Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, as I moved the adjournment of this debate yesterday afternoon I
take itI am entitled to the floor this afternoon, but
Mr. McCormack, who has to go out of town this
afternoon, has asked that I yield the floor to him
first, and on the understanding that I can have it
next I am prepared to do that.
Mr. Chairman Mr. McCormack spoke of it to
me, and it is of very great importance to him, and
I think the House would have no objection.
Mr. McCormack Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In
speaking in support of this motion I might say
that our Letters Patent of 1934, wherein we were
promised the return of our former status on the
request of the people when we again became
self-supporting, has caused me considerable
perplexity, especially in the early days of this
Convention when we heard so much talk of the
constitutionality of almost everything before the
Chair. At that time I was quite concerned, and
was most desirous to have the constitutional
angles ironed out, and as yet I fail to see why
some of our legal minds did not have the position
clarified for the benefit of the electorate. However, this issue appears to have disappeared
with
the disappearance of the constitutional expert,
Professor Wheare.
Mr. Chairman, the electorate of this country is
awakening to that political interest which was
drugged into insensibility during 14 years of non-
representative government, and I feel that this
much criticised Convention will have fully justified its existence if it thoroughly
awakens in our
people a realisation of the purposes and duty of
government. Incidentally I feel that this Convention, with all its shortcomings, has
been unduly
censured. We were given a job that usually requires experts and expected to do it
without the
necessary assistance and co-operation that experts usually receive. However, we are
about to
finish our work and in a short while the people
will be asked to register their decision on the form
of government they desire, and in my opinion it
should be made as easy and clearcut as possible,
it being our duty to give them a factual and true
position.
Under the motion we are to concern ourselves
with two forms of government — responsible and
commission, and I wish to say that it is my
conviction that the people of the district which I
have the honour to represent are concerned with
only these two forms, and because of the small
minority who have mistaken ideas about the latter
form — commission government — I choose to
deal with that first. I would point out to these few
that, to use a very common and oft-repeated
expression, government by commission has outlived its usefulness. Granted we were
in a position of default in 1933 — so were others.
Anyway, it was fine to have Britain underwrite
our obligations, but in giving credit where it is
due, we must also realise that in making a com
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1281
parison of the work accomplished by Commission government and our old responsible
governments, we must bear in mind the unprecedented
revenues the former had to work with, as against
the meagre revenues of the old days. Also, that
prior to wartime prosperity, we still had dole
under Commission government.
Most people realise now that the stabilisation
of fish prices was not due to Commission government; and to those who talk of our
additional
social services, I would say that the millions spent
on dole made necessary many of these services
— I have in mind the undernourishment of our
people as a cause of the present high cost of
Public Health and Welfare. I feel that these highly-spoken-of additional services
may be a burden
of expense which any future government may
very well find it difficult to maintain. This
degrading dole business brought to many of our
people a lack of that independence and initiative
so characteristic of Newfoundlanders, many of
whom are now willing to wait for government
assistance or accept bonuses from other
countries. Mr. Chairman, Commission government personnel, as someone has said, are
but
puppets of the Dominions Office and are not at
present in a position to assure us of those guarantees given in 1934; and considering
the magnificent role played by Britain in the recent war,
we must realise that she is in the worst position
of her history, so we cannot expect her to underwrite our finances. Most of the evils
of Commission were due to the set-up rather than the
personnel, as in all matters of policy they were
subject to the Dominions Office, and in my
opinion the English Commissioners were never
left here long enough to get a thorough grasp of
the problems of our economy or the requirements
of our people. Certainly, they could not expect to
get a knowledge of the former, with their behind-
the-scenes policy, having no consultations with
the men who make possible our trade and commerce, and most certainly not the latter,
when
people were completely ignored and disregarded
on all matters pertaining to their welfare. To put
it simply, it is practical dictatorship from
Dominions Office, the heads of which were quite
satisfied with balanced budgets, and that no loud
protests reached the British Parliament. In passing from Commission government, I
might say
that we fully appreciate Britain's war effort, and
in her emergency of 1941 any Newfoundland
government would have approved the lease of
bases to the USA. But we feel that she should not
have given territorial concessions for 99 years
without our consent; and might have given them
for the duration, as Iceland did.
Mr. Chairman, before I deal with responsible
government, it might be well to point out that
whilst the primary function of government is to
provide rules and safeguards for law and order,
to secure freedom and liberty and protect the
rights of the people, it should also provide an
efficient administrative service, advance the
causes of public health, education and other social
services; provide communications, endeavour to
raise living standards, assist trade and commerce
and help develop natural resources. When this
country first got responsible government, its
population was something over one-third what it
is today, whilst its revenue was only about one-
eightieth, Yet our forebears had the courage to
want to govern themselves. Today, with a record
revenue of $40 million, when we are enjoying the
greatest prosperity in our history, some of our
people are so lethargic as to shun the responsibilities of self-government. We undoubtedly
have made steady progress since the beginning of
this century. We have a much larger population;
our standard of living is higher, and many of our
natural resources are being developed, and it is
time that we realised our importance. We should
remember that from the very discovery of this
island we have had something that others wanted.
In our early history, it was our teeming waters,
today it is the key position of strategic value in
the defence of the western hemisphere. The
recent war really put us on the map, and our
country has become known and its value appreciated by the occupation forces from all
over,
both the USA and Canada. This factor alone,
gives us a strong bargaining power. It is quite
unnecessary for me to dwell further on this point,
as it has been thoroughly covered by other
delegates, particularly by Mr. Higgins and the
Hon. R. B. Job. Coupled with this is another
factor of equal importance, the vast mineral
deposits of our northern dependency, Labrador.
This point has been stressed by Major Cashin, but
it well merits repetition, without becoming
tedious.
Considering these facts, gentlemen, which
1282 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
even Mr. Smallwood won't deny, we might well
ask ourselves which of the two forms of government which we are discussing would be
able
better to capitalise on such assets. In my opinion
it is responsible government, and I doubt if any
delegate thinks differently. Mr. Chairman, in addition to this great bargaining power
which a
responsible government could use to our advantage, permit me to point out that the
demand
for pulp and paper is practically guaranteed for
some years to come. Our mining prospects are
exceptionally good. We have considerable
employment at the different bases and at Gander.
We have a nice surplus and our national savings
are high. Our immediate outlook for the future
must look good to the business brains of the
country, considering the amount of capital expended in the construction of fish processing
and
canning plants; and given a government responsible to the people, with the initiative
to inaugurate a continuous and intensive program of
research and experimentation, we could very
well build up the national income to the point
where the earnings of the people would guarantee
sufficient revenues to provide adequate social
services. Mr. Bailey's idea of more intelligent
buying merits consideration. He says, "Take
more from the countries who can and will take
more from us." Import grain from countries who
will take our fish in exchange, and mill it ourselves, giving employment in the mills
and using our
own ships for both the export and import. Shipbuilding, I might say in passing, is
an industry
which deserves every encouragement from a
maritime people, and the Clarenville shipyards
have proven the quality of Newfoundland
workmanship. Before concluding, Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer briefly to our main
industry,
the fisheries, which affects directly and indirectly
almost every class of workmen in this island.
Government should endeavour to reduce the cost
of supplies, production, processing and marketing, in order to give our young men
some incentive to return to the most vital industry. In
conclusion, I would tell the people of this
country, particularly those from my own district,
it is my sincere conviction, after mature consideration, that responsible government
would better
advance our political, social and economic welfare.
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, in rising to support
the motion before the Chair, I feel there is not
much that I can add to what I have already said
on this matter. This House well knows, as I
believe does the entire country ... where I stand
today and where I can be found tomorrow. When
first this Convention opened its doors, there were
many who were inclined to believe that my attitude was somewhat unreasonable, if not
wholly
prejudiced. They accused me of not being in
possession of that priceless thing called an open
mind. They insinuated that I had not given this
country's political condition proper study, that I
just didn't know what I was talking about. Now,
all this, of course, was entirely incorrect. It is true
I did not have an open mind. I don't think I ever
had such a thing in my life. As a rule, I could
make up my mind on such matters that called for
a decision. To me, an open mind is like an open
mouth. It catches all sorts of flies, and the owner
sometimes does not know when to shut it up. I
did not have to wait for the opening of this
Convention to give thought and study to the
political situation of our country. Indeed, for
nearly a year previous to the Convention election,
I had been broadcasting my political doctrine to
all who cared to hear me. The conclusions which
I voiced were arrived at for the simple reason that
the bare facts and the truth of things left no other
course open to me, that for Newfoundland, the
proper, logical, only course open to her was as a
first step, to recover that former status and political position which was hers previous
to the loss
of her political freedom in 1933. And so I came
as one who had already added up the sum and
found the answer. And if I had wanted any further
proof that my decision was the right one, and that
I had the right answer, I was given ample proof
of it in the course of the debates which have taken
place in this chamber. Every report on our industrial and economic position went to
verify it.
