing on the shelves of Laval’s general library. Ed)
5
. If the Imperial Parliament federated the Canadian
colonies, like many do think, why did it not federate the
American Colonies the same way after 1776 ? These
American colonials would have saved themselves a War
of Independence. If Britain could not federate her
That Lord Campbell knew and was in accord with the Earl of Carnarvon in fending off
this threat to the economy of Britain is clearly
implied in his remarks at the second reading of
the Bill on February 26. He said, “ It would
scarcely be possible to break the artificial
unity we now propose to organize. ” 6
Let me not omit to explain the difference between a “ private bill ” and a “ public bill ” as
ruled by the Parliament of Great Britain.
A private bill is one which affects only a
private citizen or a part of the British Empire,
but does not affect any other part. As an instance, the Island of Malta requested an alteration of Constitution in 1936. Now, as this did
not affect any other part of the Empire, it was a
private bill.
Private bills are first introduced into the
House of Lords and, after passing, are referred
to the House of Commons, where they may be
amended; but the purposes of the bill are not
discussed or debated.
Public bills are first introduced into the
House of Commons and then go to the House
of Lords to be acted upon in the same way as
private bills going from the House of Lords to
the Commons.
As the British North America Act did not affect any part of the Empire except Canada, it
was a private bill.
All legislation going before either House is
called a bill before it is enacted into law.
This may not appear to be important, but it
is. The bill in question was not amended in the
House of Commons, but was enacted as the
British North America Act on March 29, 1867.
It was printed when introduced in the House
of Lords. Why did Mr. Hadfield say, when the
bill was in second reading in the House of
Commons, that “ it has not been printed ”? For
American Colonies around 1782, she did not federate any
more in her B.N.A. Act. Ed.
6
. Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 185, p. 1016.
the good reason that one page of the bill, which
states the raison d’être of the Act, was deleted
before going to the Commons. [Was it repatriated in 1982, with this deleted page? Ed.]
The reason for and the purpose of any enactment is of the greatest importance. Hallsbury
states: “ An Act must be read and construed as
a whole, though one subsequent section should
bear a wider and another a more limited meaning. ”
The deleted page stated: “ By reason of the
request of the Colonies for Federal Government, it is expedient therefore that they have
laws and regulations to guide them. ”
If this page had not been deleted, the provinces of Canada would ere this have formed a
Confederation, or, as the Act states, a Federal
Union. […, …, … How? Ed.]
As the Act had been debated and passed by
the House of Lords, it was but a routine matter
for the Commons to place the seal of approval
upon it. There was, therefore, no need for more
than a quorum to be present to grant the Commons’ assent.
The next Act upon order paper was the
“ Tax on Dogs. ” The House was crowded.
Chapter 2
THE BIRTH of GREAT BRITAIN THE BIRTH of GREAT BRITAIN
ewfoundland, the last to join the Dominion of Canada as a province, was the first
colony of England. Queen Elizabeth
Sovereign of England, granted a charter to Sir
Humphrey Gilbert in 1583 to colonise the colony. He was accompanied on many of his voyages by his younger half-brother, Walter
Rawleigh.
Years later when Sir Walter Rawleigh
wrote his history of the world when incarcerated in the Tower of London, he included
charts of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia
drafted by Sir Humphrey Gilbert which compare favourably with the maps and charts of our
modern atlases. His career ended when his little
vessel, the Squirrel, only half-decked over, was
overwhelmed and foundered in a storm off the
Azores.
Prior to the reign of Henry VIII the rulers
of England were vassals of the Pope. When
Henry VIII broke with papal authority he became the first absolute sovereign of England.
Queen Elizabeth inherited this sovereign power
from her father. She owned all of England and
all that England owned, and could of her own
volition grant the Charter to Sir Humphrey.
However, when this Charter was brought to
the attention of Her Majesty’s Privy Council,
they said: But the Queen herself does not own
everything by right. England and her possessions belong to the Queen and her people.
Consequently, they forthwith drafted thirtynine articles which Her Majesty was induced to
sign.
Article 1 reads:
“ No gift or grant shall be made to any person without the consent of Parliament. ”
This article transcends anything to be found
in Magna Carta. It demotes the sovereign of
England to the position of monarch. Ever afterward the government of England has been
known as a “ limited monarchy ”. The ruler is
no longer a sovereign.
In the Encyclopedia of American and British
Law, James Cacroft has the following to say
concerning sovereignty:
The right to exercise the power of Eminent
Domain is inherent in Sovereignty, necessary
to it and inseparable from it. From the very
nature of society and of organised government,
this right must belong to the State. It is a part of
the Sovereign power of any nation. It exists
independent of constitutional recognition, and
it existed prior to constitutions. It lies dormant
in the State until legislative action is had pointing out the occasion, and modes and the agencies for its exercise. 7
An important point to remember is that sovereignty can be exercised only by those who
own the land.
In the records of Queen Elizabeth it is stated
that:
“ Members of Her Majesty’s Most Learned
and Honourable Privy Council (divers orders
thereunto called) conceived and Established the
Crown in Chancery to Administer Affairs in
connection with and exercise authority over the
waste lands and commons of England. ”
This Crown in Chancery, the first department of lands the world has known, was housed
at Whitehall where it is today. The Lord High
Chancellor is the custodian of the sovereignty
of England; all lands are under him and his
jurisdiction, and their retention as assets of the
nation is his responsibility.
The Lords of Trade and Plantations was
7
. Under the article Eminent Domain.
N
organised by the merchants of London, and to
this organisation the Lord High Chancellor
granted the power to exercise authority over
and administer affairs in connection with the
plantations and colonies in the New World.
In order to assist them, Parliament enacted
the Navigation Acts: “ Anything and everything
exported to the colonies must be by an English
ship, manned by an English crew. ” This is the
gist of the many Navigation Acts enacted by
Parliament.
This administration became so obnoxious to
the colonists that it became a matter of principle as well as profit to them to circumvent the
rules of the Lords of Trade and Plantations
insofar as they were able. This period is known
as the old smuggling days.
It will be interesting to some to know that
the Charter to colonise Virginia was granted by
Parliament before it was submitted to Queen
Elizabeth for her signature.
One clause of this Charter gives us an insight into the character of Sir Walter: “ ...the
colonists were to have all the privileges of Englishmen and be governed by laws of their own
making. ”
It may also be of interest to know that the
rule by the Board of Trade and Plantations
lasted for two hundred years, from 1583 when
the first Charter was granted to Sir Humphrey
Gilbert until a Treaty at Versailles was signed
by Great Britain which recognised that the
colonies of New England were independent,
September 1783. The loss of the colonies was a
bitter pill, and the prestige of the Ministry was
a low ebb when in 1782 Burke introduced a
Bill in scathing language to abolish completely
and utterly the Lords of Trade and Plantations.
In their destruction they provided a perfect
scape-goat for the party in power.
Their functions were transferred to the Colonial Office with a Secretary for the Colonies
holding a cabinet position. In Canada, the battle
on the Plains of Abraham was fought in 1759.
General Wolfe fell on the field and was succeeded by General James Murray, next in
command of the British forces; and when
Montreal capitulated in 1760, General Murray
was appointed Governor of New France by the
Board of Trade. His papers, signed Yorke and
Yorke Attorneys for the Board of Trade, constituted him an absolute dictator. 8
As the title to all British lands is in the custody of the Crown in Chancery, all government
or public lands are referred to as “ Crown
lands. ” After the Lords of Trade and Plantations were abolished, the Colonial Office administered the affairs of the colony. The colonial officials were so enamoured of the terms of
the authority granted to General Murray by
Yorke and Yorke that they copied them for all
governors thereafter.
The papers granting absolute power drafted
in 1947 to the Governor-General of Canada and
signed W.L. Mackenzie King are, mutatis mutandis, those issued to General James Murray in
1763. There has been no alteration in the government of Canada since the capitulation of
Montreal, [September 8, 1760], with the exception that since Canada is no longer under the
Colonial Office (by reason of the enactment of
the Statute of Westminster, December 11,
1931), the Colonial Office has not accredited a
governor to Canada.
Returning now to 1600, Queen Elizabeth’s
reign was followed by that of James I, the son
of Mary, Queen of the Scots, who was the
daughter of James V of Scotland and cousin of
Queen Elizabeth. In 1603 when he was
crowned Monarch of England, he was and continued as Sovereign of Scotland.
His accession to the throne of England did
not unite the governments. The governments of
England and Scotland were united a hundred
years later (1707) in the reign of Queen Anne
King James retained his right as King James
VI, Sovereign of Scotland, where he was the
8
. Sessional Papers 18, Dominion Archives.
exclusive owner, ruler and law of Scotland,
since Scotland was a feudal state.
In England, however, James I was required
to submit to the advice and consent of the English Privy Council and Parliament.
The Charter to Sir Humphrey Gilbert to
colonise Newfoundland which led to the signing of the famous Thirty-nine Articles by
Queen Elizabeth rang the death-knell of the
feudal system and fostered a period of prosperity never heretofore known in England.
It spawned the era of exploration, and fostered the arts, science and letters.
This period is adorned by the names of England’s greatest men. Among those most noted
are Shakespeare, Sir Francis Drake, Frobisher
and Sir Walter Rawleigh. Returning from his
last trip to Newfoundland, Sir Humphrey Gilbert was lost when his vessel, the Squirrel,
foundered in a violent storm off the Azores.
Walter Rawleigh succeeded in saving his ship
and another vessel. When he reported the disaster to Queen Elizabeth, she granted him the
inheritance of his brother’s patents and
knighted him.
Nearing the end of his reign, King James VI
as Sovereign of Scotland, acting on his own
volition, granted a Charter to Sir William Alexander to colonise Nova Scotia in 1621.
The boundaries of the territory granted extended from the mouth of the Penobscot River
north to the St. Lawrence, and comprised what
is now Gaspé, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island and our present Nova Scotia (New
Scotland).
King James is reported to have said: “ Well!
England has New England and France New
France, and I see no reason why Scotland
should not have New Scotland. ”
Let me not omit to explain at this point that
subjects of one sovereign were not permitted to
emigrate to a country of another ruler. In 1684
a proclamation of the King of France was
posted in the City of Quebec that the punishment would be death for any French Canadian
who emigrated to the colony of New York.
In 1680 some Scottish emigrants, finding the
winters in Nova Scotia too rigorous for them
and hearing of the salubrious climate and fertile
land of Carolina, requested their Governor to
confer with the Governor of Carolina in England and negotiate with him to arrange for their
removal to that colony. The Governor of Carolina assented and wrote to his representative to
settle these colonists near the borders of Florida
and provide them with thirty cannon and powder shot so that they could protect themselves
and prove a buffer between the English and the
Spaniards who held Florida.
In 1684 fifty-one Scottish families arrived;
but the agitation among the English colonists
was so great they were not permitted to land.
This attitude was general throughout the New
England colonies. The Scots spoke a language
none could understand; they wore kilts and
were looked upon as savages. Even before the
Romans built Hadrian’s wall the English and
Scots were antagonists. Not until the Treaty of
Union was signed, 1707, were the Scots tolerated. At the convention held in Philadelphia in
1782, commenting on the tremendous influence
the Scots and Irish had in the Legislature of
Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin said: “ ... and
to think I can remember the first ship that
brought them over. ”
One reason so many Scottish immigrants
came was that as late as 1747 laws were enacted by the British Parliament to “ civilize ”
the Scotsmen. “ The practice of carrying dirks
to the Kirk and Publick meetings were keeping
the Scots from becoming civilised. ” This practice was outlawed. The playing of the bagpipes
or wearing a Scottish cap or any part of the
Scottish garb meant deportation for man or boy.
The captain of the ship landed the Scottish
families in Florida where they settled at St.
Augustine. When reports reach Spain of the
arrival of these heretics in their territory a force
was dispatched to drive them out. As the Scots
were unarmed, the Spanish force made quick
work of this.
The Seminoles succeeded in saving a number of the survivors, who thereafter made their
homes with them. Nothing further was heard
from this Scottish colony.
England was at this time at peace with
Spain, and this action was not their concern.
Scotland, however, was enraged and decided to
retaliate. Scotland outfitted and dispatched a
force of 2500 men with three ships and three
ministers under the command of Rory McNab.
This force invaded the Isthmus of Panama,
drove the Spaniards out of three forts in 1686
and occupied the territory until the year 1701.
Rory McNab expected that he would be
able to buy supplies from the Barbados, Jamaica or other English colonies However, fearing that the Scots who were setting themselves
up on one of the principal trade routes of the
world would become their serious competitors,
the Lords of Trade and Plantations had written
a circular letter to their governors not to grant
the Scots “ fire or water. ”
The Scottish force were dependent upon
three ships to supply them. One, the Speedy
Return, was either captured or sunk by a pirate.
The Scots blamed the English.
Short of supplies and decimated by malaria
and yellow fever, the Scots accepted the offer
of a Spanish envoy to give them passage back
to Scotland if they would give up the forts.
Some remained, being engaged in cutting dyewood in what is now British Honduras.
In 1705, Captain William Green’s Worchester, caught in a storm in the North Sea, put
into the Firth of Forth and anchored at Leith,
the harbour for Edinburgh. Casual talk among
sailors on the docks led the authorities to believe the ship was a pirate. They seized the
Worchester and in their search found that the
goods in her holds were flung in and not stored
as they would be by stevedores at a wharf. William Green and his first and second mates were
arrested.
At the trial held at Edinburgh the authorities
could produce no evidence that the prisoners
had sunk the Speedy Return, but they hanged
them as pirates anyway.
Feeling was running high in both England
and Scotland.
Harley (afterward the Earl of Oxford),
leader of the House of Commons, said: “ This
means war or union. ” Taking time by the forelock, he subsidised Daniel Defoe (later author
of Robinson Crusoe, Moll Flanders and The
History of Colonel Jack) to publish the Review
of London, an eight-page paper and the Chronicle of Edinburgh. Defoe wrote editorials for
each of these papers every day, and then often
wrote a letter signed by a pseudonym criticising
his editorial in order to cover another point in
his next edition.
In the latter part of the year 1706 Harley appointed him chief advisor to the commissioners
appointed by Parliament and convened at Edinburgh to discuss terms of union with Scottish
officials. When in Edinburgh Defoe went so far
as to pay Scottish printers not to print the antiunion pamphlets some Scots were writing.
When his father died while he was there he
could not receive permission to leave to attend
the funeral.
Defoe, although famous as an author, deserved more fame as a statesman. The best records we have of the union of England and
Scotland are to be found in Defoe’s letters.
In the history of Nations, ofttimes the moving of a lowly pawn on the chessboard of fate
brings about an entirely unforeseen result.
The colonising of Newfoundland brought an
end to the feudal system of England, and a lost
Scottish colony coupled with the loss of the
Speedy Return (her ribs were later found on the
shore
The Treaty of Union was signed by the representatives of England and Scotland in the
reign of Queen Anne, on January 14, 1707.
Chapter 3
THE CITIZEN AND THE FLAG
or many years I have been both intrigued
and secretly amused by the antics of British
subjects resident in Canada who ostensibly
have been advocating the adoption of a national
flag for Canada.
Why? Because this is so illogical. Consider
their preferred position. They have a flag -- the
Union Jack --
and they exclusively have the privilege or
right to vote in Canada. School trustees must be
British subjects, and only British subjects are
eligible to cast a vote at an election of a school
trustee.
All members of a municipal or city council
or the legislatures of the provinces, members of
the House of Commons, members of a jury,
lawyers, judges, members of the armed forces -
- in fact, all professional positions can be filled
only by British subjects.
The Dominion Elections Act is adamant
upon this point; it reiterates eleven times in its
various sections that the right to vote is exclusively the prerogative of a British subject.
The British flag, the Union Jack, was
adopted upon the signing of the Treaty of Union uniting England and Scotland in 1707. This
flag was first flown from St. Paul’s Cathedral in
London at a celebration to commemorate the
Union, May 1, 1707.
The cross of St. Patrick was added to the
crosses of St. George and St. Andrew when the
legislative union with Ireland was confirmed;
the new flag was first flown in Dublin on January 1, 1801.
On July 28, 1707, “ Queen Anne decreed
that the Merchant Marine of Britain, in order to
show their peaceful intentions, should fly a Red
Ensign, with the Union Jack in the upper lefthand corner, next the staff. ” This flag is exclusively the property of the British Merchant Marine. This association is not a part or department of the government but an organisation of
British ship-owners for commercial purposes.
The Canadian Merchant Marine, which in a
similar way is not a department of the Canadian
Government, requested permission from the
British Merchant Marine for the privilege of
flying their flag. This was courteously granted
in 1892.
Since 1900 this flag has been flown from
flag-poles across Canada on the land without
express permission; but there has been no protest or hindrance or opposition on the part of
the British Merchant Marine.
Naturally, this ensign cannot be flown in
wartime without destroying its value, for the
purpose for which it was created was as a
peace-flag to be flown as a protection to the
British Merchant Marine.
In 1935 some 2695 designs of a national flag
for Canada were submitted by British subjects
to a committee of their peers appointed by the
Rt. Hon. W.L. Mackenzie King.
We should explain that the expression right
honourable means that the individual referred
to is a member of Her Majesty’s Imperial Privy
Council, which comprises some 320 members
and which is the executive government of the
United Kingdom. All members entitled to the
use of the designation are eligible to receive
their remuneration from the British Treasury,
F
the lowest salary being £ 2,000 per annum.
A committee of nine such are appointed to
assist the Governor-General in the government
of Canada. The British government is responsible for their actions, and they are responsible
for their actions to the British Government.
The Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson now occupies the position formerly held by the Rt. Hon.
John Diefenbaker, the Rt. Hon. Louis St.
Laurent and, previously to him, held by the Rt.
Hon. W.L. Mackenzie King.
It was amusing for me to learn that many
Canadian citizens were confident that they
would adopt as a National Flag one of the designs submitted to the committee appointed.
This committee, composed of British subjects,
was to select one or more which would in turn
be submitted to a House of Commons elected
by British subjects and an Upper House composed of British subjects appointed by a Governor-General who is a member of Her Majesty’s
Imperial Privy Council.
It will doubtless be conceded that if the Parliament of Canada was composed of Canadians, in the first session a national flag would be
adopted, together with a bill of rights, and a
national anthem would be read and recommended.
It will be further conceded that the first right
of the citizen is the right to vote. […] Why discuss a bill of rights for Canada when no provision has yet been made for a Canadian to exercise his franchise as a “ Canadian ”?
In Russia, even though the Russian is restricted to voting for one party, he votes as a
Russian.
Instead, here in Canada, the British subjects
who compose the House of Commons enacted
a measure entitled the Canadian Citizenship
Act on June 20, 1946, which stated in Section
4, subsection 26, [ Been modified since, to read
at Sec. 31, par. 2, that a British subject is a
citizen of the Commonwealth of Nations. R.S.
1977. Ed.]
Today no British subject may vote in Great
Britain.
On July 20, 1948, the British Parliament enacted the British Nationality Act. This Act provides that the citizens of England, Scotland,
Northern Ireland and Wales are now British
citizens; they only are the electors of the House
of Commons, the members of which enact the
laws to govern not only British citizens but also
British subjects who dwell in their colonies.
The Act further states that Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, the Irish Free
State and Newfoundland are no longer colonies.
Does this not make sense ?
To state that “ A Canadian Citizen is a British Subject ” is therefore not true and constitutes an intentional misrepresentation of fact.
A friend and his wife were informed by the
purser as their ship entered the English Channel
that the immigration officials had come aboard
with the pilot and they could save some time by
filling out their forms to enter before the ship
docked.
In filling out their forms, his wife under the
item wrote “ Canadian Nationality. ” He wrote
on his form “ British Subject - Canadian. ” The
Immigration official, using a heavy black pencil, crossed off the words “ British Subject ”
and said: “ As Canada is not governed by British law, we hold that you are not subject to our
government. You are Canadian. ”
Recently a member of the House of Commons (a British subject) said he intended at the
next sitting of the House to introduce a measure
to request the government to declare December
11 a national holiday, to be known as Independence Day, to commemorate the enactment
of the Statute of Westminster on December 11,
1931.
Is this just another “ red herring ” to be
dragged across the trail to divert the attention of
Canadian citizens from the fact that they are
excluded from exercising their franchise as
Canadians ?
It is a matter of common knowledge that an
individual who owns one share of stock in a
corporation has the right to cast his vote for
election of the directors, though he may hold
shares in other companies.
In a syndicate, all members may be assessed
to pay any debts contracted by the syndicate or
by any of the members thereof.
In a corporation (and Canada is a corporation), members or shareholders in the corporation are only those who own a share of that
corporation.
Does a Canadian own one share of stock in
Canada? Or does Canada belong to British
subjects ?
Abraham Lincoln said that you can fool all
the people some of the time, and some of the
people all of the time, but not all the people all
the time. [It took 2800 years for Gelileo to
straighten out Joshua at Jericho. Ed.]
National disgust has been expressed by the
press and the people concerning the exposure
of deceit in connection with “ The $64,000
Question ” on TV Those responsible for this
fiasco cannot be prosecuted, as no law has been
enacted to provide a penalty. The people were
free to watch the show or turn it off. Even if
they continued to view the program, common
sense would tell them it was a fake.
The action taken to reduce the people [sovereignly cuckolded] of Canada to the position
of British subjects is treasonable and involves
all the responsible members of the House of
Commons and Senate of Canada, the Governor-General, and the legislatures of the provinces as well. All these have had a part in enacting this measure or enforcing it.
The fake on television caused a ripple of
sensation which will not be long remembered
except by a handful of individuals whose reputation for veracity was torpedoed.
The Canadian Citizenship Act is, however, a
horse of another colour. It affects every Canadian of voting age. As it has been incorporated
into the statutes of Canada, it is an instrument
intended by those who sponsored it to keep
Canada and her citizens in thraldom, and it is
diametrically opposed to the raison d’être of
the Statute of Westminster.
Naturally, the officials in Ottawa are amused
and beam with unaffected pleasure when presented with a new design for a national flag. It
keeps Canadians busy and helps to keep their
minds off matters of more importance.
9
[If you recall how the soldier hoisted the
newly adopted flag for the first time, officially
the 18th of February 1965; he did it from a
staff off the Parliament buildings in Ottawa.
The land under those buildings is Ontarian,
and is rented. And a flag in the language of all
nations is a display of property, except in Canada. Ed.]
Even if a design should be [and was] accepted by a House of Commons and ratified by
a Senate composed of British subjects appointed by a Governor-General who is a member of Her Majesty’s Imperial Privy Council,
would this be a Canadian flag ?
In the past fifty years, gallons of ink and
reams of paper have been expended on articles
advocating the problem of a distinctive national
flag for Canada, when a moment’s serious reflection would have supplied the obvious answer to the question. [Let’s call it an exercise of
sincerity. Ed.]
9
. Margaret Mitchell’s only book has been “ Gone With
the Wind ” ; and she never mentions Canada as
payment for all that pageantry of destruction. Ed.
Chapter 4
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ENGLAND ENGLAND
istorians herald conflicts of the nations
and decisive battles which occur. None of
these are more important than the bloodless revolution accomplished by Queen Elizabeth when, with a scratch of her pen, she placed
her signature upon the Thirty-nine Articles,
changing the constitutional position of England
from that of the feudal system to that of a limited monarchy. Whether this was done of her
own volition or not is immaterial.
It unfettered the latent abilities of the people, producing an upsurge of activity in the arts,
science, literature and exploration, and resulting in a period of prosperity and liberty hitherto
unknown which is cited as the Golden Age of
England.
It is important for the student of constitutional law to observe and always to hold in
mind that the ownership of land and sovereignty are inseparable. Eminent domain is
defined as:
“ The unrestrained ownership of land; independent of all action from without and paramount over all action within. ” 10
“ Discovery ” does not grant any legal title
to land. When the Phoenicians discovered England and traded for tin, did they claim any title
to England ? Certainly not. Did the Romans
own England after building a network of roads
and elegant cities? No! When the Romans left,
the land was the property of the native tribes,
the same as before they came.
Does Persia own Egypt? No! But there was
a time when Egypt paid a tribute to the Court of
10. James Cacroft, Encyclopaedia of American and British
Law.
Darius: “ A jar of Earth and a jar of Water. ” 11
Neither Spain nor England claimed any title
to North America by discovery. The Spanish
title was granted by Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia). England’s title was obtained by
treaties with native tribes.
England was England and Scotland was
Scotland for over a hundred years after James I
became Monarch of England in 1603. During
his reign, as we have said, he was also Sovereign of Scotland. Under the feudal system he
was what is called a “ corporation sole ”; he
possessed title to all lands in Scotland, and his
will was absolute. He was the law. James I was
careful not to come into conflict with the English Parliament; he contented himself with using his influence to help elect members who
were favourable to his policies.
When Charles I (James’ son) ascended the
throne as Monarch of England, he also became
recipient of the hereditary title of Sovereign of
Scotland.
He made the mistake of attempting to govern England as he did Scotland. He was cornered by a committee from Parliament, and as a
temporary measure signed thirty-one articles
which were a condensation of the Thirty-nine
Articles signed by Queen Elizabeth.
If Charles had not been Sovereign of Scotland, it is quite probable that he would have
been content to conform to the regulations of
the Parliament of England.
He was well educated, and was the author of
several volumes. But he knowingly persisted in
violating the laws of England until his actions
precipitated a Civil War in which many lives
were lost.
11. Herodotus, History.
H
He was captured by Cromwell who had
been appointed by Parliament as Commander
in Chief of the Army. At his trial on London he
was adjudged guilty and ordered executed.
His reign lasted from 1623 to 1640. Oliver
Cromwell was appointed Lord Protector of
England, and was busy for ten years repairing
the damages incurred by the Civil War.
When Parliament suggested that he be
crowned King of England, Cromwell refused
but said that England should have a written
constitution.
He convened a constituent assembly and
commissioned the leaders of the different religious sects to draft a constitution. Minor religious organisations were invited to seat delegates.
After the assembly had sat for some time,
Cromwell called the leaders together and asked
what progress they had made. They replied,
“ We are not getting anywhere. ”
Cromwell said, “ In that case, gentlemen, I
think you should return your commissions to
me. ”
Later, Cromwell was informed that there
were still some members sitting in the House of
Commons. Cromwell called a sergeant and
said, “ Take a squad of soldiers to the House,
turn those who are there out and lock the
door. ”
When the sergeant asked them what they
were doing, they answered, “ We are waiting
for the Lord Jesus. ” “ Well, ” he said, “ I think
you had better go, for he has not been here for a
long time to my certain knowledge. ”
He turned them out and locked the door.
Cromwell then commissioned General John
Lambert, an Army officer who was a lawyer in
civil life, to draft a constitution to be presented
to Parliament.
This constitution, which is called the Instrument of Government, was adopted by the
Parliament on December 18, 1653. There are
none who would say this was not a written constitution from 1653 to 1660.
Cromwell suffered a stroke in 1659 from
which he did not recover, even to be able to
talk. Upon his demise his son Richard was
sworn in as Lord Protector. Richard, however,
was not interested in holding this position and
soon resigned.
At this juncture, the House of Commons
sent a representative to Charles II to know if
he would be willing to take the oath as Lord
Protector.
He accepted, and arrived in Dover on May
29, 1660. As soon as he reached London he
was sworn in, and agreed to sign the vouchers
to pay the arrears owing to the members of the
Army and Navy.
According to the Constitution the Commons
could vote the money, but it was necessary that
the vouchers be signed by a person who had
taken the oath as Lord Protector.
Since then every Monarch of England on ascending the throne takes the aforesaid oath as
Lord Protector.
I have neglected to state that the House of
Commons requested Cromwell to convene a
House of Lords to assist them in the government. BUT, and this is a big BUT indeed, as the
Upper House was convened at the request of
the House of Commons, the House of Lords
can be dissolved at any time by the present
House of Commons.
Upon the signing of the Treaty of Union in
Edinburgh on January 14, 1707, Scotland
agreed to the Constitution which now became
the British Constitution. Only one amendment
has been made to the Constitution. In 1838
when Queen Victoria came to the throne, Section 3 of the Constitution was amended by
striking out the “ power of pardons, ” known as
the “ Prerogative of Mercy, ” which since then
has been exercised by the Home Secretary.