Every figure in the Financial Report came as a
further endorsement. And, although I have heard
the endless speeches of those whose political
opinions differ from mine, I, and the country,
have yet to hear any sound, reasonable or logical
arguments advanced to prove to me or them that
this country is not now fitted to assume once
again the proud mantle of democracy which was
unjustly torn from her weakened shoulders in the
dark days of 1933. And after all, I submit that my
attitude will not seem at all strange to anyone who
has given any sound consideration to our political
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1283
history; because if he is at all impartial or fair-
minded, he must inevitably come to the same
conclusions.
First, let us consider why Newfoundland
should have lost responsible government at all.
Let us ask ourselves why we, of all the British
dominions, should have suddenly had the control
of our country taken from the hands of its people
and passed over to those of outsiders. If we read
the Amulree Report ... we will find in that document many strange and peculiar statements,
made by men who had been sent here at the
instance of the British government, none of whom,
as far as I have been aware, had set eyes on this
country in their whole lifetime. I found in this
report many harsh, reckless statements about our
living and our dead. I found an amazing distortion
of facts and figures, obviously all directed to
justify that final condemnation and judgement
which was to put Newfoundland democracy to
death and condemn our people to a national
debtors' prison for an indefinite term of years. I
asked myself, could such a harsh judgement be
justified? Was there, perhaps, some reasons
which I could not perceive or understand which
would justify this pillaging of those political
liberties for which our forefathers had struggled
so valiantly and so long and which, for over 80
years, had made this island of ours the freest land
in the world? I wanted to know what was the
underlying reason as to why this should come to
a disgraceful end on a dark winter's day in
February 1934, at the dictates of a handful of
outsiders.
I asked, "Why did this thing happen to us?" In
what respect had we been wanting? What had we
failed to do, or in what qualities were we, as a
people, so deficient as to disqualify us from
governing our very own land? Was it that Newfoundlanders had neither the mental capacity,
the
executive ability or the vision to govern themselves? To answer this question, let
your minds
travel with me back through the pages of our long
island story and recall and estimate the calibre of
men who figured in our public life — men whose
names I need not speak, for these names speak
for themselves. The records of their greatness are
ploughed deep into the soil of our national history, their names stand out like mountain
tops on
the dim horizons of our yesterdays. Would they
have us believe that these men were not pos
sessed of the qualities of leadership? Do not their
lives and their actions serve as a denial of such
an assumption? Well do we know the path they
travelled was no easy one. No lush revenues nor
$40 million budget was theirs to make smooth the
rough paths of the country's beginnings, to make
the job of statesmen something within the mentality of intelligent office boys. Yet
we see them
in the face of the monstrous handicaps of small
revenues and a numerically insignificant population, measuring up to their task of
being both
pioneers and statesmen. To them there was the
task of not merely having to run a country, they
had first to build one. And the fact that we sit here
representing some 325,000 people is perhaps the
best evidence that they succeeded and built better
than they knew; that out of the harsh wilderness
of the past they had hewn the solid foundation of
our present, our mines, forests, fisheries, roads,
and railway. For every single industry that we
have with us today, we have to look back in
thanks and lay our tribute on the honoured graves
of these great Newfoundlanders of the past. Executive ability, you say — leadership,
capacity to
run a country! Why, if these giants of the past
were here today and were asked to take over this
country and look after it and its people, they
would regard it as mere child's play. And at the
same time they would smile at us, half in pity,
half in contempt, at the timidity and fear which
some of us express when asked to face up to the
responsibility of running our own house. No, sir,
the records of our people just won't bear out the
truth of those who say that we are not now, nor
were we in the past, capable of running our own
affairs. Our history gives the denial, written in
letters too large and too brilliant to make any such
statements acceptable to the minds of real Newfoundlanders.
But, you may say, even if we are competent,
have we as a people the courage, the endurance,
the ambition to govern ourselves? And was it
because we lacked these things that we lost our
government? Again let us look at the record: we
find that if there is anything for which we Newfoundlanders can claim a pride, it
is for the
courage of our people. Indeed, we find that perhaps more than any other single people
in the
world, Newfoundlanders, if they would live and
survive, had to live with the spirit of courage. It
is a spirit which sits with the fisherman in the
1284 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
stern of his dory as he voyages over the storm-
lashed ocean. It strides with our sealers over the
perilous icefloes. It marched shoulder to shoulder
with our soldiers along the "Trail of the Caribou"
and to the bloody glory of Beaumont Hamel. Out
from the white cliffs of Dover, it has flown in the
cockpits of the Newfoundland pilots, it has paced
the decks of the heaving destroyers and has
answered the stand-by signal of our gunners on
the desert sands of Africa. No, sir, if the red badge
of courage be the price of democratic freedom,
then to paraphrase Kipling's words, "Lord God,
we have paid in full."
If, then, it was not for the lack of either our
mental or physical fitness that we lost our
democratic freedom, then why was it? I ask the
question, but I think that all of you have the
answer. The people of the country know it, and
the outside world too is aware of it. The answer
is that we lost that last final reward of democratic
living because we were found by Lord Amulree
and the British and Canadian financiers guilty of
the unpardonable sin of being poor. For this alone
we lost all that our forefathers had treasured and
fought for. For this the proud title of "dominion"
was stripped from us. For this these very legislative halls were sabotaged of the
symbols of a
proud free people.... But did those who sat in
judgement on us give any thought to the things
which had made us poor? In those days we saw
the rest of the world justify their financial disasters by placing the blame where
it rightly
belonged, at the doorstep of the world depression.
Not so with Newfoundland, no such excuse was
accepted from us! On us was pronounced the
verdict of guilty — guilty of being corrupt in our
leaders, both in church and state. These things
they said, and the bad old politicians were
responsible for our downfall. Other and bigger
nations could ignore and even default on their
gigantic national debts, on the pretext that they
were war debts. This they did and believed that
they were keeping their self-respect. Yet could
we not claim the same defense? For was not
nearly $40 million the price we handed out to
help our allies in the war of 1914-18? Over $30
million, nearly a third of our national debt in
1933, which if we had possessed at that time
would have saved us from national misfortune —
dollars which this country and its people freely
gave in a spirit of generous patriotism and for the
defense of democracy. The Scripture says, "Cast
your bread upon the waters and it will come back
to you after many days." But, alas, the bread
which came back to 80,000 of our people in the
dark thirties was the bitter crust of the dole. The
millions we had freely poured out to ensure the
freedom of other small countries like ourselves
was the tragic reason that we lost our own
freedom. In Newfoundland democracy died, that
it might live with other peoples!
Before I continue with my prepared script, I
would like to bring our minds back to this place
in 1931. On many occasions I have repeated what
I am going to repeat now. I feel that my remarks
will not be tedious repetition, for this reason. In
1931, I happened to be Minister of Finance of
Newfoundland — Sir Richard Squires was Prime
Minister. We passed an act in this very hall
authorising the government to borrow, on the
credit of the colony, some $8 million. When the
time came round to ask for tenders on the loan,
we were turned down. The executive of the
government met — Mr. Bradley was a member
of the executive — and it was suggested that
myself and the Prime Minister should go to
Montreal to consult with our bankers, the Bank
of Montreal. We did this, and after considerable
difficulty we were able to negotiate a temporary
loan, so to speak, of $2 million to meet our
semi-annual interest coming due on June 30,
1931. Before we did this the General Manager
of the Bank of Montreal took occasion to write
myself and Sir Richard Squires, pointing out that
we should then and there bring about commission
government in Newfoundland, and if we did, they
would guarantee us any kind of money we
wanted, or words to that effect. Mr. Chairman,
you are now sitting in the Chair occupied by your
predecessor, Hon. Mr. Justice Fox, who was in
Canada at that time and who drafted a reply to
that letter. Our reply was "No". After we got the
$2 million, we came back. We took our political
lives in our hands. We had to strip the public
services. Mr. Bradley served on committees with
us. We stripped the Railway, education, soldiers'
pensions, everything. What was the result? In
December, 1931, we were short again; $2 million
had to be found. That was found by the British
government and, I think, the Canadian government. What happened then? The House opened
in February, 1932. I had resigned as Finance
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1285
Minister, but (I am coming to a very important
matter) for political reasons the members of the
Opposition, some of whom now hold responsible
positions in the government, organised a
deliberate attack, physically and otherwise on the
government of the day, with the result that a
general election took place in June, 1932. Statements about that general election
have been
repeated over and over again. After the election
in 1932, it was pointed out to the people of this
country that immediately after Commission of
Government assumed office, they would restore
our financial stability; they would establish new
industries and, if necessary, appoint a royal commission to go into our position.
But (and this is
the real thing!) they told us that ... under no
circumstances would our status as a dominion be
surrendered without first consulting the people.
Mr. Chairman, I don't want to go into the history
of it any further.
Mr. Cashin I am just speaking from memory:
that nothing will be done unless by way of plebiscite or referendum.
Mr. Cashin But what happened? The next thing
we find ourselves saddled with is a royal commission. There were no new industries
started, in
spite of the fact that many prominent men in the
country went into the matter and were promised
that as soon as this government was returned to
office this would be started. The next thing we
find is the Amulree royal commission, and the
Amulree Report will go down in history as —
well, I can't think of anything bad enough to call
it. Lord Amulree has passed away since that time
and many of the men of the government of that
day have passed away, but I say now that was
done deliberately, not mind you by the people
who voted for it in there, they were merely used
by half a dozen, used to take away our integrity.
Now the other day Mr. Smallwood stated that
we were bankrupt. Mr. Chairman, I contend that
we were not bankrupt. We had not got money, but
did the British government have it, or Canada, or
any other countries in Europe have it? No, they
all defaulted on their war debts, and the war up
to that time had cost us nearly $40 million and we
were sweating to pay the interest on that, and the
other countries were defaulting on it. And I want
to condemn the Amulree Report because in one
paragraph it states that no British dominion or
part of the British Empire had defaulted. Why the
man who wrote that knew he was lying, because
three months previous the British government
itself had defaulted on a payment to the United
States of between $75-90 million, and the individual who was principally concerned
with
writing that report is now High Commissioner for
Great Britain in Ottawa, and I refer to a gentleman called Mr. Clutterbuck, and I
apologise for
calling him a gentleman.
Commission government took over here in
1934. Mr. Smallwood said the other day that they
were honest. I say they are the most dishonest
government that ever administered the affairs of
this country. Now I have proven it, and I think I
have already proven it here before and we are
going to have a little tedious repetition.
Mr. Cashin I am able to take care of myself in
that. The dole was given right from 1933 to 1940.
If you look at the records of the Financial Report
which I have compiled you will find that $17-20
million were advanced by Great Britain in that
period, and the interest on our national debt
during that period was more than the advance
made by Great Britain. Now what is the answer?
Out of our own revenue we got the money to pay
the six cents a day dole, and those monies that
they advanced (the British government) were
really paying their own bondholders in England,
and they were defaulting on their payments to the
United States at the same time.
Now we come to 1940-41. Here was a trusteeship created in 1934. What is a trusteeship?
Mr. Chairman, you know all about it better than
I do, and so does Mr. Bradley and Mr. Higgins.
A man comes in and runs an estate, and if he is
out any money he is liable. Now what happens?
In 1940-41 the Commission government and the
Dominions Office there gave away to the United
States government 99-year leases on these bases
for nothing. Now I have no objection, be it understood, as pointed out by my friend
Mr. McCormick, to giving these bases for the period of
the war. I would give it whole-heartedly; but I
object to any government, particularly this
government who are acting as the trustees of the
1286 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
people of Newfoundland, taking our assets and
giving them away for 99 years, and Newfoundland not reaping any benefit. It has been
pointed out by members that the least we should
have received was a quid pro quo in concessions
for our fishery products.
They went out and, I state deliberately, gave
indirect instructions to the American contractors
not to pay our people the same rate of wages as
the Americans and Canadians. They are doing the
same thing now in the Gander territory. There are
Canadians and Americans out there today who
are getting more money for doing the same kind
of work; and they are doing the same thing at the
Torbay airport. Our men are getting 45 cents an
hour today, and the lowest rate paid in St. John's,
if I am correct, is not less than 50 cents to 60 cents
an hour; but the Canadian government, backed
by the Commission government, are paying our
men 45 cents an hour.
Expenditure went to wing. Expenditure in
1940-41 was around $6.5 million, and it is up
today to $40 million. That is what we are going
to have, and we are going to have a deficit this
year — we are told that. I charge the Commission
government now with deliberately attempting to
dissipate the treasury of Newfoundland. When
this Convention opened, September 11, 1946, I
made a statement that Mr. Attlee stated in the
House of Commons, when he was bringing in this
White Paper which created this Convention Act,
that his understanding would be that under no
circumstances would any change of government
take place in Newfoundland under ten years,
because the Commission government had a
programme that they wanted to go ahead with
without interruption. Well how far out was I? It
is three years now. There will be no change in any
wise until this fall, and it may not even take place
then, because we are a powerless group with no
courage. Would you mind telling me, Mr. Chairman, how long I was on?
Mr. Cashin Thank you. Now reverting again to
the passing of this act, these resolutions that went
over to England to be confirmed by the British
government. I don't intend to read the full resolution, but I will draw your attention,
and the attention of the house and of the country to it; I have
drawn it before, but I am going to do it again,
because I am suspicious of Commission government, and of those who brought it into
existence.
If you take the annex to the resolution, sub-section 8, it says definitely: "The existing
form of
government would be suspended until such time
as the island would become self-supporting
again." That is sub-section 8. Turn to sub-section
G, which is the last one. What does it say? "It
would be understood that, as soon and the
country is again self-supporting, responsible
government, on request from the people of Newfoundland would be restored."
[1] Now sir, why
was it necessary to stick in sub-section G when
they had the thing covered in sub-section 8? I
have very suspicious ideas about that sub-section, and I have talked with many gentlemen
who
were in this House at that time, and they understood that when Newfoundland was self-supporting
responsible government would be handed
back; but now they stuck that in, in the last
section. I have seen funny things happen in this
House once in a while. I feel that "there's something rotten in the state of Denmark"
in connection with that sub-section.
I think therefore, Mr. Chairman, that in a
general way I have outlined what brought about
Commission government — we were poor. But
that was not so in 1931 and 1932. It took another
government to come in here and barter it away —
I call it the great betrayal of 1933-34. I have heard
people say, "What could we have done?" What
did the British government do? What did the
Government of Saskatchewan do? What did
other countries do? They defaulted. And weren't
we as much entitled to default as they were?
Couldn't we have carried on and paid six cents a
day dole on our own? Why Professor Plumptre
said that Newfoundland would have been justified in defaulting then! And whilst this
report I
am referring to was being written, which said that
no British dominion had defaulted, it is a fact that
Great Britain herself had defaulted to America
three months previous to the writing of that
report.
What happened in 1894 in the bank crash, and
in 1895? Did the politicians of those days accept
a royal commission from Great Britain? Certainly not, because they knew what was behind
it. But
we did not have courage enough in our government in those days. It was take the line
of least
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1287
resistance. I feel if you are not prepared to help
yourself, no one else will help you. We had to
help ourselves and not outsiders. We had no right
to let them in here at all. And so it is that today,
after 14 years, we sit here in these same legislative halls, this same House of Assembly
that
battered away our liberties in 1933, whose walls
once re-echoed to the voices of our illustrious
men. Where we sit today the fervent oratory of
our ancestors urged our people to eternally fight
and battle for the protection of their democratic
rights. It is a tragic twist of fate that in this very
place we should also sit, and have placed before
us the strange question as to what form of government we want for our people and our
country. As
if there were any form but one that any intelligent,
any reasonable, any patriotic Newfoundlander
could think of asking for either himself or his
people.
To understand how misguided such a question
really is, just consider what would be the reaction
if the same question were put today before the
parliament of Great Britain or Canada or the
USA, or for that matter any country, whether big
or small, whose people know what it is to enjoy
the priceless privileges of self-government. Do
you think that any of them would consider the
surrender of their liberties for the boon of any
form of commission government? That they
would think of giving a small group of strangers
a free hand to do as they wish with their treasury
and their territory? That has been done. I have
already pointed out that the Commission government gave away our territory. Mr. Smallwood
said they were honest. Again I am reminded of
the Labrador mining concession given out in
1937, whereby certain concessions were given to
the Labrador Mining Co., and for which Newfoundland was to receive in return a royalty
of ten
cents a ton on ore when the mine came into
production, but what happened? Two years ago
this same company approached the government,
and what happened? They cancelled this royalty
and instead took an agreement to be paid 5% on
the net profits of a company that is going to cost
$140-150 million to go into production, and it
will be years before there are any net profits
arrived at. What is that but dishonesty?