Two prerogatives remain to be exercised by
the Lord Protector or Monarch. The Monarch
may call upon any British citizen to form a
Council in the event that, for example, a disaster should wipe out the present Cabinet. The
other is a courtesy prerogative stipulating that if
a warrant is issued for the arrest of any person
of the King’s household or servants, the Monarch’s assent is requested before it is served.
THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION
he English Constitution drafted by General
Lambert contains forty-two sections and is
dated December 18, 1653.
Called the Instrument of Government by
historians, it is to be found in extenso in Acts of
the Interregnum published by Firth and Rait.
These two men were delegated by the British
Law Society to gather together and to publish
the Laws and Orders enacted by the Commonwealth (1640 - 1660).
It is regretted that space does not permit the
publishing here of this Constitution in toto. It is
clear, concise and without ambiguity, and that
the British people have adhered to it so closely
is a silent tribute to its author more eloquent
than mere words.
SECTION 1. THAT the Supreme Legislative Authority of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, ant the Dominions
thereunto belonging, shall be and reside in one
Person, and the People assembled in Parliament, the Style of which Person shall be the
Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland.
SECTION 2. THAT the Exercise of the
chief Magistracy, and the Administration of the
Government over the said Countries and Dominions, and the People thereof, shall be in the
Lord Protector, assisted with a Council, the
Number whereof shall not exceed 21, nor be
less than 13.
SECTION 3. THAT all Writs, Process,
Commissions, Patents, Grants and other
Things, which now run in the Name and Style
of the Keepers of the Liberty of England, by
Authority of Parliament, shall run in the Name
and Style of the Lord Protector, from whom, for
the future, shall be derived all Magistracy and
Honours in these three Nations; and have the
Power of Pardons (except in the case of Murders and Treason) and Benefit of all Forfeitures
for the public Use; and shall govern the said
Countries and Dominions in all Things by the
Advice of the Council, and according to these
Presents and Laws.
SECTION 4. THAT the Lord Protector,
the Parliament sitting, shall dispose and order
the Militia and Forces, both by Sea and Land,
for the Peace and Good of the three Nations, by
Consent of Parliament; and that the Lord Protector, with the Advice and consent of the major part of the Council, shall dispose and order
the Militia for the Ends aforesaid in the Intervals of Parliament.
SECTION 5. THAT the Lord Protector, by
the Advice aforesaid, shall direct all Things
concerning the keeping and holding of a good
Correspondency with foreign Kings, Princes,
and States; and also, with the consent of the
major Part of the Council, the Power of War
and Peace.
SECTION 6. THAT the Laws shall not be
altered, suspended, abrogated, or repealed, nor
any new Law made, nor any Tax, Charge, or
Imposition laid upon the People, but by common consent in Parliament, save only as is expressed in the 30th Article.
SECTION 7. THAT there shall be a Parliament summoned to meet at Westminster
upon the third Day of September, 1654, and
T
that successively a Parliament shall be summoned once in every third Year, to be accounted from the Dissolution of the present
Parliament.
SECTION 8. THAT neither the Parliament to be next summoned, nor any successive
Parliaments, shall during the Time of Five
Months, to be accounted from the day of their
first Meeting, be adjourned, prolonged, or dissolved, without their own consent.
SECTION 9. THAT as well as all other
successive Parliaments shall be summoned and
elected in Manner hereafter expressed; that is to
say, the Persons to be chosen within England,
Wales, and the Isles of Jersey, Guernsey, and
the Town of Berwick upon Tweed, to sit and
serve in Parliament, shall be, and not exceed,
the Number of 30; and the Persons to be chosen
and sit in Parliament for Ireland, shall be and
not exceed, the Number of 30.
SECTION 11. THAT the summons to Parliament shall be by Writ under the Great Seal of
England...
SECTION 22. THAT the persons so chosen and assembled in manner aforesaid, or any
sixty of them, shall be, and be deemed the Parliament of England, Scotland and Ireland, and
the Supreme Legislative Power to be and reside
in the Lord Protector and such Parliament, in
Manner herein expressed.
SECTION 23. THAT the Lord Protector,
with the advice of the major part of the Council, shall at any other Time, that is before expressed, when necessities of the State shall
require it, summon Parliament in manner before expressed, which shall not be adjourned,
prolonged, or dissolved without their own Consent, during the first three months of their sitting. And in future War with any foreign State,
a Parliament shall be forthwith summoned for
their advice concerning the same.
SECTION 24. THAT all bills agreed unto
by the Parliament, shall be presented to the
Lord Protector for his consent; and in case he
shall not give his consent thereto, within twenty
days after they shall be presented to him, or
give satisfaction to the Parliament within the
time limited, that then, upon declaration of the
Parliament that the Lord Protector hath not
consented nor given satisfaction, such Bills
shall pass into and become Laws, although he
shall not give his consent thereunto; provided
such Bills contain nothing in them contrary to
the Matters contained in these Presents.
SECTION 41. THAT every successive
Lord Protector over these Nations shall take
and subscribe a Solemn Oath, in the Presence
of the Council, and such others as they shall
call on them, that he will seek the Peace, Quiet
and Welfare of these Nations, cause Law and
Justice to be equally administered; and that he
will not violate or infringe the Matters and
Things contained in this Writing; and, in all
other Things, will, to his power, and to the best
of his understanding, govern these Nations according to the Laws, Statutes, and Customs
thereof.
SECTION 42. THAT each Person of the
Council shall, before they enter upon their
Trust, take and subscribe an Oath, that they will
be true and faithful to their Trust, according to
the best of their knowledge; and that in the
Election of every successive Lord Protector,
they shall proceed therein impartially, and do
nothing therein for any Promise, favour or Reward.
On the demise of Oliver Cromwell, Richard
Cromwell took the oath of Lord Protector. Not
being fitted by temperament for this position,
he, on the advice of his Ministers, resigned,
leaving the way open for the Parliament to invite Charles II to return.
Samuel Pepys was at this time Secretary of
the Navy, and he tells us that he accompanied
the fleet which escorted Charles II from the
shores of Belgium. The King disembarked at
Dover and entered London on May 29, which
was his birthday. Charles was sworn in as Lord
Protector, and thenceforth England was gov-
erned as a limited monarchy under the constitution established by Oliver Cromwell.
Enthusiasm ran high. Charles proved a
popular ruler. To please the people and as a
gesture to the return of the royal line, Cromwell
was disinterred and his head placed upon a
pike. The Constitution and the journals, records, and laws enacted during the twenty years
of the Commonwealth were ordered to be
burned by the public hangman. However, disinterring Cromwell did not rob him of his life,
nor did the burning of the Constitution abrogate
it. The Parliament, which was constituted by
Cromwell on December 18, 1653, invited
Charles II to return and carries on to this day.
During the reign of Charles a constitutional
question was precipitated by the House of
Lords attempting to interfere with the sole right
of the Commons to enact legislation regarding
money bills. The King dissolved Parliament.
The House of Lords never again contested or
attempted to interfere with this constitutional
right. Hallsbury says that the statement “ the
King can do no wrong ” is an immunity by
way of compensation for the absence of despotic power. This is instanced by the following
passage recorded by David Hume: “ It has
been remarked of Charles that he never said a
foolish thing or did a wise one... ” When the
King was informed of this saying, he observed
that the matter was easily accounted for. “ For
his discourse was his own, but his actions were
his Ministry’s. ” 12
12. David Hume, History of England, Vol. VII, p. 212.
THE BURNING OF THE CONSTITUTION ( 1661 )
he covenant itself, together with the acts
for erecting the High Court of Justice, for
fabricating the arrangement and for declaring England a Commonwealth, were ordered
burnt by the hangman. The people assisted with
great enthusiasm on this occasion.13
The burning of the Constitution, whether by
accident or design, does not abrogate it. To
destroy the Constitution, it would be necessary
for Parliament to do away with itself and for the
people and the King to adopt a new constitution. This has not occurred. The Instrument of
Government as adopted by the Commonwealth
is the Constitution.
13
. Diary of Samuel Pepys (Wheatley), Vol. I, p. 40.
Samuel Pepys tells us that on May 28, 1661,
...thence with Mr. Shepley to the exchange
about business, and there by Mr.
Rawlinson’s favour got into a balcony over
against the Exchange; and there saw the
Hangman burn by a vote of Parliament two
old Acts, one for Constituting us a Commonwealth, and the other I have forgot.
Which do make me think of the greatness
of this late turn, and what people will do
tomorrow against what they all, through
profit or fear, did promise and practice this
day.14
Apparently the burning was simply a flattering gesture to His Majesty, as the next day was
the King’s birthday.
14
. Ibid., Vol. VII, p. 371.
T
Chapter 5
REBELLION OF 1835 - 1837
hundred feet to the east and overshadowed by the approach to the north end of
the Jacques Cartier Bridge 15 which spans
the St. Lawrence River at Montreal stands a
monument erected to the memory of twelve
criminals who were hanged.
What was their heinous crime? They had
publicly expressed their desire to be governed
by laws of their own making.
The leader in Quebec, Louis Joseph Papineau, was, and had been, a member of the
Lower Canada legislative assembly since 1809,
taking the seat which had previously been held
by his father who had been elected to the first
Legislative Assembly of Quebec, 1791.
Papineau was a rabble-rouser; he was well
educated and a most popular, fluent speaker.
He appealed to the electorate when his suggestions for the redress of their grievances were
frustrated by the Governor who was the government of Quebec appointed by the Secretary
of the Colonies.
The Sons of Freedom was organised with
headquarters in Montreal East; the newspaper
which supported their views, called the Vindicator, was published in English.
The Doric Club, with headquarters on
McGill Street in Montreal West, opposed the
Sons of Freedom.
Louis Papineau with his secretary, Wilfred
Nelson, had left for the country to spend the
15. This bridge did not land on the island of Montreal as
planned. The factory on the surveyer’s line… did not
allow the Canadian Government to expropriate space
with the power of Eminent Domain. For this reason, the
bridge takes on a curve coming into Montreal. Had the
farmers of St. Hermas and Ste. Scholastique informed
their attorney, Guy Bertrand, the Canadian
Government could not use the power of Eminent
Domain to expropriate their land to create what is
known as Mirabel Airport, they would have saved
themselves some valuable farms. Ed.
Christmas holidays.
Governor Gosford had spent some time in
Montreal; finding everything normal he had left
for Quebec City. It was rumoured that a warrant had been issued for the arrest of Papineau -
which afterward was found to be correct, but as
there were no telegraphs or telephones as yet,
there was no way of knowing whether he had
been arrested or knew of the warrant being
issued.
In protest, the Sons of Freedom decided to
parade. As they marched along St. James
Street, they were met by members of the Doric
Club and a fight ensued in which there were a
number of casualties.
General Colborne, Commander of the British forces in Quebec, was in Montreal and this
was all he needed to justify his actions: he had
been instructed by the Colonial Office that if
there was any trouble he was not to wait for the
rebels to attack, but to shoot first.
General Colborne was well equipped to
cope with what he considered to be a hydraheaded monster which aimed to separate the
colonies from Great Britain as had been done
sixty years before by the thirteen states.
He had ample forces accompanied by batteries of cannon which had in mind the lessons
they had learned from the treatment they had
received at Concord and Lexington.
General Colborne decided to lead the troops
himself against a hot-bed of the Sons of Freedom who, he was informed, had gathered at St.
Eustache for the Christmas celebrations.
When the action commenced on December
23, 1837, the Sons of Freedom barricaded
themselves in the church. Batteries were
wheeled into position and the cannon, which
were trained on the massive doors, opened fire.
The cannonading reduced the doors to matchwood within but a few minutes.
A
The troops charged into the church where
the fighting was hand to hand. Dr. Chenier, the
leader, fell fighting on a gallery
There is a monument to his memory on
Place Viger Square facing Craig Street.
General Colborne then proceeded to raze
nine villages in the area with fire and sword.
Six hundred farms were destroyed; the houses
and barns which held the hay and grain for the
live-stock were burned.
This section of Quebec is a fertile district,
but in the dead of winter the live-stock (horses,
cattle, sheep, hogs and poultry) would soon
perish without food to feed them.
Sixty of the Sons of Freedom were arrested.
Twelve were sentenced to be hanged and the
balance to be deported, some to the Bahama
Islands, others to a prison in Tasmania, for the
term of their natural lives.
Prior to this, two columns of troops began a
march from Three Rivers to Montreal. One
column under Colonel Gore, crossed on the ice
from Berthierville to Sorel. They encountered a
group of patriots at St. Denis on the Richelieu
and were defeated. They retreated to St.
Charles where they stood their ground. Another
group of patriots marching to reinforce their
comrades on the Richelieu were defeated at
Napierville by a local British police force.
Colonel Wethrell, commanding the other
column which had parted with Colonel Gore at
Berthierville, marched his troops west and,
crossing the Terrebonne, joined General Colborne and took part in the battle at St. Eustache.
In Ontario, the main grievances were the
“clergy reserve ” and the “family compact.”
The Church of England was supported by
the government, and large blocks of land in the
settlements were withheld from homesteading
and granted to the Church. This meant that the
settlers were enhancing the value of these lands
by their industry in improving the district, and
yet they were paying all the taxes for roads and
schools. They wanted these lands opened for
settlement.
It was an open secret that all offices connected with the government were filled with
relatives of the officials.
Three hundred men were armed with rifles
and proceeded under William L. Mackenzie to
the outskirts of Toronto, where they halted to
await news from the Province of Quebec.
At this time there were no railroads, no
steamships, no telegraphs or telephones, and at
certain periods of each year the roads were
almost impassable.
Each colony had a separate governor; Gosford in Quebec and Sir Francis Bone in Ontario. Quebec posted a $5,000 reward for Louis
Papineau and Ontario offered a $5,000 reward
for William Mackenzie, dead or alive. The rebels in Ontario considered further effort useless
and disbanded. William Mackenzie escaped to
New York State by crossing the Niagara River
in a skiff. Louis Papineau and his lieutenant
also escaped down Lake Champlain.
An old farmer arrived at St. John’s Quebec,
at the head of the lake with six casks of maple
syrup. A young lad had gone ahead to request
the American captain to hold the boat as his
father was anxious to have the syrup shipped to
catch the market in New York.
The farmer arrived after dark with his oxteam. The casks of syrup were passed by the
guards and rushed aboard, and as the wind was
in the right quarter, the ship cast off lines and
headed down the lake. It was true that four of
the casks contained maple syrup, but in the
other two, sitting on chairs, were Papineau and
his lieutenant.
Although the rebels in Ontario had disbanded, many of those who had taken part in
the march on Toronto were arrested. They were
sentenced to penal servitude in Tasmania for
the term of their natural life.
Although some of the men who were deported to the Bahama Islands from Quebec
were years later allowed to return, none of
those who were deported to Tasmania ever got
back. It is only the ghosts of those who perished
there which have returned for vindication.
The names of those inscribed upon the
monument in Montreal which stands a hundred
feet from where they were executed are:
Sir Charles de Lorimier; de Lorimier Street
in Montreal is named after the family.
Ambroise Sanguinet; Sanguinet Street is
named after his family.
Charles Hindelang, a writer from Switzerland, who had come to Canada via Paris and
New York. He was the youngest
(22) of the group executed, and the only foreigner.
Joseph Narcisse Cardinal, who had been a
notary public in Chateauguay.
Pierre Rémy Narbonne was a wealthy
farmer and businessman of Montreal.
Joseph Duquette, real estate and notary
public.
Amable Daunais, farmer.
François Nicholas, farmer.
François Xavier Hamelin, farmer from
south of Montreal.
Pierre Théophile Decoigne, from Montreal.
Joseph Robert.
One was pardoned. He was a young farmboy, Félix Pontrie, who feigned insanity.
From the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock to the recognition of their independence by Great Britain, the thirteen colonies
were under the administration of the Lords of
Trade and Plantations.
Over the years this name was altered to the
Board of Trade and Plantations and, finally, to
simply the Board of Trade.
They had no power to govern, any more
than the Chamber of Commerce has today. As
the name indicates, their function was in the
orbit of trade.
As the colonies were under the Crown in
Chancery, administrative powers were granted
to them by the Lord High Chancellor.
The British Parliament had enacted the
Navigation Acts to assist them. Briefly, these
Acts stated that anything and everything of a
manufactured nature must be imported from
England and everything raised or produced in
the colonies must be exported to England.
It was to the best interests of the Board of
Trade that their representatives should be always on good terms with the colonists.
These years were known as “ the old smuggling days, ” as the colonists found that more
profit could often be obtained by trading with
the Spaniards, French or the Dutch. This acted
as a deterrent to them. Nor could the Board of
Trade be said to be any more in favour of the
Stamp Tax or the Tax on Tea put on the colonies by the British Parliament than were the
colonists themselves. Their main objective was
to derive as much profit as they could for the
merchants of London who were members of the
Board.
Naturally, the British Parliament was furious
at the loss of the American colonies, and to
save the face of the party in power, the Executive Council blamed the Board of Trade.
This is exemplified in the language used in
excoriating them in Burke’s Act, 1782; they
were utterly banished from taking any part in
the administration of the colonies.
All colonies which remained were placed
under the Colonial Office (except India). The
Secretary of State for the colonies was to have a
seat in the Cabinet.
Thus in 1837 there was an entirely different
situation in Canada.
Now, if Canada were lost as a colony, it
would be the Colonial Secretary who would
face the responsibility.
If Canada were lost, not only would the Secretary lose his political head but also the party
to which he belonged would be defeated at the
polls.
Although both governors of Quebec and Ontario were appointed by the Colonial Secretary,
orders were also given to General Colborne to
shoot first — to take no chances with these
rebels. The General was an old veteran of the
battle of Waterloo, and no doubt he was convinced that if the Lords of Trade and Plantations had taken the proper action and attacked
the rebels when they were encamped for the
winter at Valley Forge, they could have been
routed and the now independent New England
states would still be colonies of Great Britain.
It was a comparatively easy matter to have
the Doric Club meet the Sons of Freedom when
they paraded on St. James Street and thus give
him the excuse he needed to declare Montreal
under martial law.
Nothing that happened in Hungary exceeds
the ruthlessness with which General Colborne
destroyed the nine villages and six hundred
farms in the colony of Quebec. In fact, some of
those deported to Siberia from Hungary may
come back, but, as we have noted, none of
those deported to the penal colony of Tasmania
ever returned. Nor is it conceivable that the
records from Hungary will be erased from the
pages of history as the Rebellion of 1835-1837
has been.
To save his position and his party, Khrushchev had to act ruthlessly. He simply lifted a
page from the book of General Colborne, who
was known in Quebec as Vieux Brûlot, the Old
Burner.
Chapter 6
THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA AMERICA ACT, 1867
16
16. Cf. Lord Thring’s Practical Legislation, p. 9, published in 1902. Also Confederation Papers, by Sir Joseph Pope, AD 1905,
to witness the copy left by our well-beloved John A. Macdonald and his desired corrections about the Act. Ed.
ollowing is a synopsis of evidence presented before the Special Committee convened to investigate the British North
America Act at the House of Commons, Ottawa, February 26, 1935. F. W. Turnbull was
Chairman.
Excerpts are taken from the evidence of:
Dr. O. D. Skelton, Under-Secretary of State for
External Affairs.
Dr. Maurice Ollivier, K.C., Joint Law Clerk,
House of Commons.
Dr. W. P. M. Kennedy, Professor of Law, University of Toronto.
Dr. Norman McL. Rogers, Professor of Political Science, Queens University.
Dr. Arthur Beauchesne, K.C., C.M.C., LL.D.,
Clerk of the House of Commons.
Dr. Skelton, Under Secretary of State for External Affairs:
Now it might be said, why not trust the growth
of convention or custom for the necessary
changes in our Constitution? The obvious answer, I think, is that the process is too slow, and
is applicable only in cases where unanimity has
been reached.
No other country in the world looks to the
Parliament of another country for the shaping
of its constitution. This solution should only be
supported if we believe that Canadians are the
only people so incompetent that they cannot
work out a solution of their constitutional problem, and so biased that they alone among the
peoples of the world cannot be trusted to deal
fairly with the various domestic interests concerned.
It is not safe to leave the question open and
ambiguous indefinitely, for at any time a dispute on a concrete issue may arise.
To retain permanently the intervention of
the Parliament of the United Kingdom is either
superfluous or dangerous.
Dr. Ollivier, Joint Law Clerk of the House of
Commons:
Further, our Constitution is a law adopted by
the British Parliament exercising its incontestable right of sovereignty toward its Colonies.
This explains the fact that the British North
America Act is not a reproduction of the Quebec Resolutions... England was free to agree to
the resolutions or to disregard them entirely.
Dr. Kennedy, Professor of Law, University of
Toronto:
I think we have got to get away from the
idea that the British North America Act is a
“ Contract ” or “ treaty .” I do not want to go
into that, but it is true neither in history nor in
law. The British North America Act is a Statute
and has always been interpreted as a Statute.
Suppose now we assume that it is necessary
to have constituent powers in Canada, powers
to change the Constitution, I approach the problem from two angles... First of all, I want to
break the British North America Act up. We
have got to ask ourselves, is the dead hand of
the past to be constantly laid with numbing
effect on the body politic. That is really what it
F
amounts to... If we, in Canada, are not capable
of interpreting our own Constitution, we should
not have a Legislature at all.
Dr. Rogers, Professor of Political Science,
Queens University:
I am thoroughly convinced that the British
North America Act is not a pact or a contract
either in the historical or legal sense.
Question by Mr. Cowan: You get back to this;
your start is another interprovincial Conference ?
Answer: I am afraid it is . I see no feasible alternative.
Hon. Mr. Lapointe: There is no doubt about it.
Dr. Beauchesne, Clerk of the House of Commons:
It is quite true that if we apply to the British
North America Act the principles followed in
the interpretation of Statutes it is not a compact
between the Provinces; it is an Act of Parliament, which does not even embody all the resolutions passed in Canada and in London prior to
its passage in the British Parliament, where
certain clauses that had not been recommended
by the Canadian Provinces were added. ...The
Statute of Westminster has altered our Status. ...
What we want is a new Constitution.
The new Constitution must leave nobody
with a grievance. A spirit of conciliation should
predominate. For these reasons, the task must
be entrusted to an independent body, in which
all the elements of the country will be represented.
I want the assembly to sit in a City in the
West. It would not be necessary for a delegate
to be a member of Parliament or a Provincial
Legislature. I would suggest that the assembly
do not sit in Ottawa, in order that it may not
have the appearance of being dominated, or
even influenced by the Dominion power; and,
as the Western Provinces are of such paramount importance in the country, I suggest that
the best City for the representatives to gather in
would be Winnipeg.
Whether our country should be changed
from a Dominion to Kingdom is also a subject
which might be discussed. I would suggest that
the country could be called “ The Federated
States of Canada. ”
There have been many disputes about Provincial rights since 1867 and it seems certain
that when a new Constitution is drawn up the
distribution of Federal and Provincial powers
will have to be modified.
I submit that appeals to the Privy Council
should be dealt with by our Constitution. This
method would preserve the principle of taking
our case to the highest tribunal without going
out of our country.
If you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, I will
just make another suggestion; if we have a constituent assembly and if we discuss the making
of a new constitution, I think it is an anomaly
that Dominion affairs should, to a certain extent, be subject to Provincial authority. I would
suggest that we have a Federal District, taking
about 25 square miles on each side of the Ottawa River. [Its been in progress for a few
years. Ed.]
I would not have any minority rights discussed. There is nothing more dangerous in
Canada than a discussion of minority rights. A
discussion of them would wreck the whole
Constituent Assembly.
I think the time is ripe for a change in the
Constitution. I do not think you would need
much publicity in order to draw attention of the
people of this country [to the fact] that the British North America Act is inadequate.
As one who has had lengthy discussions
with all those who had submitted their findings
to the Commission, as well as with F. W.
Turnbull, K.C., and the Hon. Ernest Lapointe
who were members of the panel, I consider it à
propos that remarks made when the act was
passed be included in this chapter.
It should be noted that all of those who submitted briefs to the Commission were members
of the Dominion Government, and could have
gone much further, if they had not been restrained by the positions they held, or shall we
say by the remuneration they received.
The British North America Act did not constitute the Dominion Government. The Dominion Government was constituted by Sessional
Papers 18, drafted and signed by Yorke and
Yorke, and to be found in the Dominion Archives. Mr. Adderly said in the House of
Commons: “ The Act is designed to strengthen
the hands of the Governor-General as much as
possible. ” This remark was made, no doubt, to
quiet the fears of the members that Canada
would be self-governing.
The Quebec Resolutions open by stating:
“ The best interests in present and future prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a Federal Union... ”
Mr. Adderly’s statement therefore shows
that not only is the Act not a reproduction of
the Quebec Resolutions, but is diametrically
opposed to any idea of self-government.
Lord Campbell added his bit in the House of
Lords when he said: “ It would scarcely be
possible to break the artificial unity we now
propose to organize. ” Professor Norman McL.
Rogers (afterward Minister of Labour) said,
“ There was no Confederation. ” Hon. Ernest
Lapointe agreed with him. Dr. Beauchesne also
agreed when he said, “ ...it is not a compact
between the Provinces. ” He further sated that
“ I would suggest that we have a Federal District, taking in about 25 square miles on each
side of the Ottawa River. ” Why ?
Dr. Arthur Beauchesne was the foremost
constitutional authority in Canada and the author of Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and
Forms by which all members of the Commons
and Senate are governed in their conduct, their
deliberations and their speeches. He knew that
there could not be any sovereignty without the
ownership of land. Those who own the land
make the law of the land.
17
Prior to 1931, Great Britain owned the land
and leased it to the provinces. In the Statute of
Westminster of December 11, 1931, Britain
grants to the provinces (not the Dominion) the
exclusive ownership of land. The sovereign
power exercisable by the British Government
until 1931 is now exercisable by the provinces.
(This is explained in Chapter 8, The Statute of
Westminster.)
In order to enact laws which can be enforced
the Dominion Government must own enough
land on which to erect a flagpole.
At present the Parliament buildings in Ottawa are as much a possession of Ontario as
any other asset within the boundaries of Ontario. Would a flag erected on a flagpole in
Ottawa not be a possession of Ontario ?
In order to comply with this fundamental
law, the United States, Australia and South
Africa have granted land to the central authority. The only people today who cannot enforce
a law are the Gypsies; they own no land. The
Dominion is in the same category.
In Chapter 2 we quoted the definition of
Eminent Domain from James Cacroft’s Encyclopedia of American and British Law. The
British Government was the source by which
the Dominion was governed until 1931. The
Provinces of Canada have not yet reached an
agreement whereby the necessary power rising
from “ the unrestrained ownership of land ”
can be transferred to the Dominion.
How important is this power may be gathered from the experience of the United States.
17. [ Reference was made to the Bible to confirm this
statement. Gen. 2, 16, offers the answer in between the
lines. The first two citizens never voted any law, but the
Creator of Eden was compelled to make a law the
moment He established residents on His territory. Those
residents proved the law valid, they hid from the
lawmaker. Forget not there were only two citizens in that
garden, yet four were talking, but only the landowner
legislated ! Ed.]
Each state, being independent, was reluctant to
relinquish all sovereign rights over its lands to a
supreme power. The states compromised by
granting to the central government a small
state, the District of Columbia. They thereby
granted to the central government the power to
exercise the right of eminent domain on behalf
of the nation, retaining each severally the right
of eminent domain over the lands within the
boundaries of their own respective states.
The Federal Government has the sovereign
power in the United States. This power was
conferred by the thirteen states which formed
the Union, drafted the Constitution, and donated the land which is the District of Columbia.
Mexico City is the federal district of Mexico, Brazilia of Brazil, Santiago of Chili, and
Buenos Aires of Argentina. Venezuela has two,
Amazonas and Amaguero.
We all know that the western farmers are
both deaf and dumb, but living amongst the
Indians they understand sign language. If then it
should ever percolate into their consciousness
that the stories of Confederation are a myth and
that their property is not considered an asset in
the security of the bonded national debt, they
may decide to let Ontario and Quebec keep the
Parliament buildings and also pay the interest
on the bonds.
Before Mr. Dunning resigned as Minister
of Finance and also resigned his seat in the
House of Commons, he said, “ No securities
issued by this Dominion constitutes a mortgage upon any of the business assets of the
Dominion. ” 18
The next three Ministers of Finance also resigned: Mr. Ralston, Mr. Isley, Mr. Abbott.
Ontario and Quebec seem to get along together; at least neither have changed anything
pertaining to their prospective in the last hundred years.