Again, I pointed out here during the debate on
the Economic Report and on the Finance Report
the manner in which our various monies were
handled by the Commission government, and I
re-point out now that I consider personally, that
the Newfoundland treasury has been plundered
of $4-5 million since 1940-41, and if anyone
wants to take me up on that I am prepared to meet
them. The talk is too extravagant, too far-fetched,
too ridiculous to even contemplate, and yet that
is the crazy proposition which is put before us
today, and which we are asked to calmly consider.
Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, what our
forefathers would have done in such a situation?
They would have regarded the whole thing as a
black insult to themselves and their country, and
would have probably thrown it out of the window
and those who proposed it after them. These men
are in the cemetery. We must face the facts as we
find them, disagreeable though they be. We have
to recognise that we are allowed to sit here at all
only by the grace and permission of a dictatorship
government, and consequently that we can only
move and act to the extent and limits which our
chains of bondage will allow us. So recognising
these facts, we find that we must include in our
recommendation, not a form of government mind
you, but forms.
My first reaction to such a proposition was that
the terms of reference which contain such a
stipulation were, and are, absolutely contrary to
both the letter, spirit and substance of the agreement made between the government
of this
country and Great Britain in November, 1933. I
regret to say that such a condition is an absolute
violation of that contract, and of the laws governing relations between two governments.
The
question has been asked here many times as to
why the British government did not and does not
carry out the contract which it made with our
government in 1933; further, on what grounds we
are supposed to ignore this solemn international
pact and allow it to be kicked aside. That question
has been asked but we are still waiting for the
answer.
I directed that question the other day to His
Excellency the Governor through the medium of
this Convention, that on his visit to Great Britain
he ascertain why they did not carry out the 1933
agreement up to the present time. All that has
come back to us are trick evasions and flimsy
excuses. They tell us in effect, as if we were so
many children, that we have no right to ask such
embarrassing, impudent questions. What a
1288 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
brazen effrontery to our country! Here we are a
body of men representing all Newfoundland,
brought here apparently, so we are told, for the
express purpose of deciding on our country's
future form of government; we ask a highly
relevant and important question about a contract
to which we ourselves are party, and under which
we lost our former government, and we are
politely told, Mr. Chairman, to mind our own
business. Every intelligent person knows that the
ballot which by force of law and under the terms
of the 1933 agreement should be put to our people
is simply this: "Do you or do you not want the
return of responsible government?" That is the
choice. That is the legal and the only option
which is provided for in this agreement to which
the British government attached its hand and seal.
That is the choice they promised us. Under what
right do they withhold that choice from us? Under
what law are we deprived of our legal rights?
What is behind all this international double-dealing and chicanery anyhow? It is a
pity that those
Newfoundlanders who can afford it have not long
ago taken steps to bring this whole matter before
the Privy Council, and in this way found out
whether the contract which Great Britain made
with Newfoundland in 1933 is a proper and
decent transaction, or whether it is a worthless
joke played at the expense of a helpless people.
Mr. Chairman, I am voting in favour of the
motion before us because, under the circumstances I have outlined, I have no choice
to do otherwise. Now some may say, "Is not this ballot in
effect carrying out the terms of the 1933 agreement?" Does it not give our people
the opportunity to ask for the return of responsible
government if they want it?" I tell them it is not.
There is no reference whatever in this contract
which asks us to vote on the retention of Commission government. It is something imported
and foisted on us. As I said before, the ballot
which this contract provides for is a simple request for the return of one form of
government.
If more than one form of government goes on the
ballot then I say it goes beyond the powers
provided in that contract, and to be consistent the
British government should be ready to put every
conceivable form of government on the ballot.
For all we know there may be people in this
country who may have elected Commission of
Government, representative government, union
with Great Britain, union with the USA, etc. Yes,
the whole thing is obviously impracticable, even
ridiculuous, but as I have observed, we must do
the best we can in spite of the obstacles which
have been placed in our path; and as the motion
before us seems to me to be the only method by
which our people are to be given the opportunity
of requesting the restoration of their lost political
rights, I have no option but to support the motion.
In doing so it is my fervent hope that if such a
ballot is placed before our people they will regard
it in its true light. They will see it not as a choice
of being asked to vote for two equal forms of
government, but rather as an opportunity for
demanding that the British government fulfill the
pledge that they gave this country in 1933. Let us
see to it that we Newfoundlanders live up to our
solemn contractual obligations, and if the pact of
1933 is to be broken and made a scrap of paper,
let us not allow ourselves to be willing parties to
such a breach of faith.
In dealing with the matter of forms of government to go on the ballot, I cannot ignore
the fact
that what we recommend, when it reaches London, may be thrown in the waste-paper basket
if
it does not suit the fancies of Mr. Attlee, or be in
accord with the future which he has planned for
us. And that reminds me, Mr. Chairman, with
reference to Mr. Attlee, that when this legislation
of 1933 was being passed in the British House of
Commons Mr. Attlee viciously attacked it, and
when the Commission of Government was appointed he called them a bunch of bum bailiffs.
Somewhat consistent with his attitude today isn't
it, Mr. Chairman? In which event all our work
here will have been for nothing, and we will
become once again placed in a farcical situation
which we are helpless to prevent. As for myself
I am prepared to believe that the Commonwealth
Secretary has our ballot made out long ago and
poked away in his rolltop desk till the time comes
to send it on to us. I saw it when I was over there.
Mr. Cashin It is poked away up in the attic in
the Dominions Office.
Mr. Smallwood You said you saw the ballot.
What is on the ballot?
Mr. Cashin I said I saw the rolltop desk! And in
reply to my friend Mr. Smallwood, the other day
when he was speaking to this motion he said, and
I quote him practically verbatim, that "he was
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1289
voting for this motion, but that he would not vote
for either of them if they went on the ballot
paper". Well, assuming that the two of them
would be on and the other is left off, Mr.
Smallwood is going to be in an awful position,
unless he has the inside dope from the Dominions
Office. He might have that, because you know
how I feel about the Dominions Office. I say now
about this ballot that I said is tucked away in the
rolltop desk, what a pity that individual did not
send it on to us 12 or 14 months ago, and save us
the trouble and expense of this long drawn out
Convention. However, let us hope that we have
gotten some benefit out of these sessions. Now in
making that statement, much as I have condemned this Convention, and I have called
it
everything, I think there has been some good
come out of it. One thing came out of it, we as
members of this National Convention, from
various sections of the country, have met here
together and we have made warm friendships
whichI feel will last for life. Some of us who have
not had any parliamentary experience have
learned considerably about it, and a lot about
government affairs, which without this Convention they would never have learned, and
consequently I feel that is one bit of good the
Convention has probably done.
Mr. Cashin And the people have been informed, Mr. Chairman, as I said this afternoon,
by me, that this government which Mr.
Smallwood said was honest, I claim was the most
dishonest government we ever had, and I want to
tell the people and the Convention that now.
Mr. Cashin All right, sir. I have often heard
"two minutes to go", and my friend Mr. Bailey
often heard that too. If we have succeeded in
showing our people that Newfoundland is today
a prosperous and self-supporting country, if we
have brought to their notice the great potential
wealth of Labrador, if it has enabled us to remove
some of the smear campaign which has been
directed on our public men of the past, then I
believe to that extent the work will not have been
in vain. I have every confidence that a majority
of this Convention will vote for the motion now
before the Chair. Perhaps some of those who vote
for it may do so for reasons of political strategy
rather than because they favour either responsible
government or Commission of Government; but
I am sure that the great majority will vote for the
motion because they feel it is the only way open
to them to show their support to the form of
government which the majority of our people
want.
Now sir, for a few minutes I will just refer
briefly to our Economic Report, which was based
on every report that was brought in here during
the past 14 or 15 months, our Economic Report
which says that this country at the present time is
self-supporting. That report was unanimously
adopted by this Convention — the only report
that was adopted unanimously. When we
presented our Economic Report, we were most
conservative in our views. We felt that the future
of Newfoundland is better really than we could
take the chance of telling the people; they would
think we were faking the report. We did not take
into consideration the potential wealth of
Labrador, that in Labrador, within five or ten
years, there will be developed the most outstanding iron ore mines in the world, on
the North
American continent at any rate. Nearly 10 million
tons of iron ore, or possibly 100 million tons a
year. I also wish to point out to Mr. Smallwood,
who tells us the Commission government was so
honest, they gave away this water-power on the
Labrador practically for nothing.