18
. Hansard, February 16, 1939.
Neither of them could or would have any
foundation (in the absence of an agreement) to
object to the western provinces forming a federal union. 19
It will be noted in the excerpts from the text
of the Act which follow that the Act itself does
not create a government.
It states in Section 11 that there shall be a
Council to aid and advise, appointed by the
Governor-General, who can remove them and
appoint others.
“ An order in Council has the same force
and the effect as an Act of Parliament. ”
Section 12: “ The Governor-General can issue an Order in Council individually as the case
requires. ” Section 14: and 58 provide a means
whereby the Governor-General may appoint
lieutenant-governors of the provinces.
The Act provides that the Governor-General
has the power to appoint senators (2d) and issue
writs for the election of a House of Commons
(88).
The Act is (as Mr. Adderly stated) “ designed to strengthen the hands of the GovernorGeneral as much as possible. ”
Canada could not have two central governments. As has been previously stated, the Governor-General is constituted as the sole government of Canada by Sessional Papers 18.
This is recognised by the Governor-General’s
Act, Chapter 85 R.S.
The first page of the British North America
Act was deleted after passing the House of
Lords and before it was assented by the Commons. This page stated: “ By reason of the request of the Colonies for Federal Government.
It is expedient therefore that they have laws
and regulations to guide them. ”
Here we have the reason for and the purpose
of the Act. If this page had not been deleted,
19
. Cf. Confederation of Regions by Elmer Knutson of 99th
Street in Edmonton, AB. Ed.
Canada would ere this have formed a Federal
Government. [… … … How ? Ed.]
Chapter 7
SEVEN TRAGIC YEARS, 1860 - 1867
lthough enormous losses were sustained
were sustained by both the North and
South in the Civil War, they are far outweighed by the losses sustained by Canada.
The whys and wherefores of this seeming paradox are recounted are recounted and explained
in the following pages. The highlights of the
year 1860 are the nomination of Abraham Lincoln, the visit to America of the Prince of
Wales, and the completion of the telegraph to
San Francisco.
The Prince of Wales was welcomed and received with acclaim and lionised by the local
dignitaries in all the centres he visited in the
United States. He was widely travelled and
proved a ready and gracious speaker at dedications of public buildings and on ceremonious
occasions. The Prince was also a popular patron of sports, particularly of horse-racing. He
gave the impression that he was not interested
in serious affairs or the activities of his government, and was generally considered a goodnatured play-boy.
We learn from British sources that although
he was allowed a generous stipend by the government, his mother, Queen Victoria, and the
Cabinet assiduously kept all matters of import
from him, and that it was not until 1882 that he
was permitted even the inspection of important
documents pertaining to the actions and policies of the executive.
There is little doubt, however, that among
the members of his entourage there were wellqualified men who knew the score and would
be unshackled in transmitting to their government information of importance concerning the
situation in North America.
Abraham Lincoln was nominated on May
16, 1860, by the Republican Party convened in
the Wigwam, Chicago. South Carolina, at the
time, was the only remaining state whose presidential electors were chosen by vote of the
State Legislature rather than by popular vote.
The Legislature was in session to select the
State’s electors when the news was received
that Abraham Lincoln had been nominated.
Four days later the Legislature passed an act
calling for the assembling of a secession convention to be held in Charleston on December
17.
By unanimous vote of its 169 members, it
enacted its Ordinance of Secession, which declared: “ The 1788 Act of South Carolina convention, whereby the Constitution of the United
States was ratified, is hereby repealed, and the
union now subsisting between South Carolina
and the other states under the name of the
United States of America is hereby dissolved. ”
In the evening a ceremony was held of the
signing by the delegates of this historic document in the presence of the governor and officials of the State. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, and then Texas followed and for a brief time were independent
republics. Delegates from these states were
convened at Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4, 1861, and organised the Confederate
States of America.
It is most evident that South Carolina knew
before any action was taken that a scheme had
been developed in Europe to assist them and
the other states provided they decided to secede.
Napoleon III may not have been the author
of the scheme, for Disraeli is quoted as saying,
“ Napoleon will do anything I want him to do. ”
Disraeli had a plan to take over the controlling interest of the Suez Canal, and had taken
Napoleon into his confidence; in any case, they
A
were the best of friends.
It is a matter of common knowledge that the
sympathies of the landed and titled gentry and
monied interests of Great Britain were with the
Southern sates. Furthermore, the agreement to
put the scheme into effect was signed in London. Five-score years had come and gone since
France had lost Canada to the British on the
Plains of Abraham. In 1776 Great Britain had
lost her New England colonies with the assistance provided by France. By warring with
Britain, Spain had become so anaemic that she
could not muster the forces to control her colonies, or to prevent them from declaring their
independence.
Each of these European powers had lost
their most valued possessions by fighting each
other; why not join their forces and recover
what they had lost was the argument of Napoleon III.
Now was the opportune time. The Southern
states were planning to secede. Why not help
them?
The uncouth rail-splitter named by the Republican party was no match for the Southern
gentlemen with all their wealth and erudition.
He would be defeated if the combined armed
forces of Europe were arrayed against him.
Mexico owed a ten million dollar debt to
British and French bankers which could be the
proper excuse for an invasion. Napoleon III’s
Foreign Legion alone was sufficient to conquer
Mexico, which was governed by an ignorant
Indian, Benito Juarez, who had no armed forces
worthy of the name.
When the Americans were defeated, France
would be able to recover Louisiana which Napoleon Bonaparte had sold in 1805 without the
consent of the government or the French people.
The Northern states would have become so
exhausted by the war that they would be
pleased to end hostilities by joining up with
Canada, and again be a part of the British Empire; or they might be more satisfied with
crowning the Prince of Wales as King of America.
Following is the agreement signed by England, France, and Spain.
Article 1. Her Majesty the Queen of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland;
Her Majesty the Queen of Spain and His Majesty the Emperor of the French, engage to
make immediately after the signature of the
present convention, the necessary arrangements for dispatching to the coast of Mexico,
combined naval and military forces, the
strength of which shall be determined by a further interchange of communications between
their Governments, but of which the total shall
be sufficient to seize and occupy the several
fortresses and military positions on the Mexican Coast.
Article 2. The commanders of the allied
forces shall be moreover authorised to execute
the other operations which may be considered
on the spot, most suitable to effect the object
specified in the preamble of the present convention, and specifically to ensure the security of
foreign residents.
20
It could not have been the Mexican debt that
caused these traditional enemies to forget their
animosities and to become allies in an invasion
of Mexico. For when it was noised about that
an invasion was contemplated, Lincoln offered
to pay the debt rather than have any country in
the Americas invaded. Lincoln’s offer was discounted. The European powers were informed
that the Southern states were in any case seceding from the Union, and that Lincoln had made
the offer not for humanitarian reasons, but because he was afraid to fight. Lincoln was vilified and abused. How could this uncouth railsplitter from the North hope to defeat Southern
gentlemen?
Napoleon III contacted his friend Maximilian, brother of Emperor Francis Joseph of Aus-
20
. Annual Register (British), 1861, p. 216.
tria, and offered him Mexico and the forces to
place him on the throne as Emperor of Mexico.
Maximilian was a tall, handsome prince
who but a short time previously had married
Carlota, the sixteen-year-old Belgian beauty.
They resided in their villa in Italy. Twice
Maximilian turned the offer down; but when
approached the third time, he agreed, but said
that he would accept only on the condition that
it was the desire of the Mexican people themselves.
This did not prove a difficult matter to arrange. A group of Mexican grandees made a
visit to Italy and Maximilian was crowned Emperor of Mexico by them in Italy. Napoleon
was jubilant; everything was proceeding according to plan. As the Mexican people had
wrested the right to govern themselves from
Spain, it would never do to attempt to put a
Spaniard on the throne, but this was different.
Here was a handsome Prince who had been
crowned Emperor, ostensibly by the Mexican
people themselves. None could say this was not
so. Napoleon had completed the groundwork.
On his part he had promised to dispatch thirty
thousand troops of the Foreign Legion to Mexico to be at Maximilian’s disposal. Napoleon
himself came over to America where he lived
in his yatch anchored off St. Helen’s Island in
the harbour of Montreal, just where the present
seaway has been opened.
He was in constant communication by telegraph with the forces he had dispatched to
Mexico. Msgr. Roy of Montreal stated that
Napoleon appeared well informed regarding the
political situation in North America.
A Spanish fleet stationed at Cuba when the
agreement was signed immediately invested
Vera Cruz in Mexico. This fleet was shortly
joined by squadrons of the British and French
fleets.
The British Admiralty received a typical
English letter from a rear admiral; he wanted to
know if Spain was to have all the choice pieces
of North America as the Spaniards had commandeered all the first-class hotel accommodations in Vera Cruz.
To pay the troops in Mexico, Napoleon sent
three millions in gold under guard which was
intercepted by a Mexican force.
In 1863, exactly a month after the Foreign
Legion landed in Vera Cruz to pave the way for
the ill-fated Emperor Maximilian and his Belgian bride, Carlota, the incident at Camerone
occurred. The Legion, warned that a French
convoy carried food, arms and three millions in
gold was nearing Pueblo, was asked to provide
protection. A patrol of 62 Légionnaires and two
officers, led by Captain Danjou, a veteran of
Sebastopol, who had a wooden hand, set forth
on the assignment. At ten in the morning, Danjou and his company ran smack into a Mexican
detachment of 800 Cavalry and 1200 Infantry,
and hurriedly holed up behind the wall of a
wayside inn.
Throughout most of the day, the 62 Légionnaires successfully held off the 1500 Mexicans.
Finally the survivors assembled and took oath
on Danjou’s wooden hand to fight until death.
When dusk fell only five Légionnaires remained. They had one bullet left. They fixed
their bayonets, and as the Mexicans poured
through the breaches in the wall, the Légionnaires charged. All gave their lives, after inflicting 580 casualties upon the Mexicans, but the
convoy to Pueblo was saved. This was France’s
Alamo.
Today, on every anniversary of Camerone,
after the music is done and the parades are
over, the oldest Legionnaire in Bel-Abbes unwraps Captain Danjou’s wooden hand and displays it to the men. Even those who have seen
it April after April are moved. 21
The first shot fired at Fort Sumter was from
a Blakeley and Whitworth rifled cannon. The
garrison at the Fort remarked on its extraordi-
21. Irving Wallace, “ Army Anonymous, ” Collier’s, Feb. 1,
1947.
nary accuracy. This cannon has the distinction
of being the first breech-loading cannon to be
fired in actual war. The manufacturers sent a
squad of men to show the Southerners how to
operate its mechanism.
In the charge of the Light Brigade at
Balaklava in the Crimean War [1854-1856), the
batteries were muzzle-loading, with round shot.
Colonel A. R. Dunn, who won the Victoria
Cross in this charge, was sent from England to
Toronto, Ont. with eight thousand men aboard
the Great Eastern. He was to await orders, but
to be prepared to attack Lincoln from the north.
Charles Bruce, British Consul at Charleston, SC., was the go-between to arrange the
marketing of Confederated bonds in Britain;
these were to provide the funds to build a navy
of privateers for the Confederacy.
Most of these ships were constructed by
Laird and Son at Birkenhead, and included the
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Shenandoah, Tallahassee, Chickamauga, Clustee and Sea King.
with their auxiliaries.
They were British from keel to mast-head,
armed with British guns, manned with British
tars and outfitted with British supplies.
The headquarters and pay office of the Confederate Navy was in Liverpool. When the war
was over Charles Bruce was promoted to be
Consul-General of Cuba, a Spanish possession.
RUSSIA’S INTERVENTION
et me not omit to explain the Russian position and the assistance Russia tended to
Lincoln in this conflict.
Peter the Great well deserved his title. As a
young man he arrived incognito in England and
applied for work as a common labourer in the
British shipyards. Britain was then the foremost
shipbuilding country, and Peter, by his willingness and industry, was gradually promoted until
he became a ship-wright.
Vast forests of fir and pine covered the
shores of the Baltic, and here Peter established
his shipyards. Over the next two decades there
was no letup in the launching of ships until the
Russian navy became the equal of the British
fleet.
The Bering Sea is named after a Russian
sea-captain who was the discoverer. Immediately the Russian American Fur Company was
chartered to trade for furs with the natives of
Alaska.
Needing supplies for the trappers and their
employees, the Company negotiated an agreement with Spain, and for a small yearly payment received a concession of land at Russian
River, Bodego Bay, California, on the shores of
the Pacific, a short distance up the coast from
the Golden Gate.
Here for many years they farmed the land,
raised their own beans, peas, corn, hogs and
cattle.
When Mexico, including California, declared independence from Spain, the Company
lost this concession and thereafter purchased
their supplies from the Hudson Bay Company
which had stores at Masset, on the Queen Charlotte Islands, and at Port Simpson, near Prince
Rupert. Naturally the Czar, because of his interests in Alaska, was keenly watching events
in North America. He was in sympathy with
Lincoln, having himself freed the slaves of
Russia in 1860.
These powers arrayed against Lincoln were
his erstwhile enemies. Britain, France, Sardinia
and Turkey were the allies which he had defeated in the Crimea. He knew he could not
hold Alaska if Lincoln were defeated. He dispatched his Baltic squadron under the command of Admiral Livofsky to New York and
his Pacific fleet under Rear-Admiral Popov to
San Francisco with instructions that they were
to take orders from Lincoln.
Considering the tremendous losses sustained
in the Crimea, the last thing that Britain wanted
was another war with Russia. Britain also knew
that it would mean war if she continued to assist the Confederacy.
It would be best to let the North and South
fight it out. The arrival of the Russian fleets
was coincident with the tide of war favouring
the Northern states.
In the mean time the privateers which had
been built in British shipyards had driven the
merchant ships of America from the sea.
Even after the war was over the Shenandoah, which had put into Australia for repairs,
recruited 50 men from Botany Bay and, sailing
to the Arctic, sank fourteen whalers. The Shenandoah was unaware that the war was over.
Many speeches were made in the House of
Commons against the sinking of merchant
ships, among them one by Mr. Cobden:
What did Russia do? She sent her fleets immediately to America, and knowing the astute
and long-headed man who rules at St. Petersburg, does anybody doubt what the motive
was?... No doubt with the intention of putting
those crews in the swiftest vessels that could be
obtained both on the Atlantic and Pacific side,
L
in order that they may be employed against our
commerce... Recollect her geographical position.
She has one sea-coast on the Atlantic and
another on the Pacific, and he Pacific coast is
within about a fortnight’s steaming of the
China trade.
Let any man read the shipping list from
Shanghai and it is almost like reading the Liverpool shipping list. Suppose then, you were at
war with any other power and you had laid
down this doctrine for other countries to imitate; why, let the Americans be as true and
loyal to their principle of neutrality as they have
been, can you doubt, if American nature is English nature, that out of their innumerable creeks
and harbours, there will not be persons to send
forth fleet steamers to prey upon our commerce ?
Why, many Americans will think it an act of
absolute patriotism to do this. They will say:
We have lost our Mercantile Marine through
you doing this, and by doing the same thing
toward you we will recover it again, and you
will be placed in the same position we were.
You will have a high rate of insurance, and
you will be obliged to sell your ships. You have
the profits before, now we shall have it, for this
game is one that two can play at.
22
Great Britain finally agreed to an impartial
Tribunal of Arbitration only after the United
States threatened to annex Canada.
Previously Great Britain had been most emphatic in denying any responsibility for damages resulting from the activities of the privateers.
It was true that these ships were constructed
in British yards by private citizens, but as Britain had not declared war, the government was
not responsible.
22
. Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 175, pp. 500-505.
Would Great Britain be willing that the evidence be submitted to an impartial Tribunal of
Arbitration?
The answer was: “ Couldn’t think of it, you
know, ” or words to that effect.
At this juncture the clever suggestion was
made that an independent organisation be
formed with the avowed purpose of annexing
Canada.
Who and what were the Fenians ? Mr.
Watkin gave us an answer to this question
when he addressed the House of Commons in
London, Feb. 23, 1866. This was five months
prior to the fight at Ridgeway, Ont., where
General John O’Neil leading the Fenians was
met by a regiment from Toronto.
Mr. Watkin: He had recently been in the
United States. He was in Philadelphia when the
Fenian Congress was sitting there in October
last. He was in New York when the Headquarters of the Fenian Organisation was removed from Duane St. to one of the largest
houses in Union Square, which was set up as
what they called the Fenian Capitol and surmounted by what they called their adopted flag.
He was also in Canada when rumours more or
less serious arrived of intended Fenian raids
into British Territory, and knew preparations
had been made to resist attack... No one in the
United States could plead that he did not know
that there existed a vast ramification all over
the States, having war with a peaceful ally for
its avowed object. With regard to the Congress
at Philadelphia he might mention one peculiar
feature was the presence of a large number of
officers in the employment and pay of the Government of the United States. He had in his
hand a list of a very small committee of the
Congress and yet it contained the names of no
less than ten volunteer officers belonging to the
United States. Three of these were Generals,
five were Colonels, one was a Captain and the
last one was a Lieutenant.
Colonel William R. Roberts was chosen as
the President of the Organisation and General
T. W. Sweeney (who was then Commanding
Officer of the 116th United States Infantry) as
Secretary of War. His staff was composed of
the following officers, all of whom had seen
service in the Civil War. Chief of Staff: Brig.
Gen. C. Carroll Tavish... Chief of Engineering
Corps: Col. John Meehan... Chief of Ordnance:
Col. C.H. Rundell... Engineer Corps: Lieut.
C.H. Treslier... Asst. Adj.-Gen.: Major E.G.
Courtney... Ordnance Dept.: Major M.
O’Reilly... Quartermaster: Major M.H. Van
Brunt... Aide de Camp: Capt. D.W. Greeley
and Capt. Daniel O’Connell...
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: It may
be perfectly true, and is unhappily too true that
Fenianism in the main is the thing imported
from America.
As the regulars were mustered out in 1865
they were permitted to retain their rifles and
knapsacks. These trained and armed veterans
were welcomed by the Fenian organisation and
largely were the nucleus of the 184,000 volunteers. To embarrass Great Britain a squad of
Fenians under Stevens was dispatched to Ireland, and because of their activities in fomenting rebellion there most of them were arrested
and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Ten thousand Fenians were encamped at
Buffalo and a raid was made into Ontario by
Gen. John O’Neil with 1500 men. This force
was met at Ridgeway by a regiment of Canadians from Toronto. The engagement lasted most
of the day, with few casualties.
When news of the mission was flashed to
Britain, the Government agreed to negotiate.
The force under O’Neil was recalled, and to
carry out the fiction that raid had been made
without the knowledge of the United States,
most of them were arrested. However, a Bill
had been introduced into the House of Representatives to annex Canada.
The following Bill to annex Canada was introduced into the House by Representative
Banks. Later, when Great Britain had agreed to
arbitration, this Bill was recommitted to the
Committee of Foreign Affairs (July 2, 1866).
A bill for the admission of the States of
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada East and
Canada West and for the reorganisation of the
Territories of Selkirk, Saskatchewan and Columbia.
Sec. 1.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the President of
the United States is hereby authorised and directed, whenever notice shall be deposited in
the Department of State, that the Governments
of Great Britain and the Provinces of New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island,
Newfoundland, Canada, British Columbia, and
Vancouver’s Island, have accepted the proposition hereinafter made by the United States, to
publish by proclamation that, from the date
thereof, the States of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada East and Canada West, and the
Territories of Selkirk, Saskatchewan, and Columbia, with limits and rights as by this Act
defined are constituted and admitted as States
and Territories of the United States of America.
Sec. 2.
Be it further enacted... That the following
articles are hereby proposed, and from the date
of the proclamation of the President of the
United States shall take effect, as irrevocable
conditions of the admission of the States of
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada East and
Canada West, and the future States of Selkirk,
Saskatchewan and Columbia, to-wit:
Article I.
All public lands not sold or granted; canals,
public harbours, lighthouses and piers; river
and lake improvements; railways, mortgages
and other debts due by railway companies to
the Provinces; custom houses and post offices
shall vest in the United States; but all other
public works and property shall belong to the
State Governments respectively, hereby constituted, together with all sums due from purchasers or lessees of lands, mines, or mineral at the
time of the union.
Article II.
In consideration of public lands, works, and
property vested as aforesaid in the United
States, the United States will assume and discharge the funded debt and contingent liabilities of the late Provinces at rates of interest not
exceeding five per centum, to the amount of
$85,800,000; apportioned as follows: To Canada West, $36,500,00; to Canada East,
$29,000,000; to Nova Scotia, $8,000,000; to
New Brunswick, $7,000,000; to Newfoundland, $3,300,000; and to Prince Edward Island,
$2,000,000; and in further consideration of the
transfer by said Provinces to the United States
of the power to levy import and export duties,
the United States will make an annual grant of
$1,646,000 in aid of local expenditures, to be
apportioned as follows: To Canada West,
$700,00; to Canada East, $550,000; to Nova
Scotia, $165,000; to Newfoundland, $65,000;
to Prince Edward Island, $40,000.
Article III.
For all purposes of State organisation and
representation in the Congress of the United
States, Newfoundland shall be a part of Canada
East, and Prince Edward Island shall be a part
of Nova Scotia, except that each shall always
be a separate representative district and entitled
to elect at least one member of the House of
Representatives, and except also that the municipal authorities of Newfoundland and Prince
Edward Island shall receive the indemnities
agreed to be paid by the United States in Article II.
Article IV.
Territorial divisions are established as follows: (1) New Brunswick, with its present
limits; (2) Nova Scotia, with the addition of
Prince Edward Island; (3) Canada East, with
the addition of Newfoundland and all territory
east of longitude 80 deg. and south of Hudson
Straits; (4) Canada West, with the addition of
territory south of Hudson’s Bay, and between
longitude 80 deg. and 90 deg.; (5) Selkirk
Territory bounded east by longitude 90 deg.,
south by the late boundary of the United States,
west by longitude 105 deg., and north by the
Arctic Circle; (6) Saskatchewan Territory,
bounded east by longitude 105 deg., south by
latitude 49 degrees, west by the Rocky Mountains, and north by latitude 70 deg.; (7) Columbia Territory, including Vancouver Island
and Rocky Mountains, south by latitude 40
deg., and west by the Pacific Ocean and Russian America. But Congress reserves the right
of changing the limits and subdividing the areas
of the western territories at discretion.
Article V.
Until the next decennial revision, representation in the House of Representatives shall be
as follows: Canada West, 12 members; Canada
East, including Newfoundland, 11 members;
New Brunswick, 2 members; Nova Scotia,
including Prince Edward Island, 4 members.
Article VI.
The Congress of the United States shall enact, in favour of the proposed Territories of
Selkirk, Saskatchewan and Columbia, all the
provisions of the Act organising the Territory
of Montana, so far as they can be made applicable.
Article VII.
The United States, by the construction of
new canals, the enlargement of existing canals,
and by the improvement of shoals, will so aid
the navigation of the St. Lawrence River and
the Great Lakes that vessels of fifteen hundred
tons’ burden shall pass from the Gulf of St.
Lawrence to Lakes Superior and Michigan;
provided that the expenditure under this Article
shall not exceed $50,000,000.
Article VIII.
The United States will appropriate and pay
to “ The European and North American Railway Company of Maine ” the sum of
$2,000,000 upon the construction of a continuous line of railroad from Bangor, in Maine, to
St. John, in New Brunswick; provided said
“ The European and North American Railroad
Company of Maine ” shall release the Government of United States from all claims held by
its assignees of the States of Maine and Massachusetts.
Article IX.
To aid the construction of a railway from
Truro, in Nova Scotia, to Rivière du Loup, in
Canada East, and a railway from the City of
Ottawa, Pembina and Fort Gary, on the Red
River of the North, and the Valley of North
Saskatchewan River, to some point on the Pacific Ocean north of latitude 49 deg., the United
States will grant lands along the lines of said
roads to the amount of twenty sections, or
12,800 acres, per mile, to be selected and sold
in the manner prescribed in the Act to aid the
construction of the Northern Pacific Railroad,
approved July 2, 1862, and Acts amendatory
thereof; and, in addition to said grants of land,
the United States will further guarantee dividends of five per centum upon the stock of the
company or companies which may be authorised by Congress to undertake the construction
of said railways; provided that such guarantee
of stock shall not exceed the sum of $30,000
per mile, and Congress shall regulate the securities for advances on account thereof.
Article X.
The public lands in the late Provinces, as far
as practicable, shall be surveyed according to
the rectangular system of the General Land
Office of the United States; and in the territories west of longitude 90 degrees, or western
boundary of Canada West, Sections sixteen and
thirty-six shall be granted for the encouragement of schools, and after the organisation of
the territories into the States, 5 per centum of
the net proceeds of sales of public lands shall
be paid into their treasuries as a fund for the
improvement of roads and rivers.
Article XI.
The United States will pay $10,000,000 to
the Hudson Bay Company in full discharge of
all claims to territory or jurisdiction in North
America, whether founded on the charter of the
company or any treaty, law or usage.
Article XII.
It shall be developed upon the Legislatures
of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Canada East
and Canada West, to conjoin the tenure of the
office and the local institutions of said States to
the Constitution, and laws of the United states,
subject to revision by Congress.
Section 3.
Be it further enacted... If Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland, or either of those Provinces, shall decline union with the United
States, and the remaining Provinces, with the
consent of Great Britain, shall accept the
proposition of the United States, the foregoing
stipulations in favour of Prince Edward Island
and Newfoundland, or either of them, will be
omitted; but in all other respects the United
States will give full effect to the plan of union.
If Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick shall decline the
proposition, but Canada, British Columbia and
Vancouver Island shall, with the consent of
Great Britain, accept the same, the construction
of a railway from Truro to Rivière du Loup,
with all stipulations relating to the Maritime
Provinces, will form no part of the proposed
plan of union, but the same will be consummated in all other respects. If Canada shall decline the proposition, then the stipulations in
regard to the St. Lawrence canals and a railway
from Ottawa to Sault St. Marie, with the Canadian clause of debt and revenue indemnity, will
be relinquished. If the plan of union shall only
be accepted in regard to the North-western territory and the Pacific Provinces, the United
States will aid the construction on the terms
named, of a railway from the western extremity of Lake Superior in the State of Minnesota,
by way of Pembina, Fort Garry and the Valley
of Saskatchewan, to the Pacific Coast, north of
latitude 49 deg., besides securing all the rights
and privileges of an American territory to the
proposed Territories of Selkirk, Saskatchewan
and Columbia.
By accepting to negotiate, Great Britain admitted that the government was responsible for
the losses sustained by the American Merchant
Marine.
The Earl of Derby, under the pseudonym of
Lord Stanley, visited Washington and held a
conference with President Andrew Jackson,
resulting in the signing of the Stanley-Johnson
Convention, which was promptly rejected by
the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate
for the reason that it did not include an apology.
When the Earl of Derby had to admit in
London that his mission had been unsuccessful,
the Earl of Clarendon was accredited; the
result of his visit was the Clarendon-Johnson
convention. Although better than the StanleyJohnson convention, neither this include an
apology, and again it was rejected by the Senate.
We had to apologise after the Trent Affair,
so we insist upon an apology.
In 1871 it was finally mutually agreed that the
case be decided by an impartial Tribunal of
Arbitration to be held in Washington. In the
meantime a thorough discussion of the question
was aired in the House of Commons.
In Parliamentary Debates under the heading ” Debate on Colonel Jervois’ Report , ”
most of the leaders on both sides of the House
had something to submit. The debate which
commenced on March 13, 1865, covers approximately a hundred pages of British Hansard. Excerpts only are quoted here as this is
sufficient for our purpose. Parliamentary debates from Queen Elizabeth to date are to be
found in the Parliamentary Library in Ottawa,
[and most provincial legislatures’s Libraries.
Ed.]
It should be noted that the British Government had refused to acknowledge any responsibility for the sinking of the ships of the American Merchant Marine, and for the past two
years had consistently refused to consider the
suggestion of the United States that the war
claims be settled by an impartial Tribunal of
Arbitration.
Mr. Thomas Hughes: He did not wonder at
the soreness of the Americans, or at their saying
that the lion’s paw was the only law with John
Bull. That, whether right or wrong, we would
have our way and would not submit to an Impartial Tribunal. It has been said that the
American Government had treated France and
Spain in a very different manner to that in
which they have treated this country and he
believed that to have been the case, but France
and Spain had treated America in a different
manner than that pursued by this country and
had allowed no Alabama to leave their shores.
(Cries of OH! OH!)
Hon. Gentlemen might say Oh! Oh! - but he
had believed, taken more trouble to understand
America than most Gentlemen in that House.
He could not see what reason we had to refuse
to go to arbitration, though he refrained from
expressing an opinion as to whether that Tribunal would decide we were right or wrong. The
complaint of America was simply this, and that
we somehow or other, whether rightly or
wrongly, allowed certain vessels to escape from
our ports, and to prey upon their commerce,
and when they asked for an Impartial Tribunal
of Arbitration, we refused it. 23
23
. Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 181, pp. 1027-1028.
John Bright: Well now if there comes a war,
in which Canada shall suffer and be made a
victim, it will be a war got up between the
Government in Washington and the Government in London... I say there is no generous and
high-minded man who could look back upon
the transactions of the past four years without a
feeling of sorrow at the course we have pursued
on some particular occasions. Going back
nearly four years we recollect what occurred
when the news arrived of the first shot having
been fired at Fort Sumter. That I think was
about April 12th. Immediately after that time it
was announced that a new Minister was coming to this country. Mr. Dallas had intimated to
the Government that he did not represent the
new President; he would rather not undertake
anything of importance; but that his successor
was on his way and would arrive on such a day.
When a man leaves New York on a given day
you can calculate to about 12 hours when he
will arrive in London.
Mr. Adams I think arrived in London about
May 13th, and when he opened his paper the
next morning he found the proclamation of
neutrality acknowledging the belligerent rights
of the South. I say the proper course to have
taken would have been to wait until Mr. Adams
arrived here, and to have discussed the matter
with him in a friendly manner.
Then I come to the last thing I shall mention...
to the question of the ships which have been
preying on the commerce of the United States. I
shall confine myself to that one ship the Alabama. She was built in this country. All her
munitions of war were from this country. Almost every man aboard her was a subject of His
Majesty.
She sailed from one of our chief ports. She
is reported to have been built by a firm in
whom the Member of this House was and I
presume is interested ...that the Member for
Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) looks admiringly upon
the greatest example which men have ever seen
of the greatest crime which men have ever
committed. 24
Mr. Laing: There could be no doubt that after
what had passed during the late contest in
America, we should be at the mercy of any
maritime power with which we might enter into
war, it would be impossible for us to engage in
such a war without exposing our great mercantile fleet to destruction. The operation of the
Alabama had caused one-third of the whole
tonnage of New York to be transferred to foreign flags; and what he would ask would be our
position with a hundred Alabamas issuing from
a variety of ports to prey upon our commerce.
25
Mr. Lowe: I cannot conceive why we should
enter into arrangements to keep these troops in
Canada. There is another consideration which
to me seems a most powerful one. When we
once go to war with America it may be about
Canada; will Canada be the best place to carry
on the war? In such a struggle we must consider not merely local but Imperial interests; we
must wage war in the mode least likely to injure the forces of the Empire, and strike at
points which are vital to the interest of our antagonist. If we allow the Americans to lead us,
if we follow them to the points they choose to
attack; points after all only of local and subordinate interest leaving unguarded other places
which are of Imperial importance, such a policy
would end in certain failure and disaster... As
far as military considerations go, therefore, my
conclusion is that it would be unwise and indeed impossible for us to retain any force worth
speaking of in Canada, in the event of so great
and awful a struggle as that between this country and America, that we should want all our
troops for the defence of these Islands, or for
other points more essential to us, and partaking
more of the “ arx imperii ” than Canada... I
should think that Bermuda and Halifax were
much more important than any point in Canada,
24
. Ibid., p. 1028
25
. Ibid., p. 1040.
not for the sake of the places themselves, but
because the whole safety of our fleets in North
American waters would depend on these two
places. In the same way it would be necessary
to defend certain points in the West Indies for
the protection of our ships. I apprehend, therefore, that we should act imprudently in case of
war in keeping our troops in Canada. But if we
would not be prudent to keep our troops there
in time of war, is it right or is it wise to keep
them there in time of peace, thereby encouraging the Canadians to believe that they will
have these troops if war should break out,
though we know, at least those who take my
view know, that the necessary result of a war,
which begins with the invasion of Canada,
must, if we are true to Imperial interests, be the
speedy withdrawal of these troops. I say, that
unless you are prepared to maintain that the
same force should be kept in Canada in war as
in peace. It is wrong to retain our troops there
now because we are thereby urging the Canadians under false pretences. Better they should
know the truth at once, know that they and not
we are to fight the Americans; that, with our
small army, we should, as we did in the Crimean campaign, soon feel the wear and tear to
be so severe that we should be compelled to
withdraw our troops from Canada for our own
protection. 26
Mr. White: ...The Rt. Hon. Gentleman for
Calne (Mr. Lowe) represented the opinion of
every one whose opinion was worth having,
when he spoke of the utter impossibility of
holding Canada without an expenditure of
money and blood on the part of Great Britain
fearful to contemplate. 27
Lord Robert Cecil: In discussing this question
it seems to me we have not thought of the interests of the people of Canada.
Now, the people of Canada have a solid and
real danger before them. What presses on them
26
. Ibid., p. 1582.
27
. Ibid., p. 1589.
is not the question of the British Empire,
whether British honour shall be maintained or
not, but the question of their own lives, their
own homesteads, their own property; and what
they want to know is whether England is prepared to back them up, or whether she is not
prepared to do so. And what answer do they
receive? The Secretary for the Colonies gives
generous and large spoken promises, destitute
as it seems to me of any definite value, but still
showing most amiable intentions... The Hon.
Member for Stockport (Watkin) says: “ You are
bound to defend the frontier of Canada. ” Another Hon. Member says: “ The Government
are merely bound to protect a few fortified
points. ” The Rt. Hon. for Calne (Mr. Lowe)
says: “ Canada will best be defended by abandoning her altogether and attacking the Americans somewhere else, or defending the British
Empire somewhere else; so that if we amassed
a force to defend the Isle of Wight we should be
defending Canada. ” But the Hon. Member for
the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayerton) says: “ The
best way to defend Canada is never to quarrel
with the United States. ” But what the people of
Canada want to know is, suppose we do quarrel
with the United States, what will happen to
them? They know that the House of Commons
is the source of all political power, that it directs the policy of this country, and they will
study the records of this debate with the anxious interest of men whose lives and interests
are at stake. 28
Mr. Bright: Let us “ take care of ourselves. ”
That is a fifth suggestion. The Hon. Member
for Birmingham says: “ The best course for this
country would be to take care of ourselves. ”
What I desire to impress upon the House is that
ambiguity and uncertainty is more dangerous to
the interests, more fatal to the honour of England that any other course you could adopt.
You are bound to let the Canadians know,
not by any vague generalities, not by mere generous and amiable sentiments, but in a busi-
28
. Ibid., p. 1611.
ness-like manner, and in accurate debate, what
is the precise assistance they may expect from
you, so that they may know how to conduct
themselves accordingly. If you say you will
defend them abandoning them altogether, perhaps they may think the best means of defending themselves is by abandoning you. If you tell
them you will defend them on condition of their
giving you the power to call out auxiliary forces
from amongst them, they will know exactly
what you require and what they must do to earn
your aid. But, as the matter now stands, as far
as I understand from the Secretary for the
Colonies, we are not going to defend Canada as
we should defend Scotland, as being an integral
part of the British Empire, but with the admission to Canada that her defenses must depend
mainly upon herself. That seems to me an indefinite liability contingent on a perfectly indefinite condition.
If Canada now trusts to the vague promises
of the Secretary of the Colonies, and allows
herself to be drawn into a quarrel with the
United States... and I agree with the Hon.
Member for Horsham, the quarrel will not be
with Canada but with England, I fear that the
disastrous scenes of last year will be repeated
over again. We shall see the enormous danger,
we shall have 300,000 men at the frontier, with
a nucleus of 10,000 to oppose them, and 20,000
volunteers.
And when we are face to face with the difficulty we shall inquire what amount of obligation we have to Canada and what we have
promised; the Secretary for the Colonies will
then open Hansard, and find his speech delightfully vague, and then we shall look back to our
dispatches on the subject, and find there is no
definite promise that can be diplomatically
enforced; and then perhaps shall persuade ourselves that Canada is best defended by abandoning Canada altogether, and the best is to
leave her inhabitants to the mild and paternal
rule of the United States. Whatever you do, let
Canada know distinctly the conditions under
which you are prepared to aid her, the extent to
which you will go, and how far you do not regard her as an integral portion of the British
Empire.
When you have made up your minds on that
point and recorded your determination in some
formal document, you will be able to look forward without fear to any change the future may
bring, you will be prepared to do your duty as
you have defined it, and act up to the pledges
you have given. 29
Later Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald was heard
again. He said:
I ask the House to consider what has been
our position during the last three years... During
that time at any moment, in consequence of the
intemperate order of an injudicious commander, or of some event striking alarm into
the minds of the American people, war might
have at any time broken out between this country and the United States, and once such a war
commenced who could say where it would
end? You have in Canada the Guards, the
flower of our army; you have there, troops not
only bearing the prestige of the Royal name,
attached personally to the Sovereign, but
counting amongst their members the scion of
the nobles and the best blood; and what is nobler and better still, the annals of these regiments are illustrated by deeds of glory and
heroism achieved at Waterloo and in the Crimea. But what was the position of these men
during all this time? If war had unexpectedly
broken out, Col. Jervois tells you, the only
council you could have given them, could have
been to fly as fast as possible to their ships; to
leave Canada, and take refuge in this country. 30
Mr. W. E. Foster: We all know that a Statesman who is not only respected by his own
party, but by Members sitting on this side of the
House, has taken occasion to express fears of
an immediate war with the United States in a
29
. Ibid., p. 1612.
30
. Ibid., pp. 1027-1028.
more urgent manner and with a much less conciliatory spirit than the Hon. Gentleman, the
Earl of Derby in the House of Lords. “ Order ” -
Well! When eminent statesmen in the position
of Lord Derby come forward and express their
fears in such language as this, can we wonder
that they are felt throughout the country.
Mr. Oliphant: It was perfectly true that
Fenianism had its origin in America. But it
should be borne in mind that it originated out of
the policy pursued by this country toward
America. In other words if there were no outstanding claims between England and America,
Fenianism would cease to exist. 31
Possibly the best evidence that the Fenians
were neither Catholic nor Irish is that when a
convict was released he was sent back to his
own country. When Great Britain belatedly and
reluctantly agreed to a board of arbitration to be
composed of ten men (five to be appointed by
Great Britain and five by the United States,
with an outstanding personage as arbitrator, to
be chosen later), then those arrested for disturbances in Ireland received an unconditional
release. This was refused by those convicted
until they were assured that their passage would
be paid back to New York. 32
Lord Oramore and Brown: But the other day
when Her Majesty’s Government sent the
Fenian convicts in State Cabins to America, the
Congress passed an address of sympathy and
congratulations to them and the President gave
them a public reception. 33
The Fenian organisation and the Bill for the
admission of the provinces of Canada as states
and territories of the United States of America
had served the purpose for which they were
originated, and we hear no more of them. How-
31
.Ibid., p. 1040.
32
. Ibid., p. 1049.
33
. Ibid., Vol. 206, p. 734.
ever, neither were an idle threat. Ten thousand
troops were encamped at Buffalo ready to cross
Lake Ontario in case Great Britain refused to
submit their differences to an impartial Tribunal of Arbitration.
Sir John A. Macdonald and Georges Etienne
Cartier were now enabled to proceed with their
delegations to present the Quebec Resolutions
to the House of Commons. Leaving the end of
November they arrived in London on December 3, 1866.
As the year 1870 closed the outlook for
Great Britain was grave indeed: if the United
States persisted in its threats to annex Canada,
the War Office was convinced that Canada
could not be defended against a force from the
United States.
If this could not be prevented then Russia
and the United States together would control
the world from the shores of the Baltic Sea to
the Atlantic, and furthermore the entire Western Hemisphere would be their sphere of influence.
In the House of Lords Lord Derby stated his
opinion that war with the United States was
inevitable. No time was now lost in appointing
the members who were to represent Great Britain on the Tribunal of Arbitration to convene in
Washington in May of 1871.
So far our narrative has been to relate from
documents the relationship between the British
government and the government of the United
States. How about Canada ? Canada is a vast
country with resources estimated by reliable
engineers as exceeding the natural resources of
the United States. Most economists would
agree that the country with the greatest resources could best sustain the largest population.
Canada, however, is a colony. Let us suppose that instead of being a colony she had
been an independent nation for the past hundred years and the United States were the col-
ony of Great Britain for the same period, then
the larger population would be in Canada and
the lesser in the United States. I think most
would agree. The unanimous conclusion of the
British Parliament was that dark clouds of war
obscured the national horizon.
What to do was the question. Some solution
had to be found. War with the United States, in
which Canada would either become independent or become a part of the United States, was a
disaster too fearful to contemplate. The solution
to this dilemma was to enact the British North
America Act, to keep Canada as a colony; and
then to convene or rather to appoint representatives to an impartial Board of Arbitration instructed to reach an agreement with the United
States.
Lord Campbell in the Lords and Mr. Adderly in the Commons almost gave the show
away. Lord Campbell said: “ It would scarcely
be possible to break the artificial unity we
now propose to organize, ” In the Commons,
Mr. Adderly said: “ The Act is designed to
strengthen the hands of the Governor-General
as much as possible. ”
The Act previously passed by the Lords was
assented to by the Commons on March 29,
1867, to become effective in Canada on July 1,
1867. In the meantime a petition was circulated
in Nova Scotia and signed by 30,000, a third of
the voting population, “ That Nova Scotia be
relieved of this measure, or that a Royal
Commission or inquiry be appointed. ”
Delegates were appointed, headed by Joseph
Howe, to present this petition to the British
Parliament.
John Bright (member for Birmingham) presented this to the House of Commons, where it
was rejected. Nova Scotia was compelled
against her strongest protests to become a
member of the united colony, called the Dominion of Canada. As the delegation left England, Joseph Howe said: “ We go home to
share the perils of our native land, in whose
service we consider it an honour to labour
and whose fortunes in this, the darkest hour
of her history, it would be cowardice to desert. ”
Regarding the Board of Arbitration whose
decisions were incorporated into the Treaty of
Washington, May 8, 1871, it will doubtless be
conceded that if the United States were compelled to relinquish equal rights to navigation of
the Mississippi River, or if Britain were compelled to relinquish equal rights to navigation of
the Thames, it would be sufficient cause to
declare war. Yet Canada was compelled by the
terms of this Treaty to relinquish equal rights to
navigation of the St. Lawrence, where it traverses the Province of Quebec; to relinquish the
territories of the Lake of the Woods, Point
Roberts and the San Juan Islands; and to grant
equal rights for ten years to the fisheries.
Twenty-two years after the British North
America Act was passed in 1867, the British
Parliament itself admitted, when it enacted the
Interpretations Act in 1889, that the Act of 1867
was an intentional misrepresentation of fact:
“ The expression Colony shall mean any of Her
Majesty’s Dominions (exclusive of the British
Islands and of British India) and where parts of
such Dominions are under both a Central Legislature and local legislatures, all parts under
the Central Legislature shall for the purposes of
this definition be deemed to be One Colony’. ”
As Canada in 1889 was the only Dominion
with a central legislature and local legislatures,
the inference is obvious. Canada was a colony.
Although it is admitted that Canada has
enormous resources and could support a large
population, the meagre citizenship is due to the
policy of the Colonial Office. Since Canadians
are not permitted to vote as Canadians,
3,508,730 have emigrated to the United States.
34
Statistics are not available for other countries. This exceeds the entire population of the
two largest cities in Canada, Montreal and Toronto. In a survey in 1935 it was noted that 98%
34. Department of Immigration, Table 13. [196 ?…Ed.]
of the druggists of New York State were Canadians. In the maritime provinces, farms were
for sale for less than the cost of the buildings,
as there were left not enough young people to
farm the land. Naturally the most ambitious, the
most intelligent and the best educated emigrated. Canadians rank high among the leaders
in art, the sciences and in industry.
Estimates are that it costs $10,000 to feed,
clothe and educate a young man until he is able
to support himself. At this rate it has cost Canada some $35,087,300,000 for the Canadians
who have emigrated to the United States [in
1965]. This is what the writer meant in the
opening paragraph of this chapter the Civil
War cost Canada more than the combined
losses of the North and South.
Various acts have been passed by the British
Parliament regarding Canada. It can be said
without fear of contradiction that there is nothing in the Quebec Act (1774), the Constitutional Act (1791), the Union Act (1840), or the
British North America Act (1867) to alter in
any essential the colonial relationship or to
weaken the headship of the Crown in Chancery. And there is nothing in any of these acts
to alter in any essential respect that cardinal
principle of British policy: the supreme legislative authority of the British Parliament
over and throughout the Empire.
It will be noted that our trusty and wellloved Sir John Alexander Macdonald had been
appointed one of the high Commissioners to be
representative of Great Britain on the Tribunal
of Arbitration to settle the claims of the United
States regarding the depredations of the privateers. In ten days of August, 1864, the Chickamauga and the Tallahassee sank thirty-three
merchant ships in the shipping lanes from Halifax, Nova Scotia, and St. John’s, New Brunswick. Although these were American vessels,
they were engaged in carrying the produce of
the maritime areas to the West Indies.
Public feeling was enraged at these sinking.
Meetings were called and delegates appointed
to a conference to be held in Charlottetown,
Prince Edward Island, September 1, 1864. A
resolution was put that the three maritime provinces form a federal union. Before it was acted
upon the conference was joined by delegates
from Quebec and Ontario. Among them was
John A. Macdonald, Attorney-General for Ontario, and Georges Etienne Cartier, AttorneyGeneral of Quebec.
They suggested that meeting be adjourned to
meet in Quebec in thirty days, which would
provide time to appoint delegates from the
other British colonies in North America who
would all be in favour of forming a larger federal union. As arranged, the delegates were
convened in Quebec City, and the Quebec
Resolutions, dated October 10, 1864, were
drafted to provide for a federal union.
Fourteen delegates were appointed to present the Resolutions to the Imperial Parliament,
with John A. Macdonald and Georges-Etienne
Cartier as joint-chairmen of the delegation. In
the meantime, the Fenian raid in Ontario disrupted their plans, and it was not until December 3, 1866, that the delegates were convened
in the Westminster Palace Hotel in London.
They sat until December 24 and adjourned for
the Christmas holidays.
When they re-convened in January, 1867,
the Earl of Carnarvon, Secretary of the Colonies, acted as chairman. Great Britain now
faced the most crucial decision which had
arisen in the past hundred years. The government was on the horns of a dilemma. What to
do was the question. If the United States annexed Canada, and it was admitted Britain
could not defend the boundary of Canada, Britain would still have to pay the indemnity demanded by the United States for the loss of her
Merchant Marine. This was ruinous. If Britain
conceded to Canada the right to form a federal
union, this would mean that Canada would
have a democratic government on a par with
the United States.
This was unthinkable. Canada would most
probably join with the United States against
Britain. This would be worse. The feeling was
that Britain had to retain Canada as far as possible to satisfy the claims of the United States;
therefore, Britain would be compelled to buy
off John A. Macdonald.
Before emigrating to Canada, John A. Macdonald had started his schooling in Scotland.
He was now fifty-four and a widower. Naturally he was elated when the Rt. Hon. Montague Bernard invited him to his home to meet a
number of the titled nobility. He was wined and
dined and lionised by the elite and soon engaged to be married to Susan Agnes Bernard.
They were married on February 16, 1867.
What man of fifty-four would or could resist
attentions showered upon him by a young and
titled lady who had consented to be his bride ?
His future brother-in-law now found John sufficiently softened up to be not invulnerable to
the explanations and suggestions he would
make to him. He explained that because of the
likelihood of war with the United States, in
which no doubt a number of Canadians would
be killed, it would be impossible for the House
of Commons to accede to the request of Canada
for a federal union.
How would it be if John would first use his
best endeavours to settle with the United States
before pressing for a federal union? John would
be made a member of the Tribunal of Arbitration. He would also be appointed Premier of
Canada by Lord Monck, the Governor-General;
be made a member of Her Majesty’s Imperial
Privy Council; and have a title. John yielded.
Years later when a new Governor-General
asked John if he had a list of names to be honoured upon Her Majesty’s birthday, he wrote: “
…honours should be granted only for a service
performed for the Imperial Government... All
these honours were conferred upon myself and
the other gentlemen on account of the prominent part we had taken in carrying out the Imperial policy... ” 35
The plan for a federal union or a confederation of the provinces was set aside. There is no
35. Dominion Archives.
historic fact nor is there any law or agreement
to support the stories of confederation. When
the troops were encamped at Valley Forge, had
George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and
John Hancock accepted titles from the King
and relinquished the idea of a federal government for the New England states, then we
would have had a parallel to the situation in
Canada. The fairest thing which can be said of
the Rt. Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald is that he
would be more at home in the company of
Benedict Arnold than he could be in the presence of such men as George Washington.
Following is the recorded document granting full power to the five representatives of the
Tribunal of Arbitration.
Victoria R:
Victoria, by the Grace of God, Queen of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
Defender of the Faith... To all and singular to
whom these Presents shall come, Greeting.
Whereas, for the purpose of discussing in a
friendly spirit with Commissioners to be appointed on the part of our Good Friends, the
United States of America, the various questions
on which differences have arisen between Us
and Our said Good Friends, and of treating for
an Agreement as to the mode of their amicable
settlement. We have judged it expedient to
invest fit persons with full power to conduct on
Our part the discussions on this behalf. Know
ye, therefore, that We, reposing a special trust
and confidence in the wisdom, loyalty, diligence, and circumspection of Our right and
trusty and right well-loved Cousin and Councillor George Frederick Samuel, Earl de Grey and
Ripon, Viscount Goderick, a Peer of Our
United Kingdom, President of Our Most Honourable Privy Council, Knight of Our Most
Noble Order of the Garter, …of our right trusty
and well beloved Councillor Sir Stafford Henry
Northcote, Baronet, a Member of Parliament,
Companion of Our Most Honourable Order of
the Bath, …of Our Trusty and well-beloved Sir
Edward Thornton, Knight Commander of Our
Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Our Envoy
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to
Our Good Friends, the United States of America, …of Our Trusty and well-beloved Sir John
Alexander Macdonald, Knight Commander of
Our Most Honourable Order of the Bath, a
Member of Our Privy Council for Canada, and
Minister of Justice and Attorney-General in
Our Dominion of Canada, …and of Our Trusty
and well-beloved Montague Bernard, Esquire,
Chichele Professor of International Law in the
University of Oxford: Have named, made, constituted, and appointed, as We do by these presents name, make, constitute, and appoint them
Our undoubted High Commissioners, Procurators, and Plenipotentiaries; Giving to them, to
any three or more of them, all manner of power
and authority to treat, adjust, and conclude with
such Minister or Ministers as may be vested
with similar power and authority on the part of
Our Good Friends, the United States of America, any Treaties, Conventions, or Agreements
that may tend to the attainment of the above
mentioned end, and to sign for Us and in Our
Name, everything so agreed upon and concluded, and to do and transact all such other
matters as may appertain to the finishing of the
aforesaid work, in as ample manner and form,
and with equal force and efficacy, as We Ourselves could do if personally present; Engaging
and promising upon Our Royal Word that
whatever things shall be so transacted and concluded by Our said High Commissioners,
Procurators, and Plenipotentiaries shall be
agreed to, acknowledged, and accepted by Us
in the fullest manner, and that We will never
suffer, either in the whole or in part, any person
whatsoever to infringe the same, or to act contrary thereto, as far as it lies in Our power.
In witness whereof We have caused the
Great Seal of Our United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland to be affixed to these Presents, which We have signed with Our Royal
Hand. Given at Our Court at Windsor Castle,
the sixteenth day of February, in the Year of
Our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and
Seventy-One, and in the Thirty-fourth year of
Our Reign. 36
36
. Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 204, p. 2046.
TREATY OF WASHINGTON 1871
It was mutually agreed:
1. That Great Britain tender the United States
an apology.
2. That Britain pay a direct indemnity of
$37,500,000.
3. That Britain pay for shipping sunk, to be
determined by an Admiralty Court sitting in
New York City: $225,000,000.
4. That Britain grant the United States equal
rights with British subjects of the fisheries
on the Grand Banks for ten years.
5. That Britain grant equal rights to the navigation of the St. Lawrence River through
Quebec to the Gulf of St. Lawrence in perpetuity. 37
6. That boundary disputes be decided in favour of the United States (Lake of the
Woods, Point Roberts, etc.).
7. That the ownership of the San Juan Islands
be decided by the Emperor of Germany
(the arbitrator).
On October 21, 1872, Emperor William of
Germany decided that the San Juan Islands
should belong to the United States and that
another $15,000,000 be paid for the expenditures incurred by Federal cruisers in chasing the
privateers.
37. The British troops left the Citadelle in Quebec City on
May 10, 1871, and were replaced by Canadian militia.
The latter till this day occupy these barracks to sleep
and for tourist attractions. British soldiers kept an eye
on the navigation going over the river instead. Ed.
It would doubtless be conceded that when
Emperor William of Germany acted as the arbitrator in this dispute, he never thought that
within fifty years the principals in this affair
would become allies to make war upon his
country and to drive his grandson to exile in
Holland.
Viscount Bury, M.P., said of the apology :
national expression of regret is an Act
of the gravest importance. If England
had been clearly in the wrong an expression of regret would be consistent
with her dignity. It has not hitherto been usual
for nations of the highest rank to apologise for
acts which they never committed. The same
Englishmen who offered the apology framed
the British case. The case is an elaborate statement that Britain is in the right. It is hard to
escape from this dilemma. Either the apology
was unnecessary or the English case is the tissue of misstatements.
Never have so many known so little
about so much.
A
Chapter 8
THE STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER WESTMINSTER
or many years I have had much to do with
the question of the right of Canada to selfgovernment. It is almost forty years since I
drafted the following Resolution, the original of
which is in the Parliamentary Library in Ottawa.
This Resolution, the first to come to the attention of the Imperial Conference, in 1926,
was presented by the Rt. Hon. William Lyon
Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada,
without amendment or alteration and after being seconded by Premier Hertzog of South
Africa. It was unanimously adopted by the assembled delegates from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State and
Newfoundland.
This Resolution, together with another short
Resolution presented to the 1930 Conference
by the Rt. Hon. Richard B. Bennett, Prime
Minister of Canada, to the effect that the “ British North America Act should be retained by
Canada, ” was drafted by the Parliamentary
Secretary and the law officers of Parliament
into legal terms in the sections of a Bill to be
presented to Parliament. When enacted, the Bill
was entitled “ The Statute of Westminster ”
(December 11, 1931).
In the years that have gone by, the feeling of
satisfaction which I experienced that all sections of the Resolution were incorporated into
the Statute has been replaced by a sensation of
profound regret that Canada has not taken advantage of her enhanced position. It is evident
that either the Statute has not been correctly
interpreted or that it has been purposely pigeon-holed.
Notes from the Imperial Conference of 1926
As regards general principles, the report
stated equality of status was the root principle
governing Inter-Imperial Relations so far as
concerned Great Britain and the Dominions,
which is described as “ Autonomous Communities within the British Empire, ” equal in
status, in no way subordinate one to another, in
any aspect of their domestic or external affairs,
though united by a common allegiance to the
Crown, and freely associated as members of the
“ British Commonwealth of Nations. ” It
pointed out, however, that the principle of
equality of and similarity, appropriate to status,
did not universally extend to function.
The First Resolution Presented to the Imperial Conference of 1926
The following Resolution was presented
without alteration by the Rt. Hon. Wm. Lyon
Mackenzie King, and seconded by Premier
Hertzog of South Africa.
THE DOMINIONS: that is to say, Commonwealth of Australia; the Dominion of New
Zealand; the Union of South Africa; the Irish
Free State and Newfoundland, did concur in the
adoption of this Resolution in the Imperial
Conference holden at Westminster in the year
of Our Lord nineteen hundred and twenty-six.