Mr. Cashin I say they are dishonest. I still say
it. They must be fools. Here we have the greatest
water-power, and the Commission of Government, prompted by the Dominions Office, gives
it away for 15 cents a horsepower and right
alongside in Quebec, they have to pay $1 a horsepower. Honest? I do not think they
are fools. I
challenge anyone from the Dominions Office to
show me they are honest in handling the sinking
fund, honest in the handling of the interest-free
loans; honest about the reduction in interest charges; honest in applying the interest-free
loans in
the reduction of our debt. Why, it is the biggest
piece of plundering I ever heard of! If an ordinary
Newfoundland government pulled off any stunts
like the Commission government did — talk
about the raid which happened in 1932! You
would never hear the like. You do not see the
same people marching on the Colonial Building
1290 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
or Government House or anywhere else today.
Mr. Chairman I have no jurisdiction over
members directing their criticisms towards the
government or any members of the government,
but I would suggest that members keep themselves within the limits of fair comment.
Mr. Cashin The 1943 retroactive income tax
legislation, would you call that honest?
Mr. Chairman We are not trying the Commission government here at all. We are not a jury.
Mr. Cashin I am prepared to take them on as a
jury.
Mr. Cashin I am giving my views in connection
with the Commission of Government during the
past seven or eight years.
Mr. Chairman Let us hope you will not be
called upon to prove your statements.
Mr. Cashin I have proven them. All of us who
have given any thought to the matter, all of us
who have approached the question in a spirit of
sincerity and patriotism, will realise that once we
get the control of our own affairs, the financial
and economic doors of the world will be open to
us. But without self-government, all doors but
one will close in our faces. And if we enter that
one door, which Heaven forbid, it will clang
behind us with the awful finality of the prison
portals which closes behind him who has said
goodbye to freedom forever. Whether Newfoundland enters that dungeon cell to serve
a life
sentence, or whether she takes her place as a
proud dominion amongst the free peoples of the
world, is for our people to say. And knowing
them as I do, I am convinced that we can safely
leave the final verdict in their hands.
Mr. Chairman Before giving you the floor, Mr.
Keough, I would like to direct the attention of
members at this time to standing order 39 which
reads: "In discharging its duty to make recommendations to His Majesty's Government
in the
United Kingdom, as to possible forms of future
government to be placed before the people in a
national referendum, the Convention shall include in its report to the Secretary of
State for
Dominion Affairs the opinion of each several
member of the Convention as to the form or
forms of government which, in his opinion,
should be put before the people, together with
any preference which he may choose to express
as between one form of government and
another."
It is therefore the duty of this Convention to
record the opinion of each member of the Convention on two points: (1) As to the form
of
government which, in his opinion should be put
before the people of Newfoundland, together
with (2) any preference he may choose to express.
I simply mention the rule at this time because
there is a double-barreled motion before the
Chair. The motion covers responsible government and Commission government. It may
very
well be that some members may have a
preference as between the two forms of government, and therefore would perhaps be
hesitant in
expressing their views by virtue of the fact that
in supporting the motion, they would be supporting one form of government with which
he or
they did not find themselves in agreement. I want
to make it clear. I propose by a series of polls or
divisions on this motion to find out, first, the
members voting for or against the motion, and
secondly ... it will be my duty to carry out the
order to have their views recorded on both questions. Therefore, any member desiring
to support
this motion will not be precluded from expressing
his preference as to either of the two forms contained in the motion. Indeed, it is
the other way
about. It is the duty of the Convention, after and
when a member votes for the motion, to decide
whether or not he has any preference for either of
the two forms of government contained in the
motion.
Mr. Smallwood Would that polling be done
after adoption or otherwise of the present motion
or after the adoption or otherwise of both motions
on the order paper?
Mr. Chairman I am not certain at the moment;
but my intention is to ask for a brief meeting of
the drafting committee — they have to draft the
report and I want to facilitate them if I can. As far
as I am concerned, you could very well have
discharged your duties under standing order 39
without bothering to decide the matter at all. I
could simply ask members to stand up and ask
who has any preference.
[The Chairman read standing order 39]
Mr. Chairman I read it this way: in its report,
the Convention shall include:
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1291
(1) The opinion of each several member as to
the form or forms of government, which in his
opinion should be put before the people; and,
(2) Any preference which he may choose to
express as between one form of government and
another.
Mr. Vardy We are not compelled to express a
preference?
Mr. Chairman No. The language employed is
"which he
may choose".
Mr. Hollett Excuse me, sir. I give notice that on
tomorrow I will move that section 39 of the rules
of procedure of the National Convention be
amended: In other words I am only giving notice
of a motion to amend rule 39. There's nothing
wrong with that, sir, is there?
Mr. Chairman No. If the House by a two-thirds
majority wants to wipe out these rules and
modify, alter or amend them, that is all right.
Mr. Higgins At this time, while we are on the
subject, and it is a matter of voting, 1 am not
entering into the present controversy, but sometime ago the matter of giving the right
to vote to
absent members was considered, and we had
some correspondence and it was brought up with
the Commission of Government. I wonder now,
would the House be prepared to accept a motion
in this respect at this time?
Mr. Chairman The proper time for you to introduce that is afterwards, when the present business
before the Chair is terminated. That is to say you
are giving notice that in accordance with the
discussions which have already taken place on
this subject, that you are going to introduce a
motion today, so as to permit members who are
absent because of illness or for a good and sufficient reason having their views recorded
on rule
39.
Mr. Chairman Well, would you mind introducing that when the debate on the present business
is adjourned? Mr. Keough.
Mr. Keough Mr. Chairman, we are come to the
last scene of all, that will end this strange eventful
history. As she was about to pass into her 450th
year of history, Newfoundland called 45 of her
sons to gather in National Convention to serve a
great cause. And now in a little while New
foundland will know whether or not we who are
gathered here did serve that great purpose with
intelligence, honour and integrity of conscience,
and even at this moment history waits with poised
pen to write upon immortal tablets whether in
these last days we proved to be men of great or
little souls.
However, the final test of all will come not so
much upon this motion as upon the next. We have
completed the first part of the task to which we
are committed. We have examined and discussed
among ourselves the financial and economic
changes that have taken place in the island since
1934. With what degree of confidence we have
executed adequate to this hour, all that is now for
history to judge. And so we are come to the
completion of our mission — the recommending
to His Majesty's Government in the United
Kingdom possible forms of future government to
be put before the people at a national referendum.
In the matter of this great final debate based upon
systems of government I had been hoping for a
better bargain. I had been hoping that the form
that would be taken would be different from that
which has been taken. I had been hoping that it
would be a three-in-one affair, and that the three
forms of government that this Convention has
elected to concern itself with could have been
discussed within the compass of one motion.
As matters stand the motion now before the
Chair does not admit of any discussion of confederation in conjunction with the two
forms of
government with which the motion is concerned.
It is a bit of a bother that the motion does not do
the obvious thing and raise the three issues at
once, for the same yardstick must be applied to
measuring the admittability for referendum purposes of the form of government proposed
by Mr.
Smallwood's forthcoming motion, as to the
measuring of the admittability of the forms with
which Mr. Higgins' motion is concerned; I
should have preferred to make one definition of
that yardstick and get it all over with. Indeed, I
think I may just as well do so, and what l have to
say in preamble to discussion of this motion I ask
you to consider as being likewise in preamble to
Mr. Smallwood's motion presently pending. That
would eliminate any need for me to reiterate
myself.
I take it that I am expected to do here what I
was sent here to do, and that, I hope, is not an
1292 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
unreasonable assumption of prerogative unto
myself, since it was written in the bond that what
I should do was recommend possible forms of
future government to be put before the people at
a national referendum. That was what the people
of my district sent me here to do — to recommend
possible forms of future government. I ask you to
note particularly the words, "possible forms".
"Possible", mind you, not impossible, and
"forms", mind you, not form. "Forms" — note
the "s". A great deal of misunderstanding has
arisen about that "possible" and that plural; and
in particular one hears arguments these days that
for the Convention to have to recommend the
maximum of possible alternatives would mean
that we should have to recommend every form of
government known to man. Carry that sort of
thing to its logical conclusion, the argument goes,
and the sky is the limit. The referendum ballot
should run the gamut of government from aristocracy to theocracy. However, that is
an argument
calculated merely to confuse the issue. It is rooted
in either inability or unwillingness to see the
distinction between recommending for the
referendum ballot all the possible forms of
government, and all the forms of government
possible. In the latter instance the sky would
indeed be the limit, but it is not to the latter
enterprise that we are committed. Our concern
here is with all the possible forms of government,
and within that compass the alternatives open are
few. Broadly speaking there are three ways in
which we are limited in the forms of government
that we may recommend: we are limited in conscience, by tradition and in fact. We
live in a
Christian country. There is behind us a long
Christian tradition; our way of life is Christian to
the core, and so we are bound in conscience to
recommend for purposes of the national referendum constitutions that will not be in
conflict with
Christian ethics. It is consequently not within our
competency to recommend any of those
totalitarian forms of government that put the state
before the individual. This is a free country.