Resolutions from Assembly No. 2, Native
Sons of Canada
Adopted September, 1926 - Preamble Omitted
BE IT RESOLVED : That, this Assembly do
herewith submit its views to the Right Honourable, Prime Minister of Canada and his colleagues on the following matters of national
concern, namely:
1. SOVEREIGN STATUS:
F
Recognising this question as being of outstanding and paramount importance, this Assembly urges upon the Government of Canada
the necessity of elevating CANADA constitutionally to the dignity and status of a NATION, with international recognition, enjoying SOVEREIGN RIGHTS AND POWERS,
under the CROWN, and thereby confer on
Canada an equality of Status with Great Britain, together with all the advantages incident
thereto now exclusively enjoyed by Great
Britain as the only sovereign nation in the
British Commonwealth. No subject that may
come before the conference can possibly approach this question of status in importance.
Our objective should be clear an unambiguous, an absolutely equal and independent sovereignty under the Crown of Canada, internationally communicated and internationally
recognised.
2. IMMIGRATION :
This Assembly is unalterably opposed to assisted Imperial immigration in any form, and in
particular is opposed to a Policy designed to
unload on Canada immigrants from Great Britain as alleged settlers, who are mentally, morally and physically unfit, thereby tending to
lower the high standard of Canadian Citizenship.
We hereby urge on the Government of Canada the need for closer restriction rather than
relaxing the tests and standards for admission
to Canada.
In this connection, this Assembly respectfully begs to draw the attention of the Prime
Minister and his colleagues to the pernicious
and incessant Imperial propaganda constantly
issued both in Great Britain and in Canada,
which is aimed at unloading deserters and other
undesirables into Canada, with the designed
object of relieving the British taxpayer at the
expense of the Canadian taxpayer.
This Assembly CONDEMNS such antiCanadian propaganda as being distinctly inimical to the national welfare of Canada.
We emphatically declare that the question of
Immigration into Canada is, by terms of the
British North America Act, exclusively CANADA’S OWN BUSINESS, that is not an Empire matter, that it is not a partisan or political
matter as the Bishop of London suggests, that it
is entirely a matter at present of administration,
and that all CANADIANS, irrespective of
party, approve of the intent and purpose of the
present Canadian Immigration Act in respect of
its broad principles. We declare our resentment
and indignation at the persistent anti-Canadian
campaign, emanating from Imperial quarters, to
offset, and overcome the present rapid growth
of Canadian NATIONAL feeling by schemes
of assisted Immigration of types that are unsuited to this country and foreign to its history
and background.
We believe that the time has come when the
long brooding sense of NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS is about to be realised, and that
it is vital to the National interest that our national bloodstream should be conserved, and
not diluted by the admission of elements that
will weaken or delay our national unity or foster a divided loyalty. The present Canadian
stock should be the basis in selection of all
applicants for privilege of admission to Canada.
3. IMPERIAL DEFENCE:
This Assembly is emphatically opposed to
involving Canada in any schemes of Imperial
commitments or engagements, which tend to
devolve upon Canada any part of cost of any
alleged obligation of so-called Imperial Defence.
4. CANADIAN RESOURCES:
This Assembly is further opposed to any
Imperial Scheme, proposal or policy, which
would seek to appropriate Canada’s great natural resources as an Imperial asset, but on the
contrary, holds to the view that such resources
are exclusively the property of the Canadian
people and should be at all times developed on
broad lines of national policy for the primary
benefit of Canada, and Canadians.
5. GOVERNOR-GENERAL:
This Assembly re-affirms its attitude previously expressed that the method of appointment
of the Govenor-General is ripe for a radical
change more in consonance with national dignity; the appointment should be the completely
unfettered act of the Government of Canada.
The appointee should be a distinguished citizen
of this country. In respect of personnel, and in
respect of initiative of nomination, the present
procedure is an expression of colonialism
which should no longer be permitted to survive.
Further, the channels of communication between the Government of Canada and any other
country should be direct, via our Department of
External Affairs.
We particularly object to the suggestion that
in respect to the future appointments of Governor-Generals, the unanimous approval of other
Dominions must be obtained before there be
any change in policy.
6. PRIVY COUNCIL APPEALS:
The decision of the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council in Rex vs. Nadan is fraught
with humiliation for the people and Parliament
of Canada. We cannot think it possible that
Canada will rest satisfied with a decision that
prevents her from dealing exclusively with her
own laws, particularly in a matter of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Canadian statesmen who
make speeches about Canada’s “ PROUD POSITION ” as a “ self-governing independent
nation ” cannot be aware of the terms and implications of this judgement.
This Assembly expresses surprise and regret
that during the past Session of Parliament this
matter was not even referred to by any Member
of the two great parties in the House.
That decision stands as an effective barrier
to the full development of Canadian National
consciousness. We favour the entire abolition
of appeals to the Privy Council.
7. LOCARNO, WAR, NEUTRALITY...:
This Assembly is convinced that so long as
the present anomalies of Canada’s status continue the advantages to Canada from participation in Imperial Conferences are largely negative. The Conference is built on a Constitutional fiction, that all the representatives meet
as equals. The test - “ What is Canada internationally? ” is the true test.
And until Canada, either by her own act, or
by Imperial concession, attains SOVEREIGNTY as an independent nation under the
Crown, with international recognition, her position in respect of Britain’s Wars, neutrality, and
her international relationships in general, will
remain clouded and obscure. That position will
be and remain, both constitutionally and internationally, that of a colonial status. Mere rhetoric cannot overcome this inescapable fact.
/s/ R. R. SMITH
Note with Reference to Resolution Sent the
Prime Minister Prior to the Imperial Conference of 1926 38
Extract from Executive Minutes of September 1, 1926.
On motion of Conlin Reid, a resolution presented on behalf of Brother R.R. SMITH was
referred to the Resolutions Committee.
The Assembly sent, on September 24th the
following wire to Prime Minister King:
Native Sons of Canada, Assembly No. 2,
begs to tender congratulations and to express
its satisfaction that for the future relationship
of the Crown, in Canada, to its Ministerial advisers shall be identical with its relations to its
ministry in England. Forwarding by mail our
submission on opinion of subjects likely to be
considered as forthcoming Imperial Confer-
38. The original of this paper is to be found in the
Parliametary Library, Ottawa.
ence.
Compiled by D.H. Elliot,
Custodian of Records,
Assembly No. 2, Native Sons of Canada,
1212 Melville Street, VANCOUVER, B.C.
The Quebec Resolutions were drafted October 10, 1864: “ The best interests and present
and future prosperity of British North America
will be promoted by a Federal Union... ” This
was debated in the legislature of the Provinces.
The last debate before it was endorsed by the
United Legislature of Upper and Lower Canada
occurred March 13, 1865.
Three months later, on June 29, 1865, the
Colonial Validity Act was enacted by the British Parliament. This was done in order to show
the colonial legislatures that they were not
competent to enact any law or regulation which
was repugnant to the law of England, and that
as far as the Quebec Resolutions were concerned, they would not be approved by Parliament.
The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865,
Section 61, reads:
...and any proclamation purporting to be
published by the authority of the Governor,
in any newspaper in the Colony to which
such law or bill may relate, and signifying
Her Majesty’s disallowance of any such colonial law, or Her Majesty’s assent to any
such reserved bill as aforesaid shall be prima
facie evidence of such disallowance or assent.
This excerpt from the Act is, or should be, sufficient to show that the Governor had the power
to say “ No! ”
In order to comply with paragraph 1 of the
1926 Resolutions, referring to “ National
Status, ” it was necessary to state that this law
would not apply to the Dominions which were
convened in London that year. But the Colonial
Laws Validity Act was not abrogated. It is effective in those colonies which were not represented at this Conference.
The Statute of Westminster, 1931
22 George V, Chapter 4
An Act to give effect to certain resolutions passed by Imperial Conferences held in the years 1926
and 1930 (11th December, 1931):
WHEREAS the delegates to His Majesty’s
Governments in the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and
Newfoundland, at Imperial Conferences holden
at Westminster in the years of Our Lord nineteen hundred and twenty-six and nineteen hundred and thirty did concur in making the declarations and resolutions set forth in the Reports
of the said Conferences:
And whereas it is meet and proper to set out
by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch
as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a
common allegiance to the Crown, it would be
in accord with the established constitutional
position of all members of the Commonwealth
in relation to one another that any alteration in
the law touching the Succession to the Throne
or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter
require the assent as well of the Parliaments of
all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the
United Kingdom:
And whereas it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United
Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion
otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion:
And whereas it is necessary for the ratifying,
confirming and establishing of certain of the
said declarations and resolutions of the said
Conferences that a law be made and enacted in
due form by authority of the Parliament of the
United Kingdom:
And whereas the Dominion of Canada, the
Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of
New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the
Irish Free State and Newfoundland have severally requested and consented to the submission
of a measure to the Parliament of the United
Kingdom for making such provision with regard to the matters aforesaid as is hereafter in
this Act contained:
Now, therefore, be it enacted by the King’s
most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice
and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament
assembled, and by the authority of the same, as
follows:
1. In this Act the expression “ Dominion ”
means any of the following Dominions, that is
to say, The Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New
Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish
Free State and Newfoundland.
2. (1)The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865,
shall not apply to any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a
Dominion.
(2) No law and no provision of any law made
after the commencement of this Act by the
Parliament of a Dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to
the law of England, or to the provisions of any
existing or future Act of Parliament of the
United Kingdom, or to any order, rule, or regulation made under any such Act, and the power
of the Parliament of a Dominion shall include
the power to repeal or amend any such Act,
order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is
part of the law of the Dominion.
3. It is hereby declared and enacted that the
Parliament of a Dominion has full power to
make laws having extra-territorial operation.
4. No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this
Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a
Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion,
unless it is expressly declared in that Act that
that Dominion has requested, and consented to,
the enactment thereof.
5. Without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing provisions of this Act, sections seven
hundred and thirty-five and seven hundred and
thirty-six (735-736) of the Merchant Shipping
Act, 1894, shall be construed as though reference therein to the Legislature of a British possession did not include reference to the Parliament of a Dominion
6. Without prejudice to a generality of the
foregoing provisions of this Act, section four
(4) of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act,
1890 (which requires certain laws to be reserved for the signification of His Majesty’s
pleasure or to contain a suspending clause), and
so much of section (7) of that Act as requires
the approval of His Majesty in Council to any
rules of Court for regulating the practice and
procedure of a Colonial Court of Admiralty,
shall cease to have effect in any Dominion as
from the commencement of this Act.
7. (1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to
apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of
the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930,
or to any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.
(2) The provisions of section two (2) of this
Act shall extend to laws made by any of the
Provinces of Canada and to the powers of
the legislatures of such Provinces.
(3) The powers conferred by this Act upon the
Parliament of Canada or upon the legislatures
of the Provinces shall be restricted to the enactment of laws in relation to matters within the
competence of the Parliament of Canada or of
any of the legislatures of the Provinces respectively.
8. Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to
confer any power to repeal or alter the Constitution or the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia or the Constitution act of
the Dominion of New Zealand otherwise than
in accordance with the law existing before the
commencement of this Act.
9. (1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to
authorise the Parliament of the Commonwealth
of Australia to make laws on any matter within
the authority of the States of Australia, not being a matter within the authority of the Parliament or Government of the Commonwealth of
Australia.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to require the concurrence of the Parliament or the
Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, in any case where it would have been in
United Kingdom with respect to any matter
within the authority of the States of Australia,
not being a matter within the authority of the
Parliament or Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, in any case where it would
have been in accordance with the constitutional
practice existing before the commencement of
this Act that the Parliament of the United
Kingdom should make that law without such
concurrence.
(3) In the application of this Act to the Commonwealth of Australia the request consent
referred to in section four (4) shall mean the
request and consent of the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth.
10. (1) None of the following sections of this
Act, that is to say, sections two, three, four, five
and six, shall extend to a Dominion to which
this section applies as part of the law of that
Dominion unless that section is adopted by the
Parliament of the Dominion, and any Act of
that Parliament adopting any section of this Act
may provide that the adoption shall have effect
either from the commencement of this Act or
from such later date as is specified in the adopting Act.
(2) The Parliament of any such Dominion as
aforesaid may at any time revoke the adoption
of any section referred to in subsection (1) of
this section.
(3) The Dominions to which this section applies are the Commonwealth of Australia, the
Dominion of New Zealand and Newfoundland.
11. Notwithstanding anything in the Interpretations Act, 1889, the expression “ Colony ” shall
not in any Act of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom passed after the commencement of
this Act, include a Dominion or any Province
or State forming part of a Dominion.
12. This Act may be cited as the Statute of
Westminster, 1931.
Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 are readily understood, and need no elaboration. The next section, however, seems to be the stumbling block,
mainly because the British North America Act
is misinterpreted: “ Nothing in this Act shall be
deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or
alteration of the British North America Acts,
1867 to 1930, or to any order, rule or regulation made thereunder. ”
Why ? It is for the reason that the B.N.A.
Act was simply a guide to the provinces in
creating a federal union.
The page which was deleted after being enacted by the House of Lords and before it was
brought to the attention of the members of the
House of Commons states: “ By reason of the
request of the colonies for Federal Government, it is expedient that they have laws and
regulations to guide them. ”
As this was the intent and purpose of this
Act, there was no need nor reason that it should
be repealed. Section 7, subsection 2 reads:
“ The provisions of section two (2) of this Act
shall extend to laws made by any of the Provinces of Canada and to the powers of the legislatures of such Provinces. ”
Why do provisions of Section 2 extend to
the provinces of Canada and not to the States of
Australia or to the States of South Africa ? For
the reason that the Commonwealth, or Federal
Union of Australia, had been created by the
States of Australia to be effective from January
1, 1901. The States of South Africa had created
the Federal Union of South Africa in 1909.
As the lawyers who drafted the Statute of
Westminster knew, and all constitutional authorities agree, that no confederation of the
provinces had occurred, it was imperative that
the provinces of Canada should have an equality of status with the Dominions, in order that
they could convene a conference and create a
federal union.
Section 2, therefore, reads as follows when
applied to Canada:
• 2. (1) The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865,
shall not apply to any law made after the commencement of this Act by any of the Provinces
of Canada, or to the powers of the legislatures
of such Provinces.
• (2) No law and no provision of any law
made after the commencement of this Act by
the Legislature of any Province of Canada shall
be void or inoperative on the ground that it is
repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order,
rule, or regulation made under any such Act,
and the powers of any of the Provinces of Canada shall include the power to repeal or amend
any such Act, order, rule or regulation in so far
as the same is part of the law of such Province.
I know of no way in which independence
could be conferred in more adequate language
than that used to confer sovereignty upon the
provinces of Canada. [The problem is with
provincials who still think they were of age to
contract a union in 1867, but were only colonials. Exactly like those who sincerely believed
the sun was revolving around the earth from
Josuha to Galileo. Ed.]
It will be noted that Newfoundland is mentioned as one of the Dominions which has an
equality of status no less than the others mentioned.
Today Newfoundland is one of the provinces of Canada. Is it to be held that Newfoundland holds a status superior to that of other
provinces? NO! Such is not the case. The provisions of section 2 apply equally to each and
every province, the same as Newfoundland.
Section 8, 9 and 10 do not refer to Canada.
In order to understand Section 11, I will
again quote Section 18 (3) of the Interpretations
Act, 1889. It should be noted that twenty-two
years after the British North America Act was
passed Canada was a colony, and remained a
colony until December 11, 1931, when her
status was altered by the enactment of the Statute of Westminster.
Section 18 (3) reads: “ The expression
‘Colony’ shall mean any of Her Majesty’s Dominions (exclusive of the British Islands and of
British India) and where parts of such Dominions are under both a Central Legislature and
local legislatures, all parts under the Central
Legislature shall for the purpose of this definition be deemed to be ‘One Colony’. ”
There is no intermediate status between a
colony and a sovereign state. If the provinces
are no longer colonies they are independent
sovereign states. [The citizen ignoring such,
remains a colonial orphan and a political
cuckold, a flunkey with the capacity of popular
sovereignty. This should put an end to the need
for another referendum by Mr. Bouchard of
Quebec unless he has other ambitions than
those he states. Ed.]
This gives lie to the stories of confederation.
As a federal union is a “ Union of Sovereign States mutually adopting a Constitution, ”
it was essential that the provinces should be
granted their independence and sovereignty in
order that they could create a federal union.
Unless or until such union is consummated,
Canada is merely a geographical expression,
not a political entity.
39
The original of the 1926 Resolution signed
by Brother R.R. Smith, together with the affidavit signed by R.H. Elliot, Custodian of the
Records of Assembly No. 2, Native Sons of
Canada, is in the Parliamentary Library, Ottawa, Ontario.
39. Walter F. Kuhl of Spruce Grove, AB, wrote to Premier
René Levesque in 1979 to remind him that the
provinces are living a common law union. No divorce
or secession procedures apply to such unions. Ed.
Chapter 9
CORRESPONDENCE CORRESPONDENCE ON INCOME TAX
. Fraser Elliott, collector of taxes, resigned
as Deputy Minister of Finance in 1945.
Visiting Ottawa early in 1945, I called on
Mr. Elliott in his office in an imposing edifice
on Sussex Street, south of the Parliament buildings and around the corner from the Château
Laurier.
Presenting my credentials to his secretary, I
was shortly ushered into his presence. Mr. Elliott sat behind an imposing mahogany desk on
which were three telephones and nothing else
besides a scratch pad. As Mr. Elliott was responsible for the collection of some four billion
in taxes for the Consolidated Revenue Fund of
Canada, these telephones were essential for him
to keep in touch with his lieutenants who were
engaged in harvesting distant fields of taxation.
During the interview he was constantly interrupted by the ringing of phones, and I was impressed with the efficiency with which he answered the questions put to him. I could gather
something of the problems he was posed by the
answers he gave.
Between times, I had the opportunity to
question him regarding his source of authority
to collect taxes. “ You state that you receive no
authority from Great Britain to collect taxes. ”
“ Certainly not, Canada now governs herself. ”
“ Well, in my humble opinion, if the Prime
Minister, Mackenzie King, had a scratch of a
pen to show that the provinces were united, he
would drive a tunnel under those Parliament
buildings (which we could see from his windows) and line it with concrete, and in a bombproof vault at the far end he would deposit this
most valuable document in a gold casket studded with jewels, for without this I cannot conceive where you have the authority to issue a
postage stamp.
“ I am aware that the prevalent assumption
is that Canada governs herself, but do you not
think it strange that the Dominion Elections Act
states that only a British subject can exercise
the franchise in Canada, and no provision has
been made for a Canadian to vote as a Canadian ? ”
“ Yes! That is true; I think it is high time
that the Constitution should be altered. But as I
do not claim to be a constitutional authority, I
suggest that your questions should more properly be put to Mr. Coleman, our UnderSecretary of State. ”
“ I have met Mr. Coleman, and will be
pleased to comply if I may say that it is at your
request. ” “ Certainly, you may do that. ”
Not finding Mr. Coleman in his office when
I called upon him, I decided to write and include in the letter the questions to which Mr.
Elliott required an answer.
Having to wait some ten days for a reply,
Mr. Elliott in the meantime had put his questions as to the source of his authority to collect taxes to the Department of Justice.
Mr. Coleman’s reply to my letter stated: “ It
is not within the orbit or function of my department to answer questions pertaining to constitutional law. If you want an answer to your
questions, you should consult some attorney in
whom you have confidence or take the case to
the courts. ”
My problem was this: suppose I took this
case to the courts, could I expect that the
judges would decide that the Dominion had not
the right to collect taxes and thereby admit that
the Dominion was equally incompetent to appoint judges to dispense justice ? If I am any
judge of human nature, that would be carrying
optimism too far.
Not having received any adequate response
to his questions from the Department of Justice,
C
Mr. Elliott personally presented a brief to the
Banking and Commerce Committee of the
Senate, saying, among other things: “ I would
like the astute minds of this Committee to use
all their faculties upon this problem, for I find I
am restricted to advise from members of my
own department. ”
Returning west to the Cariboo District of
British Columbia, where I was engaged in mining, I saw a press release which stated that Mr.
C. Fraser Elliott had resigned his post as Deputy Minister of Finance. I was elated; If I had
his address, I would have called Diogenes, on
long distance, and told him he could blow out
his lantern.
Consider how great this man was. Although
Mr. Elliott did not profess to be a constitutional
authority, he was well versed in the fundamentals of constitutional law and was among the
few in the legal profession (I include Dr. Arthur Beauchesne) who could discuss the problems to be encountered in constitutional and
international law.
My letter to Mr. Colemen and further correspondence with Mr. Elliott follow. The correspondence with Mr. Elliott is preceded by a
demand for Income Tax Return, signed C.F.
Elliott nearly a year after Mr. Elliott was appointed to Chile. This correspondence is self
explanatory.
Box 165, Viscount, Sask.
April 11th, 1945
Under-Secretary of State,
West Block,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ont.
Attention : Mr. Coleman.
Sir,
The Deputy Minister of Revenue, Mr. C.F.
Elliott, has referred me to you as he is unable to
answer questions regarding the competency of
the department he represents to collect the Income Tax.
He agrees with me, as you will see by his
letter, which I enclose, that the “ OFFICE ” of
Governor-General was the government of Canada, prior to the enactment of the Statute of
Westminster.
We know from the decisions handed down
by the Judicial Committee of His Majesty’s
Imperial Council that -- “ In totality of legislative powers, Dominion and Provincial together,
Canada is fully equipped. ” In other words,
Canada is no longer governed by the British
Government.
Further, no Province of Canada is to be considered a “ Colony. ” (Section 11 of the Statute
of Westminster.)
Section 7, Par. 2 states that: “ The provisions of Section 2 of this Act shall extend to
laws made by any of the Provinces of Canada
and to the powers of the Legislatures of such
Provinces. ”
The Rt. Hon. W.L. Mackenzie King has
drawn the attention of the public to the statement of the Hon. Louis St. Laurent, Minister of
Justice, “ That the courts have held that the
Provinces are Sovereign States. ” [Hansard,
[1943], unrevised, July 5, p. 4459, O.O.]
It cannot be held that the Minister of Justice
is unaware of the difference between autonomy
and sovereignty. It appears to me that if Canada
is not under the British Government and no
agreement has been signed by the Provinces to
create a Central Government,... the convention
between the Province of Saskatchewan and the
Dominion regarding the collection of Income
Taxes lacks validity.
You are aware that the Rt. Hon. Ernest Lapointe was created a Minister Plenipotentiary
by the British Government in order that he
would be competent to sign an agreement with
the United States regarding the Fisheries. These
papers are in the records of your office.
It has always been held that the Dominion is
incompetent to sign an agreement as the Judicial Committee pointed out, “ There is a vast
difference between the power to sign an agreement and the powers conferred to carry out the
terms of a Treaty. ” 40
My question to Mr. Elliott is simply, what is
your source of authority to impose an Income
Tax? As he is not in position to answer, he has
referred me to you.
Thanking you for a reply at your earliest
convenience, Sir, I am
Yours truly, /s/ R.R. Smith,
Black Bear Creek,
Likely Post Office, B. C.
Oct. 2nd, 1947
Mr. C. F. Elliott,
Santiago, Chile.
Dear Mr. Elliott:
I am in receipt of a letter, either signed or
franked by yourself. This is demand for information. Return for Calendar year 1946, on
Form T.4.
[It] seems funny to me... that I received this
registered letter from you, when I had been
under the impression for some time, that you
were now our Canadian Representative to
Chile.
Likely, B.C.
Cariboo District,
Nov. 6, 1947
Hon. C. Fraser Elliott,
Canadian Embassy, Santiago, Chile.
My Dear Mr. Elliott:
Naturally I was delighted to receive your
very kind letter of the 20th ultimo. Particularly
your congratulations on my becoming a Chief
of the Crees.
There is so much to tell you that I feel that
this letter will be inadequate. However, I will
do my best. You will understand when I explain that I prize the honour done me by my
induction into the Crees. Further I now have an
40. The dominion cannot, merely by making promises to
foreign countries clothe itself with a legislative
authority inconsistent with the constitution which
gave it birth. Appeal Cases, 1937, p. 352. Ed.
international status, which I previously lacked.
I had done my best to qualify as a Canadian,
but found this impossible. Although since Dec.
11, 1931, Canadians are no longer British Subjects, the Dominion Government has made no
provision for a Canadian to exercise his franchise at the polls as a Canadian.
Attempting to overcome this apparent
anomaly, the Dominion last year enacted a
measure, called the Canadian Citizen’s Act,
stating that a Canadian Citizen is a British subject. Is it a joke ? As the dictum of the Imperial
Parliament is that Canadians are no longer subject to their enactments or laws, God Almighty
could not make a Canadian a British Subject
against the desire of the Imperial Government.
Once upon a time, a little war was fought by
thirteen colonies. Since then it has been internationally recognised... in fact, we may say it is
axiomatic - that no individual can be taxed
unless he has representation in the political
body which taxes him.
Canadians should recognise the finality of
the words of the British Parliament, that they
are no longer governed by the law of England,
or by the provisions of any existing or future
Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom,
or any order, rule or regulation made under any
such Act. They are, therefore, definitely not
British Subjects.
You mentioned a ruling of the Minister of
Justice, re the exemption of an Indian living
upon a Reserve, from the payment of Income
Tax. Although his ruling is in accordance with
the facts, as far as he went, he could have said
that the treaties with the Indians provide that
the Indian is not to be taxed, whether upon the
Reserve or not.
Of course, if WE, Indians choose to live in a
municipality, we do not contest the municipality collecting taxes from us for the services they
render. Does the municipality pay us rent for
the land they occupy, according to our treaties ?
I am enclosing a clipping on the rights of
Eminent Domain, which I think explains our
position. We Indians of Canada, are not in the
same category as Indians of the United States.
We ourselves reserved our lands, whereas the
Indians of the United States hold their lands in
tenure from the Federal Government.
You will agree that we were equals when
Great Britain signed treaties with us? This position has not been prescribed or altered. In these
treaties we granted Great Britain an emphyteutic lease of the lands we did not RESERVE, which tenure is perpetual as long as
both parties adhere to the terms. Great Britain
(is) to pay yearly $25.00 to each Chief, and
$5.00 to each member of the tribe. Great Britain has given no intimation that she is dissatisfied, or would desire to repudiate any of these
treaties, nor has she failed to pay her rent.
It could not be considered a matter of our
concern or of protest by us that Great Britain
placed the onus of responsibility of carrying out
the terms of these treaties upon her subsidiary,
the Dominion Government. Until Canada
achieves the competency to sign treaties with
us regarding our mutual affairs, we are, I think,
justified in holding inviolate the treaties signed
by Great Britain and ourselves. The creation of
the Department of Indian Affairs, instigated by
a Royal Commission sent to Canada by Great
Britain, headed by Mr. Olophant, we consider a
reasonable action by the Imperial authorities, to
more adequately provide supervision to carry
out the terms of our treaties, and as a gesture of
friendliness to us; as at the time white men
were encroaching upon our lands. But this
should not deter us in any way from exercising
our sovereignty, or make us wards of the Dominion Government, as many have asserted.
Nor is it primarily a Dominion law that liquor
shall not be sold to Indians, but a part of our
treaties. In signing an Old Chief said: “ I now
take off my glove and give you my hand, and I
hope none will say that anything done here was
done in secret, but openly before the Great
Spirit and the Nation, and I hope you will keep
your word as I intend to keep mine. However, if
any house is built within a mile of the Reserve
to sell liquor to the Indians, I will break the
Treaty. ”
The Indians I found to be good Samaritans. I
came to them clothed in rags and tatters of the
British North America Act. They clothed me in
a soft white buck-skin suit, (gave) me an international status, and said: Hereafter your name
shall be ‘Wapanatak’. If I remember correctly
one of the apostles had his name changed in
much the same way.
I must say that I was pleasantly surprised
when shown a passport issued at Oswegan by
the Six Nations to an Indian, which was
counter-signed by the Government of Switzerland. Proof that we, as Indians, have international recognition.
Four years ago, after my address to my fellow tribesmen at a meeting convened by Chief
Swimmer, assisted by Chief Tootoosis (Grandson of Pound-maker) in the Eagle Hills, an old
Chief shouted in Cree: “ Your name is Morning Star. This is the first light we have seen in
the dawn of a new day for the Indian. ”
I explained to them that we have the right to
carry on export from or import to the Reserve,
in bond, of any commodity with any foreign
Nation, that we have the right to our own
Courts, our own police force, our own army
and navy, if we choose. We can issue our own
automobile and drivers’ licenses. We can, last
but not least, adopt a Flag.