There is behind us along tradition of the rights
of all men to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. Our way of life is democratic to the
core. We are consequently bound by tradition to
recommend for purposes of the national referendum constitutions that are not in conflict
with the
democratic ideal. It is consequently not within
our jurisdiction to recommend any form of
government that would encroach upon the liberties and prerogatives and wishes of the
common
man, in consequence of centuries of parliamentary government and striving to be free.
And
finally, we live in a British country. There is
behind us a long and intimate association with the
mother country, and our relations with Britain at
this time are of a very special kind. As we are all
aware, the final decision as to what will appear
on the ballot will be made in Downing Street, and
to my mind we are limited by that fact to constitutions not incompatible with our
remaining within
the structure of the British Commonwealth of
Nations. I think it unlikely that Downing Street
would consider for referendum purposes constitutions to the contrary. As I see it,
we are
limited in fact. We could recommend union with
the United States, but I doubt that in Downing
Street it would receive a second thought, and as
far as I am concerned quite properly so.
The truth of the matter is that the sky is not the
limit when it comes to recommending constitutions. All the forms of government possible
are
not all possible forms of government for us, and
we are limited in conscience, by tradition, and in
fact to a few alternatives, and in my opinion it is
our solemn duty to determine among these alternatives, and to recommend those that
ought to be
submitted to the people of this island.
In proceeding to the determination of these
alternatives, there is one further thing to be
remembered — that there is reason in all things.
Notwithstanding the limitations imposed by conscience, tradition and fact, there is
a goodly number of constitutions that we might recommend,
but not all of them are relevant. Not all of them
could be superimposed on the economy of this
country without severe dislocation. Not all of
them are suited to the temperament of our people,
and so it becomes us to exercise such discretion
as to avoid the recommendation of a multiplicity
of irrelevant constitutions, which, if they were to
appear on the referendum ballot would only confuse the electorate.
As far as I am concerned there are, in addition
to the form of government we now know, but two
other constitutions that may safely and justly be
imposed on our economy, our institutions and our
people. I am compelled to dismiss all other constitutions we hear suggested as being
beside the
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1293
point, even those that we hear mentioned most.
True Crown colony status would go too much
against the grain; Not-them Ireland status would
be merely avoiding the issue; so too would be
representative government — we might as well
retain our caretaker government as replace it with
a kindergarten government; and union with the
United States would raise matters of conscience
for our people to which I for one will not be a
party. As far as my own conscience is concerned,
I am satisfied that I can recommend for submission to the Newfoundland people in national
referendum not less than the forms of government proposed in the motion before the
Chair. In
other words, the least that we dare recommend is
responsible government and Commission
government. When I say Commission of Government, I mean Commission of Government in
its
present form. I cannot see wherein any worthwhile modification of Commission of Government
can be achieved, for if you modify it you
have to do one of two things: provide for the
election of enough Newfoundlanders to carry a
decision in case of dispute, or provide for a
preponderance of Commonwealth Office appointees. In a modified Commission in which
elected Newfoundlanders would be in the
majority you would have, in effect, in all but
name, responsible government; so why not have
it by name, and by restoration of our suspended
constitution? It may be that "a rose by any other
name would smell as sweet", but not in this
island, if what would be in effect responsible
government were still called Commission. But on
the other hand, in a modified Commission in
which elected Newfoundlanders would be in the
minority, you would have in effect representative
government, and you would have in addition all
the furor, all the dissension, all the bickering that
went with representative government before.
Yes, and no throwing into the balance advisory
councils or anything else would make for peace,
quiet and good government in a body partly
elected by the people, yet preponderantly appointed in Whitehall.
I am convinced that one of the choices to be
submitted to the Newfoundland people should be
retention of Commission of Government in its
present form, but before I go on to say why, let
me say this. Because I like to give credit where
credit is due, I have not joined in the diatribes
against the Commission in which this Convention has from time to time indulged. Some
of the
criticisms of Commission that have been
mouthed have been justified, for the Commission
did fall far short of making the most of the golden
opportunities that Came its way; but hardly a
word of credit has been given to the Commission,
and that has been just simply the old game of
playing politics. In order to redress in some little
manner the injury the Commission has suffered
at our hands, I avail of this opportunity to say this
much in its favour; that notwithstanding its
shortcomings, Commission of Government has
done as much, and perhaps more, for the ordinary
people in this country, the fishermen and farmers
and the loggers, than any government within
living memory; and in saying that I am voicing
the opinion of people all over this country whose
memories can go back much farther than my own.
It would serve no useful purpose for me to
enumerate here the excellencies and negligence
of Commission of Government. The ordinary
people of Newfoundland are not likely to forget
overnight wherein the Commission of Government has served them well, and this Convention
has done its best to see to it that they will not
forget wherein it has failed, and so I will forego
any recital of hallelujahs and lamentations. There
is this, however, that I think deserving of special
mention.
We hear it said these days that the British
government promised that we would have political education during the days of Commission
government, and that that pledge was not
honoured. That, as far as I am concerned, is
something decidedly open to question. It seems
to me that during the days of Commission of
Government Newfoundlanders have grown to a
greater political perspicacity than has ever been
there. Commission of Government has been
criticised as dictatorial, and whilst definitely an
oligarchy, it has put into effect policies that have
made the people more politically adequate than
they have ever been. These policies have led to
the growth of many small organisations wherein
many Newfoundlanders have learned the rudiments of parliamentary procedure, how to
talk on
their feet, how to think their way through to
resolutions of a community's problems, what to
look for in a proposal to make it worth their
concern, how to select leaders from among them
1294 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
selves — organisations such as co-operative
societies, agricultural societies, regional library
boards, Jubilee Guilds, adult education study
groups and all the rest of it. And as a direct result
of the Commission's specific policy of encouraging local government a score or more
communities have taken upon themselves the status
of municipalities, formally incorporated. All this
has naturally strengthened the competency and
increased the capacity of Newfoundlanders for
the political, and when again politicians take up
the telling of their fairy tales where they left off
15 years ago, they will find themselves up against
this increased capacity for the political. The historic assumption that the electorate
was too green
to burn will have to be revised. It is no longer
quite so green.
Of course, the relative merits of the Commission's worth must ever remain a matter
of dispute. The Commission has been in office during
two abnormal periods of our history, an abnormal
period of depression and an abnormal period of
what some have been pleased to call prosperity.
It has not been in office during what might be
termed a normal period. In consequence it is
difficult to make comparisons, and therefore difficult to judge of the absolute value
of its work.
That is not a good and sufficient reason for withholding credit where it is due, and
in many matters the Commission did act with advantage to
this island and to its people, and I think that a fair
verdict is that we have had good value from the
Commission, and I think that will be the verdict
of history.
It has been suggested to me that aside from the
fact that Commission is government without representation, that there is a further
reason why this
Convention should not recommend Commission
for referendum purposes. The Commission system carries with it the guarantee of Britain
to
meet our deficits, but for seven years now we
have been able to balance our budget and have
something over and to spare. It is contended
therefore that it would be perhaps immoral of us,
and certainly would not be honourable, to seek a
continuation of the Commission system and
thereby hold Britain to a promise given in altogether different circumstances. To
put it bluntly, it is held that we should be without honour to
forego self-govemment merely to have the assurance that somebody else would pay our
debts,
when there are reasonable hopes of being able to
pay our own way in the future.
The validity of that argument any fair man
must admit, and I have to commend it to the
conscience of the people for their consideration
at the time of the referendum. But it is a matter
for the conscience of the people, it is not a matter
of honour with us. We have no choice but to let
the people have a choice among other forms of
government — Commission. True, the thing was
loaded upon our people in the beginning without
consultation, but they did accept it. Not only does
silence give consent, but so too does acquiescence. Indeed, nobody doubts now but
had the
people been consulted during those grim Gethsemane days of 1933, that they would have
accepted Commission. In fact it was welcomed on
every hand with open arms, and there is no doubt
that most of our people have found it good. In any
case, if we are going to give the people a choice
of anything, we must surely ask them if they want
to keep what they already have. To propose alternatives you must begin with what you
already
have. A great many people believe that the
specific term of years for which Commission is
to be retained, if it is to be retained, should be
decided in advance. They argue that any retention
of Commission that may materialise from the
referendum should be conditional upon review of
the whole position at the end of five or ten years.