There are two peoples who cannot adopt a
Flag: the Gypsies of Europe, and the Canadian
people. Both lack the Right of Eminent Domain.
On July 28, 1707, Queen Anne decreed that,
as a sign to other Nations of their peaceful pursuits (that they were not battleships), the Merchant Marine of Great Britain “ should fly a
Red Ensign with the Union Jack in the upper
right hand corner next the staff. ” 41
Is it not a travesty on the intentions of
Queen Anne, and internationally ridiculous, for
a Canadian battleship or destroyer to enter a
Chilean port flying this Flag? Some rights of
Eminent Domain in my opinion should be
granted by the Provinces of Canada to the Dominion, in order that they, at least, be competent to adopt a Flag. 42
From a white mark half-way on the bridge
connecting Ottawa and Hull to the borders of
New Brunswick, the territory belongs to the
Province of Quebec. From this mark to Manitoba is the property of Ontario. The Dominion
Government, devoid of the rights of Eminent
domain, pays the City of Ottawa $2,775,000
yearly rent.
You have now a distinct advantage over
your contemporaries in Ottawa in not being
bothered by so many petty affairs. You are now
able to soar over the Andes on the plane of
contemplation and not be inhibited by the astigmatic viewpoint of party politics. Being an
Indian Chief, I too, am able, to some extent, to
view the deplorable state of our country objectively. Canada, in my opinion, should be a political entity, not merely a geographical expression. It is possible that I may be duly accredited
by the Indians of Canada as their Chilean Ambassador. If so, I must surely brush up on my
Spanish.
Adios, Señor,
/s/ Chief Wapanatak (R.R. Smith)
Western Hotel, Saskatoon, Sask.,
41. Now flown by the Province of Ontario, but formerly
by the Dominion. Ed.
42. The official hoisting of the Red Maple Leaf was from
a staff off the Parliament buildings. These buildings,
in turn, are renting on Ontario territory. It seems
certain bureaucrats were steering Canadian soldiers
that day in 1965, so they could do the appropriate
thing for those circumstances. In civilised nations,
the national flag is a symbol of territorial property.
Ed.
Dec. 26, 1947.
Hon. C. Fraser Elliott,
Canadian Ambassador,
Santiago, Chile.
Dear Mr. Elliott:
Your kind letter of the 21st ultimo was forwarded to me here, where I am spending the
Xmas holidays. As it would, no doubt, make
you homesick for me to describe the festivities,
I will abstain.
However, I cannot agree with your view that
all residents of Canada are British subjects owing allegiance to the Crown.
What is the Crown ? Hallsbury states that:
“ The Crown is composed of all great departments of state wherever they may be or exist
and the servitors of the Crown when acting
within the orbit of their authority. ”
You were the Crown when acting as Minister of National Revenue. Yet you admit that
you did not get any power from the British
Government to collect taxes from the Canadian
people. My opinion, naturally, is that we could
be British subjects only if you and other Dominion officials concede that Canadians are
governed by laws enacted by the British government.
May I add that it has been reiterated many
times in Canada that “ Canada governs herself ”
or that “ Great Britain does not govern in Canada. ”
Our first British King was a subject of
Hanover, both before and after he was adopted
by the British people as their King. Further, an
eminent British Jurist stated: “ The King is a
Subject the same as the man who sweeps the
street. ” Therefore, there is (in my opinion) no
anomaly in my being a Canadian and at the
same time, an adopted brother of the Crees.
The Crees inform me a Chief can have two
wives. The white man’s law says only one. I
observe both by having none. It will be conceded that I cannot deduct anything from my
Income Tax on the score of dependants, but
you will admit it is at least peculiar for me to
receive a registered letter demanding a “ Return
for Income Tax ” and threatening me with dire
penalties if I do not comply... (signed) “ C.
Fraser Elliott. ”
The Department of National Revenue (is)
evidently not acting on behalf of the Crown,
but upon the illustrious distinction you lent this
office when acting as its head.
In the last paragraph of your letter, you leave
the impression (that) you consider it anachronistic for a Nation to exist within a Nation. May
I instance two, Andorra in the Pyrenees, and
San Marino in Italy.
Disregarding other factors, it will doubtless
be conceded that: “ The competency to negotiate and conclude a Treaty is the sine qua non of
a Nation”. Further, if the Indian did not enhance his power, he accentuated his rights by
signing Treaties with the United Kingdom.
Britain is anything but precipitate. She signs no
Treaties with irresponsible persons. Therefore,
it maters little what you or I, or the Dominion
officials, think of the Indian Nation. What Britain concedes is a “ fait accompli. ”
I am a third generation Canadian, and insofar as I am concerned, I shall make a Return
for Income Tax only when provision is made
whereby I may exercise my franchise at the
polls as a Canadian. At present [1965] the Elections Act is explicit in stating eleven times that
only a British subject can vote in Canada. [It
does no more. Ed.]
In Ottawa we have a House of Commons
and Senate, the members British subjects,
elected by British subjects. It is mandatory that
a Bill passing both Houses must be assented to
by a Governor-General before it becomes law.
The Department of External Affairs informs me
that he is not (an) accredited representative of
the British Government. He, therefore, does not
represent the Crown, nor is he a Viceroy of His
Majesty. 43
Is this Canada ? If such a political body as
this can sentence me to jail for insisting on
being known as a Canadian, to jail I will go.
This would be something for Dorothy Thompson. Imagine a native of Chile being sentenced
to jail for insisting on being a Chilean.
As the subject matter for our correspondence cannot be said to be either private or
confidential and it is interesting to Canadians in
particular, I request your permission to make
copies or publish in extenso.
My best wishes to you for a very happy New
Year, and thanking you for your kind letter on
behalf of myself, the Indians and the Canadian
People, I remain,
Yours sincerely,
/s/ Wapanatak (R.R. Smith)
April 17, 1948.
The following article, Affairs of State by
Arthur Blakely, appeared in the Montreal Gazette
Ottawa, April 16… To the list of Indian heroes... Brant the great Iroquois... Pontiac, of the
Ottawas... Tecumseh, the immortal Shawnee...
and Sitting Bull, war Chief of the Sioux... add
one more name. In the musty centuries of the
past, these defied with shining, if impermanent
success the superior armament of the white
man. But in the fiscal year 1947-1948, the Cree
Chieftain Wapanatak, or Morning Star, has
been even more daring. He had brandished his
tomahawk and shouted his war whoops at the
all-powerful medicine men before whom even
the most courageous palefaces have quailed in
abject terror... The Taxation Division of the
Department of National Revenue. From his
mountain stronghold at Black Bear Creek,
Cariboo District, B.C., Wapanatak, more prosaically known as R. Rogers Smith has engi-
43. The tract Doit-on me fusiller? published in 1942,
accused Lord Athlone of being an impostor. Like
Lord Tweedsmuir, Athlone arrived without Patents
from anybody. What less could he be but an
impostor ? Ed
neered a series of ambushes in the best Indian
tradition. The startled Taxation Division has
been subjected to a withering fire of adjectives,
nouns, verbs, clauses, chapter and verse from a
stealthy... well skilled in the use of these deadly
weapons... who has waged a beautiful running
fight taking advantage of every conceivable bit
of cover. The Income Tax tribe, quite frankly,
wish that they had never heard of Chief Morning Star of the Crees. They also wish that they
had never sent him a demand over the signature
of C. Fraser Elliott, that he submit an income
tax return for 1946. Mr. Elliott had long since
left the Department of National Revenue. But,
then, who would expect a Cree to know that
Mr. Elliott had become Canada’s diplomatic
representative in Chile? Whatever the odds
against it, Chief Morning Star was well posted.
He wrote to the Hon. Mr. Elliott in Santiago to
ask about his status and give reason for his understandable confusion and did so, quite obviously, with tongue in cheek.
He ended on a friendly note.
“Since I last saw you,” he wrote the doubtless startled Mr. Elliott, “I have been made an
Indian Chief of the Crees, Chief Wapanatak,
meaning Morning Star. You understand, of
course, that according to our treaties with Great
Britain, we, Indians, neither pay taxes nor make
a return. What I desire to know is: Are you in
any way responsible for sending me this letter?
Hoping it isn’t as chilly in Chile as here, I remain, yours sincerely, R.R. Smith.”
The earnest and Honourable Mr. Elliott’s
reply from Santiago has not, regrettably, been
preserved for posterity, though its contents are
known. He thought (Heh—Heh) that the letter
had probably been sent over his signature by
error, since he was no longer a Taxation Deputy Minister but a member of the diplomatic
corps. Presumably an old form, which he had
signed way-back when it had been used by
some careless clerk, he suggested. As far as the
Taxation question was concerned, he made it
plain that he didn’t want to be drawn into any
controversy, but he indicated a belief that Wapanatak—R.R. Smith, that is—would have to
pay up. He added polite congratulations to Wapanatak on his elevation to Chieftainship. He
probably thought he’d heard the end of it. He
hadn’t.
Back at Black Bear Creek, Likely Post Office, Cariboo District, B.C., Wapanatak decided
that Mr. Elliott was a nice reasonable man,
even if subject to certain illusions, and that he
could do worse than put his Income Tax case
befor
said, Wapanatak found, that Indians were not
to be taxed whether they lived on reserves or
not. And he hinted a belief that Canadian palefaces were mere tenants of the Indians, under
the old agreements. He said boldly that the
Indians had the [right to export or import to
the reserve in bond ]… that we have the right
to our own Courts, our own police force, our
own army and navy if we choose. We can issue
our own automobile and driver’s licenses. We
can, last but not least, adopt a Flag. ” He insisted that his latter was the one thing which the
Federal Government, lacking the right of Eminent domain, could not do, and that in this respect it was in the same spot as the Gypsies.
“ You have now a distinct advantage over your
contemporaries in Ottawa in not being bothered
by so many petty affairs. ” Wapanatak, in conclusion, informed Mr. Elliott, who must have
required reassurance.
“ You are now able to soar over the Andes
on the plane of contemplation and not be inhibited by the astigmatic viewpoint of party politics. Being now an Indian Chief, I, too, am able,
to some extent, to view the deplorable state of
our country objectively. Canada, in my opinion,
should be a political entity, not merely a geographical expression. It is possible that I may
be duly accredited by the Indians of Canada as
their Chilean Ambassador. If so, I must brush
up on my Spanish
Adios Señor,
Chief Wapanatak
What are you going to do with that sort of
thing? Canada’s Chilean Ambassador quite
apparently didn’t know. [Would Mr. Bouchard
have known more, he is a former ambassador?
Ed.] His answering letter from Santiago, as
cautious as it is courteous, gives thanks for your
very interesting letter and adds that it is not for
Mr. Elliott to develop the several points you
make particularly as to the inefficiency of the
Canadian Citizenship Act.
The Ambassador said he had thought that
the orthodox view of the Status of Canadians as
being at once Canadian Citizens and subjects of
the British Crown was pretty well accepted
everywhere, but as stated, it is not up to me to
enter upon the matter in any controversial
sense. I only express these thoughts to indicate
my views.
The broad points raised by Wapanatak
were interesting and the Chief should find
much interest in developing them to a conclusion that is appreciated by the Dominion Government as well as by yourself and your friends.
Even more hesitantly, he expressed doubt that
the Indians’ power to exercise the rights mentioned free of the white man’s tax and with a
separate Flag could be attained in the foreseeable future by the people for whom you speak.
May I again thank you for your most informative letter, Mr. Elliott assured Morning Star in
closing.
On December 26th, Wapanatak who had
moved his tepee to Saskatchewan for Christmas, penned to the Ambassador in Chile, a
moving letter which opens: “ Your kind letter
of the 21st ultimo was forwarded to me here.
As it would, no doubt, make you homesick for
me to describe the festivities, I will abstain... ”
The letter, a long one, is more replete than the
earlier ones in citations from eminent British
and Canadian Jurists to back the Morning Star
position.
The core of the letter is in the stubborn
words: “ That I shall make a return for Income
Tax only when the provision is made whereby I
may exercise my franchise at the polls as a Canadian. ” At present the Elections Act is explicit in stating 11 times that only a British Subject can vote in Canada.
Was a Canadian to be jailed for insisting on
voting as a Canadian, Wapanatak demanded?
Surely this was absurd. He hinted darkly at
bringing Dorothy Thompson into the case. But
if it were a case of pay or go to jail, “ to jail I
will go, ” the Chieftain wrote. Here he took his
hand.
He concluded with “ my best wishes to you
for a very Happy New Year and thanking you
for your kind letter on behalf of myself, the
Indians, and the Canadian People. ”
The Santiago-Black Bear Creek correspondence in the hands of the writer ends on this
pleasantry. There are reports that the all powerful Taxation Division has given up the fight and
called it a day.
In any event, Mr. Elliott, at least, has abandoned the field to the Cree Chieftain from
Likely Post Office, B.C.
Chapter 10
COURT TRIALS, 1942-1947
oit-on me Fusiller ? (Must I Be Shot ?)
was the title of a pamphlet written in 1942
which was highly critical of the government. 44
The pamphlet contained but a short synopsis
of the information found in this volume. I admit
it was written in a rather racy tempo, in order to
draw the attention of Canadians to the fact that
their rights were in jeopardy. Among some of
the statements I asked were, “ Can I be put in
prison or shot for stating that the GovernorGeneral, the Earl of Athlone, is officially an
impostor? ” and, “ Can I be put in prison or
shot for stating that no Bank in Canada has
subscribed for any issue of bonds since war
was declared? ”
Of course I was well aware that the Earl of
Athlone was not accredited or authorised by the
British Government to be Governor-General of
Canada. Also I knew, since I had had talks with
the President of the Bankers Association, that
no bank had subscribed to any issue of bonds.
As soon as the pamphlet was issued, the
Mounted Police sized 3500 copies. What could
the authorities do when the Governor-General
could not produce any credentials and the
banks had to admit that they had not subscribed
to any issue of Dominion bonds ? While they
44. The pamphlet was drafted in an excellent French
probably because Mr. Jean Drapeau, former Mayor of
Montreal, then student of constitutional law, was
secretary of the movement “ The Federated States of
Canada. ” Their address was near the Municipal
Library. In 1972, the present editor re-edited that
pamphlet in Quebec City and as it was listed on the
Cardex of Laval University, but absent from the
shelves, four copies were placed appropriately there.
Those copies disappeared with time. To remedy the
situation, 25 copies were inserted on the shelves of the
Law Library of the same University. A year later
visiting Laval’s General Library, the Law library had
moved to a different local. Ed.
were pondering what action could be taken, I
wrote the Hon. Louis St. Laurent the following
letter, with my bill enclosed.
1605, Amherst Street, Montreal, Que. —
March 30, 1942
Hon. Louis St. Laurent,
Minister of Justice of the Dominion,
Ottawa, Ont.
In account with: R. ROGERS SMITH
3500 Copies of Doit-on me Fusiller ? at .10 ¢
= $350.00
Honourable Sir:
Recently your correspondent has been disturbed by the Actions of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police. They have appropriated
thirty-five hundred copies of Doit-on me Fusiller? to distribute to members of the force.
It will doubtless be conceded that the search
for truth is one of the strongest impulses in
mankind. It will also be conceded that the
Mounted Police have until now been denied the
opportunity to satisfy their thirst for knowledge
on matters pertaining to the Constitution.
The spirit and zeal they have shown in their
search is commendable. However, the knowledge can be obtained without resorting to gunpoint. The writer spent three years in researches
in the Parliamentary Library and the Dominion
Archives, collecting the data which is condensed in this pamphlet. It was written for the
Canadian people as a whole, not simply for the
edification of the Police Force. Had the writer
known before-hand that the demand would
exceed the supply, he would have had more
copies printed. The retail price of the pamphlet
(of which I enclose a copy) is .25¢, which includes the .01¢ tax to the Province of Quebec.
Whole sale prices are .10¢ in lots of 1000 or
over, with the usual discount for cash.
D
As the Dominion Government has recently
voted a gift of one billion dollars for a less worthy purpose, it should be evident to those in
charge of the Police Force, that the Government
is in a position to purchase any information
they desire. As the Writer states in Doit-on me
Fusiller? that no organisation is back of him, it
is, to say the least, inconsiderate of them to
expect him to keep them supplied with copies
at his own expense. Enclosed you will find a
bill for the 3500 copies received at the reduced
rate of .10¢ .
Unless this bill is promptly paid, it may be
impossible for me to get out a second edition.
The printer is a practical person, and demands
cash on the nail. Trusting that I may have an
early and favourable reply, I am,
Yours truly,
/s/ R. Rogers Smith
The reply received was penned by the Secretary of the Minister, who wished to inform me
that “ the pamphlets were not seized to distribute to the personnel of the Mounted Police, but
were seized for the reason that they were considered subversive. ” Of course, one could
hardly expect the staid Department of Justice to
tell the difference between a joke and a bale of
hay.
After deliberation they concluded that I
should be prosecuted upon the charge of writing Doit-on me Fusiller? in wartime on the
grounds that it violated the Defence of Canada
Regulations.
Hearing by grape-vine that a warrant had
been issued for my arrest, I presented myself to
the Sergeant of the Mounted Police in Montreal. The Sergeant was startled when I mentioned who I was, but recovered his aplomb in a
minute to produce the warrant and have my
numbered photographs and fingerprints duly
posted in the rogues’ gallery.
When I was arraigned before the magistrate,
I was let out on $1,000 bail, 45 and trial was
arranged for the following week. Judge Perreault, who presided, fined me $50 and costs or
thirty days, after stating that it made no difference whether what I said is true or not, the Defence of Canada Regulations made no mention
of this point. I appealed the case to the Superior
Court, and when Judge Lazure upheld the decision of the lower Court, I paid the fine. When I
was leaving the Superior Court, a lawyer who
was not connected with the case clapped me on
the shoulder and said, “ Fifty-dollar fine. It’s
worth that. Why I can call the GovernorGeneral an impostor on the street and it would
only cost me fifty dollars. That’s a precedent.
That’s his price ”. 46 The Montreal Gazette
published a fair résumé of the trial.
In 1947 I was summoned in Montreal for
non-payment of Income Tax for five years. My
defence in this case was similar to the statements made in Chapter 9, “ Correspondence
on Income Tax, ” so there is no need to repeat
it here. I stated that I would go to jail rather
than pay any fine, but that I would comply by
making a return as soon as I were officially
recognised as a Canadian. I received a sentence
of a $1,200 fine or five months in jail. One
lawyer remarked that I had made monkeys out
of the judges. I deny this, as I was carefully
polite and bowed to the judges after being sentenced, and the police at the door bowed me
out. 47
45. Dr. Gabriel Lambert bailed the author out. Court of
King’s Bench, 1942, File 4446. Ed.
46. Since that date, not much has changed, nor the
Commission that puts him there. Sincerity has only
got thicker. Ed.
47. A full afternoon at the old Court House on the corner
of St. Laurent and Notre-Dame Streets, in old
Montreal, was devoted to the search of that particular
case. Aided by the clerk at the Registrar, there
employed in 1947, the search proved useless. The
clerk suggested to return in a week’s time for further
information. A week later, in April 1972, the same
clerk mentioned his friend, on a higher level had
advised him to mind his business. On parting, we
agreed the case must have been touchy. Ed.
I have not filled out any Income Tax form,
nor have I been bothered since then.
Evidently the judges considered that it
would be too risky for them to incarcerate a
Canadian in jail simply for requesting to be
officially recognised as a Canadian. I would not
know whether the judges expected me to go to
jail and request admission or not. But in any
case I cannot be held responsible for the
judges’ making monkeys of themselves; this
was their own funeral.
Chapter 11
THE GOVERNOR - GENERAL GENERAL
ritish rule in Canada dates from 1759,
the battle of the plains of Abraham. The
French forces were defeated. General
James Wolfe, commander of the British army,
fell on the field and his position as leader was
filled by General James Murray.
When Montreal capitulated in 1760 and the
Treaty of Paris was negotiated by the British
and French, General James Murray was appointed governor by the Board of Trade. The
powers creating General Murray an absolute
dictator are stated to be the Constitution of the
Government of Canada, and are preserved for
posterity in Sessional Papers 18, Dominion
Archives.
It should be explained that as each colony
came under British rule, the area, with a map of
the title, was placed in the custody of the
Crown in Chancery or the Department of Lands
of Great Britain. Henceforth this Crown in
Chancery had the responsibility of retaining the
conquered territory as an asset of the British
people. It was the custom then and until 1782
to transfer the exercise of authority and the
administration of affairs to the Lords of Trade
and Plantations. After 1782 the Crown in
Chancery granted these powers to the Colonial
Office, the affairs of which were administered
by the Secretary of State to the Colonies.
It is also necessary to explain that no governor has ever been appointed by the Parliament
of Great Britain or by the King or Queen. The
name of the Lords of Trade and Plantations was
altered by custom to the Board of Trade and
Plantations and finally to the Board of Trade.
A scape-goat was needed for the loss of the
thirteen New England colonies: Burke’s Act,
1782, abolished the Lords of Trade and Plantations, and the governors of all colonies were
instructed to make their returns to the Colonial
Office. All governors were henceforth appointed by the Secretary for the Colonies, who
was made a member of the British Cabinet.
Sir George Fiddes, in his book, The Dominions and Colonial Offices, states: “ It is equivalent to a rejection of any person as a Governor
that his name be even mentioned to the Secretary to the Colonies prior to his appointment. ”
The Secretary for the Colonies being a member
of the Cabinet, it would be an outrageous faux
pas for any other cabinet minister to intimate or
suggest any action to him, as to any other minister, regarding the discharge of his duties.
The retention of the colony as a British possession is the sole responsibility of the Colonial
Secretary, and therefore he cannot be interfered
with in the exercise of his duties. As mentioned
earlier, the first Colonial Secretary, being anxious to confer as much power as possible to his
governor appointee, was professionally enamoured of the power granted to Governor Murray
by Yorke and Yorke, attorneys for the Board of
Trade, and these powers were made the model
of the constitutions granted to future governors
of colonies.
The power granted to the Governor is all inclusive: he is a “ corporation sole. ” A ruling
was further made “ that members of the Royal
Family, when in Canada, take precedence next
after the Governor-General ”. 48
The procedure in the appointment of a governor is that after he is chosen and appointed by
the Colonial Secretary, he is introduced to the
Lord High Chancellor, whose Clerk of the
Crown in Chancery grants to him “ Letters Patent ” which constitute him the “ Sole ” gov-
48
. Parliamentary Guide.
B
ernment of the Colony. Next he is introduced to
His Majesty at the Court of St. James and is
issued “ Instructions ” to open and close sessions of the legislatures, assent to acts, and
other powers, in the name of the King or Queen
as the case may be but he is not a viceroy.
Further, if the King or Queen are in Canada
they take precedence next after the GovernorGeneral, as we said.
An Imperial Privy Council for Canada composed of nine members bearing the title of
“ right honourable ” is appointed to assist the
Governor-General in the government. The Imperial Privy Council for Great Britain is formed
by 320 “ right honourables, ” who form the
executive government of Britain, and all of
whom are eligible to receive their remuneration
from the British Treasury.
I have stated previously that there has been
no alteration in the government of Canada since
the first appointment of a governor for Canada
in 1763. Following is an excerpt taken from the
Constitution drafted by Yorke and Yorke of the
Board of Trade and Plantations, and in a following column are the powers which he can
exercise today, dated 1947.
The Colonial Secretary was firmly convinced that the revolt in the New England colonies was due not to the restrictions placed upon
them but too much liberty. If the revolt in the
first instance had been ruthlessly handled, the
colonies would now be in the possession of
Great Britain.
George R ( 1763 )
George III, by the Grace of God... We have
thought fit to constitute... And We do authorise
and Empower to keep and use the Public Seal,
which will herewith be delivered to you, or
shall hereafter be sent to you, sealing all things
whatsoever that shall pass the Seal. And We do
hereby give and grant unto (you) full-power
and authority to constitute and appoint Judges
and in cases requisite commissioners of Oyer
and Terminer, Justices of Peace, Sheriffs and
other necessary Officers and Ministers in the
said province...
(7) And it is Our will and pleasure that you
do, and are hereby authorised and empowered
to suspend and remove any of the Members of
the said Council from sitting, voting and assisting therein, and also in like manner to SUSPEND any of Our Lieutenant-Governors of Our
said Province from the execution of their commands. And We do hereby command all Officers and Ministers, Civil and Military and all
other inhabitants of Our said Province to be
obedient, aiding
and assisting unto you, the said James Murray,
in the Execution of this Our Commission.
IN WITNESS whereof WE have caused
these “ OUR LETTERS PATENT ” to be
made Patent. Witness Ourselves at Westminster, the twenty-first day of November, One
Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty-three and
in the Fourth Year of Our Reign,
By writ of Privy Seal,
YORKE and YORKE.
George R (1947)
George VI, by the Grace of God...
III. And We do hereby constitute to keep and
use Our Great Seal of Canada for sealing all
things whatsoever that may be passed under the
Great Seal of Canada.
IV. And We do further authorise and empower Our Governor-General to constitute and
appoint, in Our name and on Our behalf, all
such Judges, Commissioners, Justices of Peace
and other necessary Officers (including Diplomatic and Consular Officers) and Ministers of
Canada, as may be lawfully constituted and
appointed by Us.
V. And We do further authorise and empower Our Governor-General, so far as We
lawfully may upon sufficient cause to him ap-
pearing, to remove from office or suspend from
the exercise of the same any person exercising
any office within Canada under or by virtue of
any commission or warrant granted or which
may be granted in Our name under Our authority.
IX. And We hereby require and command
all Our Officers and Ministers, Civil and Military and all the other inhabitants of Canada to
be obedient, aiding and assisting unto Our
Governor-General, or, in the event of his
death, incapacity, or absence, to such person
as may, from time to time, under the provisions of these Our Letters Patent administer
the Government of Canada.
IN WITNESS whereof, We have caused these
Our Letters Patent to be made Patent, and for
the greater testimony and validity thereof, We
have caused Our Great Seal of Canada to be
affixed to these presents, which We have
signed with Our Royal Hand.
Given this eighth day of September, in the Year
of our Lord, One Thousand Nine Hundred and
Forty-Seven and in the eleventh year of Our
Reign,
By His Majesty’s Command,
W. L. Mackenzie King,
Prime Minister of Canada.
The Governor - General’s Act
R. S. 1927 - Chapter 85.
An Act respecting the Governor-General, Short
Title
1) This Act may be cited as the GovernorGeneral’s Act - R. S., Ch. 3., Sec. 1.
2) The Governor-General of Canada for the
time being or other chief executive officer or
administrator carrying on the Government of
Canada, on behalf or in the name of the
King, by whatsoever title he is designated,
and his successors shall be a Corporation
Sole.
3) All bonds, recognizances and other instruments by law required to be taken to the
Governor-General in his public capacity,
shall be taken to him and his successors by
his name of office, and may be sued and recovered by him or his successors by his or
their name of office as such.
(2) Such bonds, recognizances and other
instruments shall, however, in no case go to
or vest in the personal representatives of the
Governor-General, Chief executive officer
or administrator of the Government in
whose name they were so taken.
4) There shall be payable yearly, and pro rata
for period less that a year to the GovernorGeneral of Canada for the time being, a salary of ten thousand pounds sterling, equal to
and of the value of forty-eight thousand, six
hundred and sixty-six dollars and sixty-three
cents.
5) (2) Such salary shall be payable out of the
Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada and
shall form the second charge thereon.
R.S., Ch. 3, Sec. 4.
So you thought the governor-general was a
figurehead? Well! Mind you, whether you are
in Canada, Great Britain or the United States
the same holds true: “ When custom conflicts
with the words of a statute the words of the
statute prevail. ” 49
If the governor-general does not have the
power, then neither the “ Letters Patent ” which
grant the power or the Governor-General’s Act
should be upon the Statutes of Canada. The
Statute states that his salary shall be the second
49. The words of the Treaty of Paris, 1763, Sec. 4, must
have the same consideration. Ed.
charge upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of
Canada. This includes not only his personal
salary but the salaries of the ten deputy governors of the provinces.
The first charge against the Consolidated
Revenue Fund is the cost of the collection. 50
Then before any money vote for any purpose
can come before the House of Commons or the
Senate, his salary must first be paid.
Can the governor-general declare war ? The
answer to this question is in the negative. 51 The
reason is that this is a prerogative held only by
the British government. If Great Britain allowed her governors to declare war, she could
well be at war all the time. The governorgeneral is a British subject, and no British subject can negotiate a treaty or even ratify a trade
agreement unless he is accredited and authorised by the British government for that purpose.
The Rt. Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald was accredited as a minister plenipotentiary to sign
the Treaty of Washington, May 8, 1871. The
Rt. Hon. Ernest Lapointe was accredited as a
minister plenipotentiary to sign the Fisheries
Treaty with the U.S.A., in 1911.
On April 28, 1946, the Rt. Hon. W.L.
Mackenzie King, with the Rt. Hon. Louis St.
Laurent, were created ministers plenipotentiary
to sign the Charter of the United Nations at San
Francisco, June 4, 1946.
In 1878 a ruling was made by the British
government that British subjects could sign a
trade agreement on behalf of Canada, provided
it had the assent of the British ambassador to
that country.
Although the Pan-American Union has invited Canada to join, this is not possible for
British subjects, who could not be seated; nor
could the Union Jack be flown in the halls of
the Organisation of American States. Only an
American citizen could sign an agreement on
behalf of the United States. Only a British citi-
50. Section 103, B.N.A. Act.
51. The Constitution of England, Sec. 5. Ed.
zen or British subject could sign an agreement
on behalf of Great Britain. Only a Canadian
could sign an agreement on behalf of Canada
but as yet Canada is merely a geographical
expression, not a political entity. The governorgeneral and the members of the Imperial Privy
Council (the “ right honourables ”) know that
as soon as a Canadian can vote, their rule is
ended.
On the Thursday after Britain declared war
upon Germany in 1939, the Parliament was
convened in Ottawa, and in the GovernorGeneral’s speech from the Throne, which was
read by the Rt. Hon. Ernest Lapointe, it was
stated that “ when Britain is at war, Canada
is at war. ” The House adopted the “ Speech
from the Throne ” but no declaration of war
was made upon Germany.
Under different sections of the rules governing warfare which were adopted by The Hague
Tribunal and later incorporated into the Geneva
Conventions, it is provided that when one country has a grievance against another, it shall notify the offending country by letter; then if no
reply is forthcoming in twenty-four hours, war
may be declared. It is further provided that if
any person is captured upon the battlefield
fighting in the uniform or under the flag of a
country which has not declared war, he may
immediately be shot as a spy.
Great Britain, the United States, France and
Germany are among the nations who affixed
their signatures to these Conventions. When
eighteen Canadian airmen, in Canadian uniforms with Canada upon their shoulder straps
and caps, parachuted down unharmed upon a
sector of the front occupied by [Colonel] Kurt
Meyer and his forces, they were captured and
were lined up and shot as spies.
At the war trials held at the close of the war,
a demand was made by representatives of Canada that [Colonel] Kurt Meyer be executed as a
war criminal. If he had been convicted of having committed a crime, it would have been
equivalent to a repudiation of the signatories to
the Geneva Convention, including Britain, the
United States and their allies. 52
Kurt Meyer was held in Dartmouth Penitentiary in Nova Scotia as a prisoner of war until
peace was made possible. Today General
Meyer is an honoured leader of the forces of
West Germany. The eighteen young volunteers who willingly risked their lives to fight
for what they thought was their country were
left unprotected upon the field of battle by an
irresponsible government which does not represent Canada or its people.
Prior to this war the Governor-General ordered an issue of $950,000,000 in Dominion of
Canada bonds at 3½ %. When the Minister of
Finance introduced the Bill in the House he
was asked, “ ‘Would it be fair to say that the
wealth and natural resources of Canada are
back of these bonds?’ ‘No!’ Mr. Dunning said.
‘No securities issued by the Dominion constitute a mortgage upon any of the business assets of the Dominion’. ” 53
Why did Mr. Dunning state this? Because it
was the truth. Prior to the enactment of the
Statute of Westminster, the provinces had the
lands on lease from the Crown in Chancery.
Nova Scotia paid three Indian arrowheads, British Columbia two percent of the gold and silver
mined; Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan,
two elk and two black beaver. This is termed an
emphyteutic lease, one drawn not for the purpose of revenue, but simply to show that the
provinces did not have complete title to the
lands. After the Statute of Westminster, the
provinces paid no lease.
Everything within the boundaries of the
province is the possession of the province (Section 109 of the B.N.A. Act). Only the owner
can mortgage the property, and the provinces
52. This should clear the grey spots in Mr. Tony Foster’s
book Meeting of the Generals (1986). And also the
missing comments in Brian McGregor’s CBC TV
series La Bravoure et le Mépris (1994). “ Valor… ? ”
Ed.
53
. Hansard, February 16, 1939.
have not granted the Dominion any right to
their property, or the right to issue securities
backed by the property. The Dominion Government has no department of lands; even the
land under the Parliament buildings belongs to
the Province of Ontario.
54
Mr. Dunning resigned his post as Finance
Minister, and also his seat in the House. He was
followed by Mr. Ralston, who after some correspondence with the writer resigned after three
months. Mr. Isley was next, and after he found
out that he was marketing bonds which had no
backing, he resigned. Mr. Abbot was next to
resign. When it is generally assumed that the
position of Finance Minister is heir apparent to
the premiership, why did these officials resigned? Because they did not wish to be held
responsible for an issue of securities which is
not backed by the wealth or natural resources of
Canada. 55
If the Governor-general permitted Canadians to vote as Canadians, it could be said that
the Canadian people are responsible but the
Canadian people cannot be held responsible
when they are excluded from holding office
and from the exercise of the franchise.
If the provinces of Canada cannot be held
responsible for the national debt, who can be
held responsible? The British Government? We
know that the right honourable members of the
Imperial Privy Council are responsible to the
British government for their actions. Inversely,
the British government should be held respon-
54
. The Commission for the National Capital is slowly
mapping its territory and pulling the wool over the
eyes of Quebec and Ontario to pinch land for its
homestead. Ed.
55. In 1935, the Dominion Government offered a
permanent charter to the several bankers in Canada.
They opted instead for a ten-year charter. Why? The
bankers knew that the government making the offer
did not have enough land to staff a flag. And those
having the land to mortgage and charter their
institutions were still subdued by the fetish of the
B.N.A. Act. Ignorance is still being taught in our
schools in 1996. Ed.
sible for the actions of its employees. We also
know that Great Britain emphatically disavowed any liability or responsibility in the
sinking of American shipping by the privateers.
However, the record shows that eventually she
paid the bill.
The following letters were received from the
United Farmers of Canada.
File No. 624 302, August 13, 1945
No department of the Government of the
United Kingdom is concerned in any way with
the appointment of the Governor-general of
Canada.
Department of State for External Affairs,
Ottawa, Ont.
This document is also on record:
Department of Justice, File No. 3111 - 402,
July 10, 1940
The answer is that His Excellency the Governor-general came to Canada, not in the capacity of Viceroy of His Majesty, except in the
popular sense of the term.
J. Stuart Edwards,
Deputy-Minister of Justice.
The question then is, if the governor-general
is not a viceroy and the government of the
United Kingdom did not appoint him, who did?
The answer is that he was appointed by the
right honourable members of the Imperial Privy
Council in Canada in order to perpetuate themselves in office. But the members of the Imperial Privy Council are a part of the executive
government of the United Kingdom, and as
such the government of the United Kingdom is
responsible for their actions. The public debt of
Canada [was] around fourteen billion, most of
which was incurred by a British war to which
Canada was not a party, as Canada did not
declare war on Germany.
In the spring of 1940 the members of the
Privy Council gave Britain a gift of one billion
dollars, and shortly afterward another billion
and a quarter, which they said was not a gift but
our contribution. Some years before, the Grand
Trunk Pacific Railway was organised in Great
Britain to build a railway across Canada. Four
hundred million dollars’ worth of promotion
stock was included, which would only be valuable when the company was upon a paying
basis and had declared dividends. As the company failed and the railway was taken over by
the government, this promotion stock was said
to be worthless.
56
In 1943, however, when Britain was short of
cash, someone found this stock in a pigeonhole. It was sent to Canada, and the “ right
honourables ” paid cash for them four hundred million dollars. All during the war rationing was strictly enforced. If the customer complained about the half-pat of butter being
served, he was asked, “ Don’t you know there is
a war on? ”. Lard could not be purchased.
Sugar was also said to be in short supply, which
was not true. In the winter of 1945, after the
war, six ships were loaded in Montreal: fiftypound boxes of butter and fifty-pound boxes of
lard, which had been held in storage below
zero, lined the holds. Crates of eggs filled the
holds, The boxes of butter and lard provided
the refrigeration. As these ships waited for the
56. The present editor has worked for 35 years with the
CNR and VIA Rail, as a train conductor. In the early
years he had the opportunity to manoeuvre out of
Kamsack, Sask. during the harvest season of 1958.
The American Unions regulating the running trades of
the several railroads of North America are the United
Transportation Union and the Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers. Their regional officers are
paid by bank drafts from their respective Headquarters
in Cleveland, Ohio; drafts drawn on Canadian banks
in Canadian funds, made in USA. In 1975, two locoengineers and himself consulted an attorney in
Quebec City, Mr. Louis Lebel, now an Hon. Judge of
the Supreme Court, in order to take action so as to
own our Union instead of swearing allegiance to an
American Trade Union. Though the attorney advised
us to stay as we were, I asked if it would be normal for
a German railroader to belong to a French Trade
Union or an English Guild or an Italian Syndicate ?
There came no answer nor any fees for the
consultation. Ed.
ice-breakers to clear the St. Lawrence to release
them, the question was asked, where were they
going and for what purpose? The answer was to
feed the starving people of Europe. Where were
they consigned? All to Liverpool.
After their arrival in Britain, rationing was
worse than during the war. Not an egg, not a
pound of butter or lard reached anyone in Britain or Europe. These materials, together with
raisins from Australia and flour from Canada,
were whipped into cakes which were then
shipped all over the world where there was a
market. They were sold in Canada, Hong Kong,
Australia, the Argentine, and South Africa at
ninety cents and a dollar a pound.
Britain was in a difficult position. The factories had been bombed. She had nothing to export. The pound had been dropped to $2.80.
These cakes filled the gap in the export trade
until the factories could be re-established.
Canada was not paid anything for these cargoes of supplies. The charitable sympathies of
the Canadian people were played upon and
used to bolster and stabilise the slipping pound
sterling. Disregarding any act of the British
Parliament or any act upon the statute books of
Canada, the almighty dollar rules the roost.
About half of the lands of Canada are held
by treaties with the Indian on which a yearly
rental or treaty money is paid. You cannot hold
the Indian or his lands as security for the Canadian national debt.
At the Inter-Provincial Conference held in
Ottawa in November 1935, it was suggested
that the provinces put their lands up as security
for the issuance of Dominion bonds. Premier
Hepburn of Ontario, Premier Aberhart of Alberta and Premier Dysart of New Brunswick
withdrew from the Conference. John McNair,
Attorney-General for New Brunswick, said
upon their withdrawal: “ New Brunswick
looks upon this scheme with a great deal of
suspicion. ”
Up until December 11, 1931, the provinces
were colonies. They did not own their property;
it was a possession of the Crown in Chancery.
After 1931 the provinces were no longer colonies and now own the property. And in this
case (1935) they did categorically refuse to
permit the Dominion Government a power of
attorney to include their property and resources
as a backing for Dominion (bonds) debentures.
As the governor-general has excluded the
Canadian citizen from the exercise of his vote
as a Canadian, the citizen of Canada cannot be
held responsible for the national debt. If you are
a good, loyal British subject who has reaffirmed his loyalty to the British Government
by the purchase of a Dominion bond, you could
find out if the British Government will appreciate your loyalty to by reimbursing you for your
loyalty. If it refuses ask your banker. But
you say to me, “ You are upsetting the applecart. ” Yes, that is true.
Chapter 12
THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA
he Letters Patent granted by the Lord
High Chancellor of Great Britain to governors-general of Canada state that they are
the constitution of the government.
The British North America Act constitutes
nothing, [and think that all our judicial system
is erected there upon. Ed.] but simply provides
a means whereby the governor-general may
provide auxiliary public bodies to “ aid and
advise ” him in governing the colony. These
Letters Patent were nullified by the enactment
of the Statute of Westminster in 1931.
As the British North America Act cannot be
implemented without a governor-general, the
bureaucrats in Ottawa, in order to perpetuate
themselves in office, decided to appoint a governor-general and drafted letters patent granting
him the government of Canada. Following are
the Letters Patent signed by the Prime Minister
of Canada.
Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada
Effective October 1, 1947.
George R
CANADA
GEORGE THE SIXTH, by the Grace of God,
of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas KING, Defender of the
Faith.
(SEAL)
To all to whom these Presents shall come,
GREETING:
Whereas by certain Letters Patent under the
Great Seal bearing date at Westminster the
twenty-third day of March, 1931, His late Majesty King George the Fifth did constitute, order
and declare that there should be a Governor
General and Commander-in-Chief in and over
Canada, and that the person filling the office of
Governor General and Commander-in-Chief
should be from time to time appointed by
Commission under the Royal Sign Manual and
Signet:
And whereas at St. James’ on the Twentythird day of March, 1931, His late Majesty
King George the Fifth did cause certain Instructions under the Royal Sign Manual and Signet
to be given to the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief:
And whereas it is Our Will and pleasure to
revoke the Letters Patent and Instructions and
to substitute other provisions in place thereof:
Now therefore We do by these presents revoke and determine the said Letters Patent, and
everything therein contained, and all amendments thereto, and the said Instructions, but
without prejudice to anything lawfully done
thereunder:
And We do declare Our Will and pleasure as
follows:
I. We do hereby constitute, order and declare that there shall be a Governor General
and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada, and appointments to the Office of Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over
Canada shall be made by Commission under
Our Great Seal of Canada.
II. And We do hereby authorise and empower Our Governor General, with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada or of
any members thereof or individually, as the
case requires, to exercise all powers and authorities lawfully belonging to Us in respect
of Canada, and for greater certainty but not
T
so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing to do and execute, in the manner aforesaid, all things that may belong to his office
and to the trust We have reposed in him according to the several powers and authorities
granted or appointed him by virtue of the
British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946,
and the powers and authorities hereinafter
conferred in these Letters Patent and in such
Commission as may be issued to him under
Our Great Seal of Canada and under such
laws are or may hereinafter be in force in
Canada.
III. And We do hereby authorise and empower Our Governor General to keep and
use Our Great Seal of Canada for sealing all
things whatsoever that may be passed under
Our Great Seal of Canada.
IV. And We do further authorise and empower Our Governor General to constitute
and appoint, in Our name and on Our behalf,
all such Judges, Commissioners, Justices of
the Peace, and other necessary Officers (including diplomatic and consular officers)
and Ministers of Canada, as may be lawfully
constituted or appointed by Us.
V. And We do further authorise and empower
Our Governor General, so far as We lawfully may, upon sufficient cause to him appearing, to remove from his office, or to
suspend from the exercise of the same, any
person exercising any office within Canada,
under or by virtue of any Commission or
Warrant granted, or which may be granted,
by Us in Our name or under Our authority.
VI. And We do further authorise and empower Our Governor General to exercise all
powers lawfully belonging to Us in respect
of summoning, proroguing or dissolving the
Parliament of Canada.
VII. And whereas by the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946, it is amongst other
things enacted that it shall be lawful for Us,
if We think fit, to authorise Our Governor
General to appoint any persons, jointly or
severally, to be his Deputy or Deputies
within any part or parts of Canada, and in
that capacity to exercise, during the pleasure
of Our Governor General, such of the powers, authorities and functions of Our Governor General as he may deem it necessary or
expedient to assign to such Deputy or Deputies, subject to any limitations or directions
from time to time expressed or given by Us:
Now We do hereby authorise and empower
Our Governor General, subject to such limitations and directions, to appoint any person
or persons, jointly or severally, to be his
Deputy or Deputies within any part or parts
of Canada, and in that capacity to exercise,
during his pleasure, such of his powers,
functions and authorities as he may deem it
necessary or expedient to assign him or
them: Provided always that the appointment
of such a Deputy or Deputies shall not affect
the exercise of any such power, authority or
function by Our Governor General in person.
VIII. And We do hereby declare Our pleasure
to be that, in the event of the death, incapacity, removal, or absence of Our Governor
General out of Canada, all and every the
powers and authorities herein granted to him
shall, until Our further pleasure is signified
therein, be vested in Our Chief Justice for
the time being of Canada (hereinafter called
Our Chief Justice) or, in the case of the
death, incapacity, removal or absence out of
Canada of Our Chief Justice, then in the
Senior Judge for the time being of the Supreme Court of Canada, then residing in
Canada and not being under incapacity; such
Chief Justice or Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, while the said powers and authorities are vested in him, to be
known as Our Administrator.
Provided always, that the said Senior Judge
shall act in the administration of the Government only if and when Our Chief Justice
shall not be present within Canada and capable of administering the Government.
Provided further that no such or authorities
shall vest in such Chief Justice or other
judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, until
he shall have taken the Oaths appointed to
be taken by Our Governor General.
Provided further that whenever and so often
as Our Governor General shall be temporarily absent from Canada, with Our permission, for a period not exceeding one month,
then and every such case Our Governor
General may continue to exercise all and
every the powers vested in him as fully as if
he were residing within Canada, including
the power to appoint a Deputy or Deputies
as provided in the Eighth Clause of these
Our Letters Patent.
IX. And We do hereby require and command
all Our Officers and Ministers, Civil and
Military, and all the other inhabitants of
Canada, to be obedient, aiding and assisting
unto Our Governor General, or, in the event
of his death, incapacity or absence, to such
person as may, from time to time, under the
provisions of these Our Letters Patent administer the Government of Canada.
X. And We do hereby declare Our Pleasure
to be that Our Governor General for the time
being shall with all due solemnity, cause
Our Commission under Our Great Seal of
Canada, appointing Our Governor General
for the time being, to be read and published
in the presence of Our Chief Justice, or other
Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, and
of members of Our Privy Council for Canada, and that Our Governor General shall
take the Oath of Allegiance in the form following: “ I, , do swear that I
will be faithful and bear true allegiance to
His Majesty King George the Sixth, His
Heirs and successors, according to law. So
Help me God ”; and likewise he shall take
the usual Oath for the due execution of the
Office of Our Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada, and
for the due and impartial administration of
justice; which Oaths Our Chief Justice, or in
his absence, or in the event of his being otherwise incapacitated, any Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada shall, and he is
hereby required to, tender and administer
unto him.
XI. And We do authorise and require Our
Governor General from time to time, by
himself or by any other person to be
authorised by him in that behalf, to administer to all and to every person or persons,
as he shall think fit, who shall hold any office or place of trust or profit in Canada,
that said Oath of Allegiance, together with
such other Oath or Oaths as may from time
to time be prescribed by any Laws or Statutes in that behalf made and provided.
XII. And We do further authorise and empower Our Governor General, as he shall
see occasion, in Our name and on Our behalf, when any crime or offence against the
laws of Canada has been committed for
which the offender may be tried thereunder, to grant a pardon to any accomplice, in such crime or offence, who shall
give such information as shall lead to the
conviction of the principal offender, or any
one of such offenders convicted of any
such crime or offence in any court, or before any Judge, Justice, or Magistrate, administering the laws of Canada, a pardon,
either free or subject to lawful conditions,
or any respite of the execution of the sentence of any such offender, for such period
as Our Governor General may seem fit,
and to remit any fines, penalties, or forfeitures which may become due and payable
to Us. And We do hereby direct and enjoin
that Our Governor General shall not pardon or reprieve any such offender without
first receiving in capital cases the advice of
Our Privy Council for Canada and, in other
cases, the advice of one, at least, of his
Ministers.
XIII. And We do further authorise and empower Our Governor General to issue Ex-
equaturs, in Our name and in Our behalf,
to Consular Officers of foreign countries to
whom Commissions of Appointment have
been issued by the Heads of States of such
countries.
XIV. And whereas great prejudice may happen
to Our Service and to the security of Canada by the absence of Our Governor General, he shall not quit Canada without having first obtained leave from Us for so doing through the Prime Minister of Canada.
XV. And We do hereby reserve to Ourselves,
Our heirs and successors, full power and
authority from time to time to revoke, alter, or amend these Our Letters Patent as to
Us or them shall seem meet.
XVI. And We do further direct and enjoin that
these Our Letters Patent shall be read and
proclaimed at such place or places within
Canada as Our Governor General shall
think fit.
XVII. And We do further declare that these
Our Letters Patent shall take effect on the
first day of October, 1947.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF We
have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent, and for the greater testimony and validity
thereof, We have caused Our Great Seal of
Canada to be affixed to these presents, which
We have signed with Our Royal Hand.
GIVEN the Eighth day of September in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand
Nine Hundred and Forty-Seven and in the
Eleventh Year of Our Reign.
BY HIS MAJESTY’S COMMAND,
W. L. MACKENZIE KING,
Prime Minister of Canada.
This document, which purports to grant to
the governor-general a complete dictatorship of
Canada, was drafted in Ottawa by a Commission, as it states in Section I of these so-called
“ Letters Patent. ” Any dictator would be elated
were he to be granted the unlimited power included in its following sections. This document
is simply a rehash of the Constitution of Canada which was granted to Governor James
Murray in 1763 and which can be found in
Sessional Papers 18 in the Dominion Archives.
However, you need not be a member of the
Bar Association of Canada to know that the
members of such Commission, whoever they
were, had no power to grant such a document.
Who drafted this document, which demotes
Canada to the position of a colony which was
her status in 1763, and who were the members
of this so-called Commission is explained in
the following paragraphs of this Chapter.
The signing of a document such as
this is not within the orbit or function of the
Prime Minister of Great Britain, nor was it ever
within the orbit of function of the Secretary of
State for the Colonies, nor within the orbit or
function of the King or Queen. The granting of
letters patent was, and is, the prerogative of the
Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain. The
latest Letters Patent issued by his office are
dated March 23, 1931, eight months prior to the
enactment of the Statute of Westminster, December 11, 1931, and are signed by Sir Claude
Schuster, Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.
Let me not omit to explain that these Letters
Patent constitute the office of the governorgeneral as the government of the colony. Next
it is the function of the Secretary of the Colonies to designate and appoint a governorgeneral to exercise the powers contained in the
Letters Patent. The governor designate is now
introduced to His or Her Majesty at the Court
of St. James where, after he has produced his
credentials as a governor, His or Her Majesty
hands him his Instructions, which are to govern
his conduct as to the opening and closing of a
legislature, assent to acts, and so forth, but he is
not a viceroy.
The United Kingdom is a limited monarchy. The King can act only upon the advice of
one of his principal ministers. It is held that
“ the King can do no wrong ” is an immunity
by way of compensation for the absence of
despotic power. The King does not command.
The minister who advises him is the one responsible for his actions.
To state that these Letters Patent were issued by the King’s command is an intentional
misrepresentation of fact. The granting of these
Letters Patent is not within the competency of
the Parliament of Canada; therefore, it is not
within the competency of any commission of
Parliament. Is it not a crime comparable to
treason to attempt to keep Canada in a colonial
status, after the enactment of the Statute of
Westminster ?
We can have this question unanswered
until the judges of a Canadian court have the
culprits of this unnamed Commission before
the bars of justice.
Why was this done ? When it was mooted
in September 1946 that the Earl of Athlone and
Princess Alice were leaving Canada to return to
London, and that the Earl of Athlone would be
succeeded by Sir Harold Alexander as governor-general of Canada, I wrote Sir Harold a
lengthy letter encased in a large manila envelope with a return-receipt card attached. This
card was returned to me with the signature of
Sir Harold Alexander’s aide-de-camp. In this
letter I explained to him that as he was not accredited by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and that the Letters Patent issued by the
Crown in Chancery were no longer in effect
since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster and that he was not invited by the Canadian
people, I advised him to stay home. He did.
As the provisions of the British North America Act cannot be implemented without a governor-general since the position of the House of
Commons and Senate is only to “ aid and advise ” him, the Earl of Athlone and Princess
Alice returned to Canada to await a solution of
the credentials of the now Earl Alexander of
Tunis.
In March 1947 I was accompanied to Ottawa by a noted American journalist who desired to meet a number of officials there with
whom I was acquainted. After introductions to
Maurice Ollivier, Clerk of the House of Commons, I asked: “ What are you going to do
about Earl Alexander ? ”
“ You will be surprised to know that this
Department, in conjunction with the Department of External Affairs, is redrafting his papers right now, ” he replied. Descending one
floor to the press gallery, my friend the journalist immediately phoned the Department of External Affairs and said, after he had explained
who he was: “ I understand that your Department, in conjunction with the Department of
Law of the House, is redrafting the papers for
the Earl Alexander in relation to his appointment as governor-general. ”
The answer he received was, “ This is the
first we have heard about that. ”
Maurice Ollivier resented my needling of
him on this question so he drafted this spurious Letters Patent which were signed by W.L.
Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada.
This was done without bringing the matter to
the notice of the House of Parliament and without the knowledge of the premiers or legislatures of the provinces. 57
The only thing that the present incumbent
can do when this exposure is published and he
finds that he is holding office under unconsti-
57
. Cf. The Seals Act, Ch. 247, Sec. 4(h): the
authentication and proof of royal instruments and
documents under the sign-manual, including the
conditions under which certification by an official, or
publication by the Queen’s Printer, constitutes
authentication and proof. 1939, c. 22, s. 4. Dr.
Maurice Ollivier comments: It may be observed that,
under the existing law, these matters are a part of the
Royal Prerogative and can, for the most part, be dealt
with without statutory authority… Further, the
second subsection imposes the statutory obligation
of publication in the Canada Gazette. ( A valid law in
Canada, needs only a Printer and lawyers will make it
float. Land ownership has no incidence. Ed.)
tutional and grossly illegal Letters Patent is to
resign from the office of governor-general.
King Charles lost his head for attempting to
govern England without the consent of a Parliament elected by the people.
Each and every British citizen owns a share
in the possessions of the United Kingdom. The
British citizen in voting grants his power-ofattorney to Parliament, which created the
Crown in Chancery to administer the affairs
and exercise authority over these possessions.
The King, having no vote but having, nevertheless, an interest in the lands, grants to the
Crown in Chancery his right to sign. This is
known by the designation of the King’s Sign
Manual; but the right to grant Patents is solely
within the orbit and function of the Lord High
Chancellor.
The obvious action to take to cope with the
present dilemma is to call a conference of the
premiers of the provinces where a tentative
agreement can be signed. [ Since this book was
removed from circulation in 1972, many unfortunate attempts on an agreement have been,
and are still being made in 1996, by Canadians
of all hue. Those repeated failures to come to
an understanding stem from the fact that negotiators start from false premises, though imbued with sincerity. The first and foremost
thing to try is to gather the mandated delegates
from the several provinces and territories and
make the final trip to Whitehall in order to recuperate what was granted to His Britannick
Majesty in the Treaty of Paris of 1763, Section
4: The transfer of titles, pretensions, possessions and sovereignty over Canada, at the time;
now being the prerogative of the provinces
since 1931. And recovering such prerogatives,
will not affect the accurate prophecy of Lord
Campbell: It would scarcely be possible to
break the artificial unity we now propose to
organize.
All these years Canadians have been living
a union against nature, their deception comes
not from the two founding nations, but rather
from the fantastic brain drain practised upon
our most valuable resources, the educated
youths, and their natural ambitions. Ed.]
Each province can then elect or appoint
delegates to a constitutional convention. Drafts
of the constitution adopted by the delegates
convened can be published and debated by the
legislatures of the provinces and a final draft
ratified.
The constitution once adopted should leave
none with a grievance and should provide for
the purchase of a federal district to be ceded by
the provinces. Then election can be held for
members of both houses which will then be the
government of the Federated States of Canada.
If the Premiers of the Provinces take no such
action as suggested, you could do it yourself.
The Gazette, March 14, 1960
OTTAWA
Day By Day, by Arthur Blakely
LIFE AMONG THE ONE-EYED :
During his lifetime, William Lyon
Mackenzie King was surrounded by a larger
band of eager sycophants than had ever before
danced attendance on a Prime Minster of Canada. and that covers a lot of ground. Macdonald, Laurier, Borden and other Prime Ministers encountered plenty of hustling yes-men in
their time. But they were protected to a considerable extent by the genuinely warm personal
friendships which they formed with their lieutenants and supporters.