I really cannot see much point in making such a
proviso. If the Newfoundland people decide to
retain the Commission system, and at the end of
a term of years want to examine the situation,
they will have merely to take the necessary steps
to bring about such review; if there is no popular
feeling and agitation for re-opening the question,
then the people should not find themselves com
mitted to such a procedure
Obviously we have to recommend as a referendum alternative responsible government
as it
existed in Newfoundland prior to its suspension
in 1934, in form that is, if not in substance. Not
to would be to seek an abridgement of the undertaking given by the British Parliament
to restore
responsible government at the request of our
people. But I do hope that if we come to see
responsible government restored, it will not get
to be a matter of the same old story all over again.
If in the past responsible government was not
always all that it should have been, I think that
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1295
perhaps one of the greatest contributing causes
was that the Newfoundland people never did
have a choice of political philosophies. True, they
did have a choice of political parties, but in essence the only choice they offered
was a choice
between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, a choice
of political tenants not poles apart, but only the
width of the street apart. It was never to distinct
political faiths that Newfoundlanders had occasion to give their allegiance. At the
best what
they had was political personalities. There were
no political parties held together by any bonds
stronger than the desire to win the next election.
There were certainly none held together by the
belief that the political briefs they stood for were
overwhelmingly right and true and worth holding
out for against all odds. For if there had been,
those parties would have held together and
preserved their identity, but they did not. Not one
of the old political parties that we used to know
has survived — not one. As a matter of fact, none
survived longer than it took the Commission of
Government to move in. The Commission was
appointed and the political parties were never
heard of again. They had not that within them
which could hold them together overnight, once
there was no more chance of winning an election.
And in that connection may I offer this advice to
my political parties that may subsequently arise
in this land: if any one of them can appeal to our
people with a concrete vital platform that can
touch their lives in terms of three square meals a
day, they will likely go a long, long way. And if
in the past responsible government was not all
that it should be, particularly towards the end of
its days, it was mostly because what we used to
have every four years was not an election but a
revolution. You will remember what would happen at election times: brother was set
against
brother, community was set against community,
class was set against class, deliberately and with
malice aforethought to serve political ends.
Hatred was engendered that lasted for years and
wrought disturbance of the people's peaceful
way of life. Then to crown it all, if a new government was elected, almost its first
move was invariably to disrupt the civil service with many
discharges and new appointments of party hacks
and of the faithful. Irrespective of all the
whitewash that has lately been spattered around
the corpus delicti of responsible government, it
is an unassailable fact that for a term of years
immediately prior to Commission of Government the spoils system was in great effect.
I do
hope that we have done with all that forever, and
particularly the spoils system.
Come what may in the shape of government,
our people should insist on the civil service being
placed, as I believe Mr. Hickman suggested
yesterday afternoon, under a nonpolitical, independent civil service commission, and
they
should keep on insisting upon just that until they
get it. Otherwise we will never get good government, and every four years the national
interest
will be sacrificed so that to the victors may go the
spoils.
Now I have suggested that responsible
government as we knew it was not at all times all
that it should have been. I should like to make it
quite clear that in doing so I am not suggesting
that responsible government as we knew it was
never all that it should have been. I think it only
fair to say that not all our politicians were concerned only with the grinding of
their own axes,
and the feathering of their own nests. If I had to
prove that any single one of them was not all that
he should have been, I am quite certain that I
should be unable to do so, and again I think that
a fair verdict is that a great many of our public
men of yesteryear were sincere men who did the
best that they could with the little that they had.
The supreme tragedy was that they did not have
enough to work with. Otherwise the story of
responsible government might have been much
different. I have said before that in the last
analysis it was not our politicians who failed us,
it was our economy. Yet notwithstanding the
meagemess of the resources and the facilities
drey had to work with, there were men in our past
who wrought monumental works in this land.
Men who were born to greatness, and set the mark
of their greatness upon the causes they espoused,
men in consequence of whose living we have all
come to be at great advantage.
Mr. Miller Mr. Chairman, I take pleasure in
supporting this motion, and I base my decision
on the reasonable supposition of our ability to
maintain self-government. A second reason for
doing so is the fact that the condition for the
correction of which the Commission of Government was introduced, now no longer exists.
As to
whether or not they can be credited with success,
1296 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
I have a divided opinion. In some instances, yes;
in others, definitely no. Could a continuation
bring about a greater achievement on their part?
That I greatly doubt. It would appear on the face
of things, and I believe would be borne out by
deeper investigation, that a government so constituted may make progress in its early
days and
then become routine. This, I fear, is the condition
today; and I have much the same opinion of
monotonous routine as I have of tedious repetition.
When the British government adopted the
recommendations of the Amulree Commission, I
believe they did so in the best interests of
Newfoundland. If in some way their own interests, which might have been impaired by
their
association with us, were protected, in that I see
no great wrong. Viewed in these later years, the
recommendations they submitted have helped us
along and we are willing to give credit where
credit is due. I feel quite certain we will be glad
to see continued much of the organisation they
set in place and it was meant to be that way. For
they were to undertake to strengthen our
economic and financial structure which would, in
time, put our country in good standing and having
done that, the government would be passed back
to the people.
Many things have been said about that transaction. As it came into effect it displeased
many,
if not all; and strong opinions were expressed as
to other possible ways out. Truly, they could have
left some vestige of representation with us. We
yielded, believing that we would have sent here
men of the highest calibre, men to develop our
industrial life as well as play watchdog on our
treasury. No barriers were created by us in the
selection of these men. If the good and useful did
not come, the fault is surely that of the Dominions
Office. All this can be excused on the ground that
they were taking things in their stride. Just when
they planned to get us out of the woods seemed
very obscure. However, perhaps everyone's purpose is served today.
One thing for which we can be thankful today,
is that we did not suffer impairment of our form
of government permanently. Written into that
original recommendation and subsequently into
the Letters Patent constituting Commission of
Government, is the promise of restoration, if and
when the people request it. A proviso to this is
that the country be self-supporting to the extent
that reasonable assurance of its ability to maintain self-government be evident. We
first heard
of Newfoundland being self-supporting from the
outside world. And in fairness to the British
government, it may be said that they lost no time
in setting up machinery to determine the people's
wishes. Perhaps the invidiousness of their position out here was all too well realised.
Now we have reached the point where we are
to decide the extent of their usefulness and the
possibility of further advancement under Commission government rule. For my part,
I believe
they have done their job and should go. First
because I see no justification in the continuance
of a dictatorial form of government, and secondly
because I want to see it supplanted by a responsible government with full dominion
status. It is
to me a tragedy that we cannot negotiate our
external affairs. Witness the many attempts made
by the Hon. R.B. Job in trying to get outside the
curtain — not but that I am fully aware of the lift
along which Great Britain gives in world
markets. I do not suggest anything but the closest
friendship with the mother country; but our position has been so unsatisfactory, having
to sell in
one currency and buy in another, that I look for
some solution to it. That solution I can see only
in economic ties with the USA. There, to a nation
of 130 million people, we should be able to sell
largely, and purchase all our requirements. This
may be wishful thinking. I do not for a minute
entertain the thought that the USA would want us
to enter political union, and I would definitely be
opposed to it. But there should be a pooling of
advantages, with greater returns to our country.
For that is just what Great Britain did in the base
deal, with greater return to Great Britain.
If we are to have a night session tonight, I
could resume at that time.
Mr. Chairman I want to remind you again of
the time limits which the members decided on
last Friday; and that tomorrow, in the ordinary
way, will be the last day open for the debate on
this motion now before the Chair. I want to
resolve this tonight. We could therefore resume
the session at eight o'clock. We have to uy and
facilitate quite a number of members.
[The Convention adjourned until 8 pm]
Mr. Miller It seems to me that in this Christian
world a people who work and produce, as do our
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1297
people, should not have to worry or know want.
They play their part. I feel their government
should have no restriction in facilitating the
marketing of their products and that all bargaining powers should be applied to this
purpose.
Those who would deprive the people of self-
government advance a great variety of reasons,
and perhaps their greatest and most effective one
is the recalling of the misdeeds of the last years
of responsible government; whilst in the same
breath they say, "Responsible government! Why,
what has that to offer?" It is when I hear such
remarks that I doubt the wisdom of restoring
self-government, for it portrays, as I see it, a great
misconception of the duties and functions of
government. The reason for this is given in the
fact that we secured national government before
we had come to appreciate its capabilities by a
closer view of municipal government. I believe
that to be largely correct, but I try to outweigh it
with the advancement, in om age, of education,
and in the great advantages of radio and press
distribution. I further try to outweigh it by the
ability of our people to grasp the intricacies of
any situation. I know they can do it. I have visited
people's homes where, in the war days, the advancement of the allied armies was charted
and
recorded with marvelous enlightenment. I have
been astounded at their ability to constructively
estimate world reactions. We are indeed a great
people, but we have to outlive a period of our
history when we were a spoiled people. We have
to outlive a period in our history when we
believed our government to be capable of unlimited handouts, when we seemed to shut
our
eyes to the fact that a government can give back
to the people only part of that which they take
from them. We did not seem to realise that the
more gratuities a government bestows, the more
taxes it must collect. This was not a deliberate
wrong, but it certainly was an error and it gave
rise to serious reactions. And now, as we consider
a return to self-govemment, we must check the
credentials of our people as well as the resources
of our country. My faith in both I have already
indicated.