King’s cold aloofness seems to have encouraged the growth of a record crop of subordinates who felt that their only chance to get his
ear and improve their own prospects was to
exhibit a willingness at all times to whisper to
him the things which they knew or suspected
that he was eager to hear. And anything in the
nature of public criticism was carefully and
adroitly avoided by those who, whether by accident or design, came close enough to King to
know something of the man.
Mutterings of displeasure, discontent or hostility aimed at King were released only on a
highly confidential basis, with the identity of
the mutterer a tightly-guarded secret. Such mutterings were fairly numerous, especially towards the end of King’s career. But in the form
in which they emerged, they were never convincing even, probably, to Mr. King himself.
The ties of personal friendship offered King
no shelter whatever for, on Parliament Hill at
least, he had few if any personal relationships
which could be so described.
Right up to the end, scrupulous care was observed in the observance of the anniversaries
large and small and all of the other little courtesies for which King cherished such affection.
No opportunity was neglected by his lieutenants and supporters to assess publicly and in his
presence the vast importance of the man and
his works in relation to the times.
Right up to the very last day that he remained Prime Minister of Canada, King may
well have been under the impression that he
was the beloved leader of a happy and dedicated band of brothers. If King did, in fact,
cherish any such illusions, they were rudely
shattered during the session which he spent in
the Commons as a retired Prime Minister with
the official rank of M.P. He was pained to find
that the flatterers and well-wishers of yesterday
passed him by without a second glance. His
visitors were few. And King’s last session of
Parliament was a lonely one indeed. It was
during this period that the first open personal
attack was made on King by one of his party
colleagues. And it hurt. But the curious character-wrecking job didn’t begin in earnest until
after King’s death.
Ever since it occurred, people who had any
occasion whatever (together with a few who
had none) to observe King and his career at
close hand, have been rushing into print or to
the television studios to say what a peculiar and
rather disagreeable old man this was who presided over the destiny of Canada for so long.
Some of the criticism has been supplied by
individuals who were open critics of King, for
one reason or another, during his lifetime. But
the most avid critics, curiously enough, have
been drawn from the ranks of King’s former
supporters and associates. The former Prime
Minister has been portrayed as a disagreeable,
parsimonious, unscrupulous, lacking in judge-
ment, distant, given to racial prejudice, lacking
in perception, thoughtless, grudging, ruthless,
hard, cold, calculating, hypocritical, superstitious, selfish, grasping, vain, arrogant and all
the while, as one writer has noted, “ leading a
private life that was hardly at all removed from
lunacy. ”
If the man who was Prime Minister of Canada for a longer period than any other in Canadian history really possessed all of these undesirable qualities, it is something of a mystery
that his leadership of his party was tolerated for
so long by those in responsible positions who
were in an excellent position to know these
things. It is equally difficult to understand why
his posthumous critics remained silent during
his lifetime when he was in position to deal
with the criticisms and, for that matter, with the
critics.
SOVEREIGNTY SOVEREIGNTY
he ownership of land is the yardstick by
which sovereignty is measured. The Gypsies of Europe have no sovereignty as they
own no land. The Jews were in a similar position until they pre-empted land in Palestine.
The first act of the Jews as a nation was to
adopt a National Flag. Prior to this they had no
land upon which they could erect a flagpole.
In the Statute of Westminster, Newfoundland is granted an equal status with the Commonwealth of Australia, the Union of South
Africa, the Irish Free State and New Zealand.
Does this mean that Newfoundland has a superior position to the other Provinces of Canada?
Not so. Section 7, Par. 2 of the Statute confers
upon the Provinces of Canada the same status
as Newfoundland.
All lands, minerals and royalties within the
boundaries of the Province are the possession
of the Province in which the same are situate or
arise.
The “ Crown in Chancery ” has relinquished
its interest in elevating the Provinces from the
colonial status. As the Provinces of Canada
have not relinquished any of their powers to a
central government, each Province today is a
sovereign state [potentially]. Each may, by exercising its authority, charter its own banks, 58
58. The Canadian bankers declined the perpetual charter
offered by the Dominion Government in 1935, simply
because such offer was not then within the
issue postage stamps or passports.
The author has carried a passport issued by
the Saskatchewan Indian Assembly for the past
seventeen years which is honoured and
stamped by the nations which were visited by
him.
Can it be held that the Provinces of Canada
occupy an inferior position? The power to issue
passports is exclusively the right of people who
own their land. The twenty-two reserves of
Saskatchewan were reserved by the Cree Nations themselves. They have this right, which is
honoured by all nations.
By way of emphasis the definition of
Sovereignty as given by James Cacroft in the
Encyclopedia of American and British Law is
herein reiterated.
“ The right to exercise the power of Eminent Domain is inherent in sovereignty, necessary to it and inseparable from it. From the very
nature of society and organised government,
this right must belong to the State.
“ It is a part of the Sovereign power of any
nation. It exists independent of constitutional
competency of that colonial Government. They settled
instead for a ten-year arrangement, hoping the
Provinces would come out of their unconsciousness
eventually. Cf: In between the lines of A.B.
Jameison’s "Chartered Banking in Canada." How else
could you account for such temporary authorization.
Ed.)
T
recognition and it existed prior to constitutions.
It lies dormant in the State until legislative action is had pointing out the occasion the modes
and the agencies for its exercise. ”
Disregarding the passing years since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster, December 11, 1931, the Provinces have lost nothing of
their sovereignty. No legislation is had granting
any of their power to a central government.
[But the central legislators are exerting all
their might to retain the status quo. Ed.]
Could each Province by mutual agreement
enact legislation permitting only Canadians the
right to exercise the franchise? They could.
Could Ottawa object ? No! Of course not. This
would be only an exercise of the Sovereignty of
the Province. [Not until and before the terms of
the 4th Section of the Treaty of Paris, 1763, are
recovered, provincial legislation would only be
an exercise in sincerity, not sovereignty. After
their Declaration of Independence, the American colonials were invited at Whitehall in
1782, to clear the deeds of the old charters to
permit the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles of 1783. Ed.]
The Provinces need no amendments to any
enactments of the government of the United
Kingdom or of British subjects. All they need is
an amendment to their attitude and the exercise
of their inherent sovereignty. Canadians could
then have a Canadian government adopt a constitution, a national anthem, and a Canadian
national flag which would not be imposed upon
them by [sincere] British subjects. Canada
would then be a nation, not merely a geographical expression.
Chapter 13
DO IT YOURSELF − [1965]
ou need a new constitution? You want a
national flag and a national anthem? You
need a bill of rights? You want Canada to
be able to hold up her head as a nation? That’s
easy.
Just slip on a suit of coveralls and take a
towel, and then go over and visit your friend
who has a do-it-yourself outfit. When you arrive at the door, his wife will tell you, “ Bill’s
in the basement. ” You won’t need to butter
him up much. Just ask him if he could make a
ballot-box, a duplicate of the one used in the
polling station.
“ Sure! ” he will say. “ We can make it right
now. I’m only fooling with the dog. Get that
old fender from back of the bench. ”
Now, don’t stand there like a dummy. Help
Bill straighten out that fender. As Bill is doing
most of the work, don’t say much; just keep
working. When he has finished with the ballotbox, wipe the sweat from your brow and the
back of your neck with the towel and then hand
it to Bill. He needs it more than you did as he
has been doing most of the work.
Now borrow a paint brush, and as you are
lettering the box For Canadians Only, tell Bill
(who is wiping his face and the back of his
neck) that you would like to have some slips
printed for the high-school kids to hand out to
voters on election day. Bill will say, “ Sure!
Just the thing! I know a bird who has a printing
press. Let’s go over to his place. ”
Now, take the towel and a half-dozen beers.
When you get near, you will hear thumptythump. You know he is in the basement. After
introductions, open three bottles of beer. Wait,
now, until he burps. Then he will ask you,
“ About those slips. Do you want me to use my
own judgement ? ”
“ Sure! ” you say, because he knows more
about this than you do. After you and Bill help
to print the slips, wipe your hands on the towel
and hand it to Bill. Tell him to hand it to his
friend, the printer, after he is finished with it.
When the printer wipes his hands, leave the
towel there. Your wife would never get it clean
again that’s for sure. Finish the beer; and
before you go over to the polling station you
will need to shave and to smooth down what
little hair you have left. After shaving, you
naturally reach for the guest towel.
“ JUST A MINUTE, honey. The kids
musta taken the towel I left here. I’ll scalp
those kids of yours if I ever catch them doing
that again. ” Before you can get the guest towel
back on the rack, she’ll hand you another. Turn
your back while you wipe your face so that she
cannot see your smile, and as she pats the wrinkles out of the guest towel quote her this little
ditty:
Oh! the sadness of her sadness when she’s sad
And the gladness of her gladness when she’s glad,
But the sadness of her sadness and the gladness of her
gladness
Are nothing to her madness when she’s mad.
“ What’s that? Say that again. ”
You repeat it. Then she laughs.
Now you know she’ll not put you in the
dog-house even if later the printer’s wife, with
her nose in the air, should tell her she thinks
“ It’s kinda funny that I found a towel with your
initials on it over in my husband’s things in our
basement. ”
All you need now is a clean shirt and a tie
before you take the ballot-box over to the pollY
ing station.
But won’t this be against the law ?
WHAT LAW ? — YOU ARE THE LAW.
There is no official, candidate or party who
would dare to risk their political neck by venturing to object to you casting your ballot at the
polls as a Canadian.
They may smile on you and say, “ You
really don’t need that box, you know, old chap.
See, you can drop your ballot in this box we
have provided which has a hole in the top,
making it perfectly secret, with a lock on it and
everything. ”
No, thanks! That ballot-box is for British
subjects only. That’s what the elections Act
says.
With this one, For Canadians Only, we exercise our incontestable right to vote as nationals of the country we call our own. Even in
Russia or China, although they are restricted to
voting for one party, they vote as Russians in
Russia or Chinese in China.
With this box, which is the receptacle of the
symbol of our sovereignty, we can elect the
legislatures and governors of the provinces. We
can elect a senate and a house of commons and
a governor-general. When we open this Pandora’s box we will find a new constitution, a
national flag and an anthem, a bill of rights
and the sceptre of our national sovereignty.
This is our shrine which shall be held secure in
the custody of the Citizens’ Committee, who
will count the ballots and tabulate the results
and retain it in their custody where it shall become more brilliant as it is burnished by the
sands of time.
If you held stocks in General Motors and
you and others of General Motors should go
over to the Ford Company and vote an issue of
bonds, the Ford Company would not be responsible; but if this were done with the knowledge
of General Motors, then it would be General
Motors that would be responsible as well as the
shareholders of General Motors who voted the
bonds.
As the government in Ottawa has no department of lands and owns no land, and the
provinces which own all the resources have not
granted the Dominion any authority to mortgage their property, you can explain to them
that the Canadian people are not responsible for
the national debt unless the Canadian people
vote as Canadians. This is an internal or domestic affair and, comparing Canada with other
parts of what is termed the Commonwealth, we
find that Australia can correctly be said to be a
Commonwealth, as all the resources of Australia are back of the bonds issued by Australia.
The same may be said of South Africa, New
Zealand and Britain itself.
It will doubtless be conceded that national
bonds should be as Caesar’s wife Caveat
emptor. [Premier Bouchard, of Quebec, should
look no further to fix the provincial deficit,
unless his wife...she is American. Ed.] It will further
be admitted that investment funds are more
timid than a virgin. Of paramount importance is
the question of security. Therefore, it is imperative that some measure be taken to rectify a
situation which has become intolerable. The
procedure heretofore has been that a bill to
issue bonds to raise funds is introduced into the
House of Commons by a right honourable
who is responsible to the British Government
for his action; and, inversely, as he is a member
of the Imperial Privy council, Great Britain is
responsible for his actions. The bill is voted
into law which is voted upon by the House of
Commons and a Senate composed entirely of
British subjects.
A bond is a mortgage on the assets, usually
property, of the company or nation which issues the bond. It is admitted by the government
that there are no business assets back of these
so-called bonds.
Before resigning, Mr. Dunning, the Minister
of Finance said, No Securities issued by this
Dominion constitute a mortgage upon any of
the assets of the Dominion. 59
To call these securities bonds is manifestly
an inflated designation and amounts to an intentional misrepresentation of fact. Are they
debentures ? Not exactly.
They could be called debentures if they were
voted into existence by the people who are
taxed to pay the interest on them and who are
pledged to retire them when due. But as the
Canadian people have not been requested to
assent to the issuance of these securities, they
cannot be held responsible. You could suggest that if there is a domestic or internal affair,
it is the Consolidated Revenue Fund. As the
provinces in 1935 refused the Dominion the
right to mortgage the resources of Canada, and
as Canadians themselves have not voted any
issue of bonds, the British subjects and Great
Britain are responsible for Canada’s fourteen
billion dollar national debt.
The Balfour Declaration of 1926 states:
“ They are autonomous communities within the
British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any respect in their
domestic or internal affairs though united by a
common allegiance to the Crown and freely
associated as members of the British Commonwealth. ”
If Canada is not subordinate to any other
community, then there is no logical reason why
Canadians should not vote as Canadians. Great
Britain will see to it that in the future no British
subject shall be permitted to vote in Canada if
she conceives that an impartial board of arbitration would hold Great Britain responsible for
Canada’s public debt.
Why debate a bill of rights when the greatest
right you have is denied you, the right to vote as
Canadians? Let the non-partisan Committee see
to it that at each municipal, provincial and national election a ballot-box is provided with
scrutineers at each polling station. Let these
ballot-boxes be held secure and inviolate in the
59
. Hansard, Feb. 16. 1939
custody of the elected members of this Committee and let the emblem of the non-partisan
Committee be a gold-plated ballot-box lettered
with the words, For Canadians Only. Period.
AUTHOR’S EPILOGUE EPILOGUE
This is fundamental: BRITISH SUBJECTS CANNOT FORM A GOVERNMENT SEPARATE
FROM THAT OF GREAT BRITAIN.
This is the height of logic. There is no alternative.
Canadians only can form a Government of Canada of Canadians by Canadians for Canadians.
EDITOR’S EPILOGUE
On the 25th of April 1970, during a telephone conversation with now deceased Mr.
Frédéric St. Pierre, QC; this lawyer related he
had taken part in a contest opened by the Canadian Justice Department for a position as
Deputy Minister. As he had classed himself
rather well, he was called in for an interview.
The interviewer asked the question that put an
end to the interview: Are you a Mason, and if
not, do you desire to be initiated ?
Mr. St-Pierre replied it was against his religious convictions to adhere to Freemasonry.
Well, I will put on the report that you decline
the position, was the answer given by the interviewer from Ottawa to Mr. St-Pierre.
Ministers in government come and go, but
deputy ministers enjoy a steadier residence.
They seem to be the ones who hyphenate between continuity and servitude Canadians
dwell in, election after election. This servitude
Canadians have towards American institutions. This situation is quite general the world
over, but it seems more refined in the case of
the Canadian Government and its Civil Service. It is probably through this Masonic medium that Brian Tobin was instructed to step
away from his Ottawa ministry to Newfoundland's premiership; displacing a former deputy
minister, after having disturbed enough Spanish fishermen on the Atlantic.
R. Rogers Smith wrote in one of his former
publications "that no sovereign nation tells
another nation how to conduct its business."
Sovereign statesmen have a way to speak to
Colonials who think themselves sovereign.
[Richard Nixon called Trudeau: the pipsqueak from Ottawa, and Tricky Dicky surely
knew how to spot a statesman from a doubledealer lawyer.]
The international Tribunal at The Hague
has rendered a decision in 1994 about ocean
fishing, stating that the Law of the Sea was
addressed to and for Sovereign States. The
public display of the Spanish fishermen's nets
offered by Brian Tobin to the population of
New York and the world media, has probably
prompted a recommendation, off the record,
to a former deputy minister named Clyde
Wells, for a certain Captain Canada.
There used to be a Lodge of the Order in
Ottawa called the Civil Service. Its members
probably ensure this artificial country remains
together for the greater benefit of their federal
brothers in the republic to the south.
Is the sovereign democratic consciousness
of the Canadian people half-alert to the ways
and means of this respectable Brotherhood ?
Or are we lured into the polling booth, to vote
with all the sincerity of our ignorance, for
candidates who do not know for sure whether
we live in a limited Monarchy, an artificial
Union of colonies or a Reserve.
It is possible the only edition of the book
“ HO, CANADA! ” served to guide the legislators
in Ottawa, from 1965 on, in their attempt to
cover up most irregularities noted by the author
since 1931. I apprehend the second edition will
serve again as a suggestion box to some initiated bureaucrats so they may postpone the political maturity of Canadian provincials.
In 1936, the Province of Alberta issued it’s
own “ Prosperity Certificates ” to be used as
currency by its citizens. The Dominion Government retorted by an ultra vires to the provincial legislature of Alberta. Premier Aberhart,
although informed at a conference given by
R.R. Smith at the Macdonald Hotel in Edmonton, of the capacity of his government to adopt
such a measure, Premier Aberhart preferred
going to Ottawa to clear the matter.
The ultra vires Alberta received was not
even worth the paper it was printed on. Premier
Aberhart should have contacted Premier Hepburn of Ontario and asked him how he understood the Statute of Westminster, and by what
means the Dominion Government, renting on
Ontario territory, could prevent other land
owners from legislating as they saw fit. Upon
the departure of premier Aberhart, Albertans
enjoyed the premiership of a staid politician,
later an Honourable Banker, who castrated
their collective efforts to free themselves of the
sincere borrowing habit all governments have.
The following year, 1937, the Imperial Privy
Council, stated in one of its final decision concerning Canadians, …the Dominion cannot,
merely by making promises to foreign countries, clothe itself with a legislative authority
inconsistent with the constitution which gave it
birth. [Appeal Cases, 1937, p. 352, about The
Weekly Rest in Undertakings Act].
The TV media are casting on the screen all
kinds of people saying all kinds of sincerities
about political referendums. Not being a fan of
Mr. Bouchard or Mr. Chrétien nor of Mr. Klein,
could someone suggest the separation of Quebec, or B.C. from the rest of Canada, be submitted to the same percentage of a popular vote
as the percentage that was expressed at the time
of Union in 1867 ? Nova Scotia did cast 30,000
male votes against the artificial union of 1867,
just how many voted in favour ?
Would 25 million federal sympathisers
make Canada a federation? No! Sovereign
states are required in the making of a federation
or confederation.
In Canada, no need to own land to stand on
so as to legislate validly. A law to be valid
needs only to be printed. That is why the Canadian Government prints at the end of its statutes: “ Queen’s Printer in Ottawa ”. The Great
Seal of Canada affixed at the signing by the
[still impostor?] governor-general does not
require more, Canadians neither.
John the Apostle wrote: "Ye shall know the
truth, and the truth shall make you free."
After reading HO, CANADA! ye shall know
what political cuckoldom can be, and it will
not make you free, but as Smith says, "Caveat
Emptor", for the sellers of Canada are twofaced or sincerely ignorant like its population.
Jean-Paul RHÉAUME
jpiii@aei.ca
THE TREATY OF PARIS
February 10th, 1763
By the Peace Treaty which was
signed at the conclusion of the Seven
Years’ War the French possessions of
North America were formally ceded to
Great Britain. The Treaty which was
concluded between His Britannic Majesty, the King of France and the King
of Spain confirmed in Article 4 the liberty of the Catholic religion and the
rights of the inhabitants as to their
property.
His Most Christian Majesty
renounces all pretensions
which he has heretofore
formed or might have formed
to Nova Scotia or Acadie in all its
parts and guaranties the whole to it,
and with all its dependencies, to the
King of Great Britain : Moreover, His
Most Christian Majesty cedes and
guaranties to his said Britannick Majesty, in full right, Canada, with all its
dependencies, as well as the Island of
Cape Breton and all the other islands
and coasts in the gulph and river
of St. Lawrence, and in general, everything that depends on the said countries, lands islands and coasts, with
the sovereignty, property, possession
and all rights acquired by treaty or
otherwise, which the Most Christian
King and the Crown of France have
had till now over the said countries,
lands, islands, places, coasts and their
inhabitants... His Britannick Majesty
on his side, agrees to grant the liberty
of the Catholick religion to the inhabitants of Canada : he will in consequence give the most precise and
most effectual orders that his new
Roman Catholick subjects may profess the worship of their religion according to the rites of the Romish
Church, as far as the laws of Great
Britain permit. His Britannick Majesty farther agrees, that the French inhabitants or other who had been subjects of the Most Christian King in
Canada, may retire with all safety and
Freedom whenever they shall think
proper, and may sell their estates, provided it be to the subjects of his Britannick Majesty, and bring away their
effects as well as their persons without being restrained in their emigration, under any pretence whatsoever,
except that of debts or of criminal
prosecutions. The ... ”
“4
Québec, le 27 décembre, 1996
Mr. Chief Justice Antonio LAMER,
Supreme Court of Canada,
Attorney Guy Bertrand and… the declaration of independence of Quebec
Transfer by the Governor in Council pertaining to questions dealing with the secession of Quebec from the rest of Canada formulated in the order
P.C. 1997-1497 dated September 30 1996 ( file 25506 )
Your Lordship,
You will have to serve a decision concerning the appeal of Me Guy Bertrand on how he imagines the Canadian
Confederation, and the manner in which Quebec intends to pull out of it. Were I on your bench, my first question would
be: when was Quebec of age to contract marriage with Ontario, or Nova Scotia or… and if so, I would look at the contract.
The document I am offering you was conceived by a Canadian, now dead, but in whom the late T.W. Jackson,
former secretary to Sir John A. Macdonald, confided the unrelated stories of the Conferences of Charlottetown, Quebec
and Westminster Palace Hotel, 1862-1864-1866. (Cf. Inside Canada, p. 7, by R.R. Smith). You could also refer to the
speeches made by Walter F. Kuhl, dated February 10, March 9, and April 8 in the House of Commons. Mr. Kuhl has asked
me three times in 1979 when had I met Smith, because on his part, he had fed him for three years while he was doing
research on the politically unbelievable history of Canada.
Me Bertrand has a copy of Smith’s book. Has he read it ? Me (Claude) André Joli-Cœur also has a copy ; Me
Jean Asselin, attorney to Cpl. Michel Purnelle (Somalia) also has one. This soldier Purnelle will soon be court martialled
(end of January). All these lawyers have not reacted so far. The only citizens who have deemed question the publisher live
on Reserves.
I have not offered the book to Me Bertrand’s friend (he now has it) André Arthur, although Me Guy is attorney
for this Québec radio morning man. This radio man collects insults and decisions of the CRTC, he needs a good lawyer,
BUT HE IS NOT A SILENT BITCH. He has during at least ten years called the government in Ottawa, the Canadian
Government ; he seemed convinced that government was not federal.
Litigants and radio or TV jockeys are yappers aiming at listeners who pay attention but are not necessarily informed minds. On the other hand, Ho, Canada! is not a satire ; although my notes reveal some cynicism your Lordship.
Certain lawyers in the field of copyrights seem interested,
Jean-Paul RHÉAUME
Ottawa, January 22, 1997
Received your letter dated December 27 addressed to the Chief Justice of Canada, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer in the
case of a Transfer by the Governor in Council pertaining to questions dealing with the secession of Quebec from the rest of Canada formulated in the
order P.C. 1996-1497 dated September 30 1996 (file 25506).
I want you to know that the Chief Justice, like the other judges of the Court cannot consider oral or written comments on a
matter submitted to the Court, but only from the concerned intervening parties, and nobody else.
On that account, I am returning your document and accept the expression of my best regards.
Anneliese Villeneuve, Directrice des services intégrés
Here you have how a faithful subordinate clerical lawyer castrates a Supreme Bench and confirms same into " impéritie ". From
there on, historians, media, teachers will abide to official jurisprudence of sincerity. Cf. INSIDE CANADA p. 45 re. The passing
of the Second Reform Bill of 1832, where a permanent civil servant was paid £ 1200 annually to obliterate historical truth.
106
INDEX
$1,200 fine ...............................................................71
£ 1,200 .....................................................................96
£ 2,000 .................................................................2, 18
Abbott, Mr................................................................35
Aberhart, Premier Wm....................................8, 79, 93
Acts of the Interregnum ............................................24
Alabama.................................................36, 39, 45, 46
Alaska ..................................................................5, 40
Alberta ......................................... iii, 8, 77, 79, 92, 93
Alexander VI, Pope .................................................22
Alexander, Sir Harold................................2, 3, 50, 84
Alexander, Sir William............................................16
Annual scholarships....................................................3
Appeal Cases, 1937 ............................................63, 93
Arnold, Benedict ......................................................52
Arthur, André...........................................................96
artificial unity ...................................11, 34, 49, 85, 93
Asselin, Jean ............................................................96
Athlone, Earl of ............................................67, 70, 84
Bankers Association .............................................3, 70
Beauchesne, Dr..............................3, 9, 10, 32, 33, 63
Bennett, Rt. Hon. R.B...............................................55
Bernard, Col. Montague .................................2, 51, 52
Bertrand, Guy.....................................................28, 96
Blakely, Arthur.........................................................86
Blakely, Arthur ........................................................67
Blount, Dr.............................................................9, 10
Board of Arbitration .................................................49
Board of Trade .......................3, 2, 3, 8, 15, 30, 73, 74
Bodego Bay..............................................................40
Bonds.....................3, 4, 35, 38, 70, 75, 77, 79, 89, 90
Bone, Sir Francis ......................................................29
Bouchard, Premier..................................61, 68, 89, 93
British Columbia ..................................................8, 77
British subjects4, 3, 18, 19, 20, 54, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68,
69, 76, 88, 89, 90
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers .....................78
Bruce, Charles ....................................................38, 39
Burke’s Act ..................................................15, 30, 73
Bury, Viscount......................................................2, 54
Cacroft, James ....................................................22, 87
Camerone .................................................................38
Campbell, Lord.......................................11, 34, 49, 85
Canadian Merchant Marine.......................................18
Cardinal, J. Narcisse .................................................30
Carnarvon, Earl of ..............................................11, 51
Carolina..............................................................16, 36
Charles I, king..........................................2, 22, 23, 25
Chenier, Dr...............................................................28
Chicago Tribune........................................................2
Chrétien, Jean ............................................................3
City of Ottawa, rent ..................................................66
City of Quebec....................................................16, 54
Civil Service ............................................................92
Clarendon, Earl of ....................................................45
Cobden, Mr. .............................................................40
Colborne, Gen. .............................................28, 29, 31
Coleman, Mr. .................................................9, 62, 63
Colonial Office.............................2, 15, 28, 30, 50, 73
Confederate States of America..................................36
Confederates...............................................................2
Consolidated Revenue Fund .........................62, 75, 90
Contract or treaty .....................................................32
Corporation Sole..............................3, 2, 3, 22, 73, 75
Crees ......................................................64, 66, 67, 87
Crimean War ........................................................5, 38
Cromwell, Oliver..........................................22, 23, 25
Cromwell, Richard....................................................25
Crown in Chancery .3, 2, 4, 14, 15, 30, 50, 73, 77, 79,
83, 84, 87
Crown Lands........................................................3, 15
Dallas, Mr.................................................................45
Danjou, Capt. ...........................................................38
Darius.......................................................................22
de Lorimier, Sir Charles............................................30
debentures ......................................................4, 79, 90
Defoe, Daniel ...........................................................17
deleted page........................................................11, 12
Deputy Minister of Finance ......................................63
Derby, Earl of...............................................45, 48, 49
Diefenbaker, Rt. Hon. John.......................................19
Disraeli, Benjamin....................................................36
Dominion Elections Act..................................4, 18, 62
Dominion of Canada...............................14, 50, 52, 58
Drake, Sir Francis.....................................................16
Drapeau, Jean ...........................................................70
Druggists of New York State ......................................3
Dunn,
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH TO YOUR BANK
AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH TO YOUR BANK 3 Parts to the Affidavit of Truth 1. Listing who the grievances are and listing of your tru...
-
SACHA STONE gatekeeper Running low on adrenochrome ? The focus moves towards Sacha Stone and his associates. Simon Jean-Paul Sacha Adams...
-
The Chris Sky Psy-Op The truth behind Chris Saccocia Mr. E Nov 23 In 2020, the Canadian Assistant Deputy Minister for Public Affairs info...
-
… WTF IS GOING ON? HERE IS A SUMMARY OF THE MAIN ISSUES PREVENTING SOVEREIGHS FROM MOVING FORWARD For Reference those who are educated and...
No comments:
Post a Comment