The investigations of the committees and the
reports submitted on our natural resources are
very encouraging. There is evident, however, a
dependency of too large a proportion of our
population on the main industries. This tends to
make our position highly susceptible to world
conditions. It is to be hoped that the future will
see a greater application of our energies to the
elimination of many items from our import list
and their manufacture in this country. We could
even start a button factory. Time does not permit
me to repeat the many encouraging features of
these reports. I feel, however, that your memory
will serve you well, and that they are set in
permanent vision before your mind.
Generally, I would say that Newfoundland's
position today is a coveted one and that our
progress offers further promise. We have a better
marketing system for our fish, which should
serve us well in the years ahead, whilst consolidating our position on these markets,
and we
continued to enjoy high price for this commodity.
How unlike this is to other countries, some of
which were marketing their products, for example wheat, at slightly in excess of one-third
of
its current market value in an effort to hold down
post-war business. Let us stop a moment to appreciate our position.
It was a satisfying feature, in the days of
committee meetings, to see the way many of our
industrialists considered themselves a part of this
land of ours; to hear them tell of things that give
promise and to weigh their earnestness and determination in developing industries.
In one instance only did we meet an antagonistic attitude
and what could be described as a refusal to cooperate. I take this opportunity to
interject a word
of praise to the civil servants who assisted the
committees on which I worked; and of whose
integrity and ability I formed a very high opinion.
It is matters such as these that strengthens one's
outlook and faith.
Yes, Newfoundland's position today bears little or no resemblance to its past; and
confidence,
hope and trust should swell the hearts of her
people. Today, the great nations of the world
shudder under the weight of debts contracted
because of war, and countries of our own kindred
have the sufferings of want added to their sorrows. Nor in the near future, will this
condition
be corrected. Through it all, through their dismantled industries, through their disrupted
mode
of life, through their great human sacrifice, they
cling tenaciously to the right of self-government.
They show a belief in themselves, a belief in their
neighbours and a perseverance that will lead
1298 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
them to success. Can we be so different from
those people? Are we the kind who refuse to
honour obligations? Will we fail to make our
country a respected one? For posterity, what do
we provide? Of that which we have! If we cannot
add to it, let us not take from it.
We pass on — the man, the country; the great
and the small fill their places in the universe,
some willingly, some strugglingly, some with
endurance and forbearance, some with vigour,
some with viciousness, some with languor, disease and deterioration. The man, the
country, are
but one; and fame or glory but a line in history's
pages. Quo vadis? Whither goest thou? And
whence and wherefore the struggle? For that line
in history's pages? I think not. For the pleasures
of the day then, for three square meals and a tight
roof? Not there does man's duty to man begin or
end. Somewhere it is said, "Man doth not live by
bread alone." There is a call, a challenge born in
the heart of man to rule, to govern. This must find
an outlet, or the man, the country, deteriorates.
This instinct, strong and lasting, is patent; and its
suppression can but activate more strongly.
Sometimes it is that suppression that guides it on
to a predetermined destiny, if such there can be.
It was suppression that many years ago urged our
forefathers to seek this new land. It was the
suppression which followed them here that urged
them to fight for the freedom and justice and the
right to govern, which was theirs. They have won
their cause. They have passed to us the torch. Will
we fail to hold it high?
Mr. Chairman Mr. Job, I am reminded of your
recent illness and of your convalescence; and we
all hope, please God, that your convalescence
will come quickly and permanently; but while
addressing the Chair, to do you justice, it might
be well for you to do so sitting down. If you
would prefer to do that, I shall be glad to hear
what you have to say.
Mr. Job I appreciate that very much. I think,
perhaps, I can make my address better while
sitting down.
Mr. Chairman, under Mr. Higgins' motion as
it stands, we are invited to give special attention
to a return of responsible government in its old
form; and a continuation of our present form of
Commission government. I very much regret that
so much time has been spent over the confederation issue and so little time left for
a thorough
consideration of what, in my opinion, are the very
much more important matters referred to in the
present resolution. However, I suppose this cannot be helped now.
In following the cue of Mr. Vardy, the
seconder of this motion, I do not suppose I shall
be accused of digressing if I also discuss some
suggested alterations or improvements in these
forms of government...
Mr. Job Yes. And some suggestions which, in
my opinion, should accompany any report that is
sent to the authorities prior to their coming to a
definite decision as to the forms of government
to be placed on the referendum. I propose to make
brief reference to the question of return of responsible government. Much abuse has
been heaped
upon the head of the late Hon. F. C. Alderdice, as
well as upon those who supported him in accepting the recommendations of the royal
commission which resulted in the installation of the
Commission of Government, which appeared to
be the only choice except the one of facing
default on our bond issues, which was the clear
alternative. I knew Mr. Alderdice very well, and
believe that we never had a more sincere or a
more honourable leader of our government; but
in my opinion, he did make a mistake in not
referring the recommendations of the royal commission to the people of Newfoundland
prior to
accepting them. I was aware of his view, and that
of his supporters, that there was not the slightest
doubt that the scheme would be approved by the
electorate, but as a matter of principle it should
certainly have been submitted. The urgency of
the situation, however, had convinced Mr. Alderdice and his government that they were
following
the right course, and as history shows, the
proposals were carried in the House of Assembly,
rightly or wrongly, with only one or two dissenting voices. One of these was that
of Mr. Bradley,
whose efforts to get some revision of the proposal
are on record, and I fancy that history will say he
should be given credit for those efforts to improve the system outlined by the royal
commission.
In November 1933, when I was a member of
the Legislative Council discussing the resolution
regarding suspension of our constitution in
favour of a temporary period of government by
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1299
Commission, I find that I uttered these words:
As a temporary measure, I am wholeheartedly in favour of the changes proposed, drastic
as they are. My reasons for supporting
them are:
Firstly, because the report of the royal
commission and the proposals of His
Majesty's Government breathe deep earnestness and great sympathy with our situation
throughout its many pages, and because the
offer is an especially generous one.
Secondly, because I believe that stringent
and drastic measures alone can save us from
ourselves in this serious crisis, and
Thirdly, because I see no other alternative
except the disgrace and increased misery that
default would bring in its train.
I believe that it will probably be found
necessary, as time goes on, and possibly
within a decade, to resort once more to some
form of representation, and I also believe that
when the need is evident, this will not be
grudged to us by those who are offering a
helping hand at this present juncture.
What form this representation may take I
dare not prophesy, but it has been shown
beyond doubt that our present form of full
responsibility is not suited to a large country
with a small population. A large section of
our population is so scattered and isolated
and out of touch with its fellow citizens, that
it is extremely difficult for it to understand
and digest the principles of good government. We want something more simple and
must endeavour to avoid what has been aptly
described as "the trappings of an elephant on
the back of a cat."
I do not think there is any need for me to take
back these words, sir, as I am still of that same
opinion. I did not believe then, and I do not
believe now that there was any deep-laid plot to
deprive us of our rights, and on the other hand
believe that Great Britain was conscientiously
anxious to help us, and that although the Amulree
Report was in many respects wrong, its motives
were, on the whole, perfectly honest and
designed to help us. It must be remembered, sir,
that at that time no one for a moment contemplated that the period of Commission of
Government, with its lack of representation,
would extend as it has done for a period of nearly
14 years; but I think it will be agreed that circumstances beyond our control have
been mainly
responsible for this, namely the recent war. The
utmost limit of time envisaged for its continuance
when introduced was ten years.
Commission of Government was considered
by many to be a means of providing a thinking
period during which, with the assistance of the
Mother country, our finances would be
straightened out and our departments reorganised. It was thought that this could be
achieved
without the bickering, and oftentimes unfair attack that is and must be associated
with party
government. It was also thought that government
by commission would still be government in the
interests of Newfoundland and we were not, in
view of the scheme suggested under which three
of the Commissioners were Newfoundlanders,
afraid that strictly Newfoundland interests would
be disregarded.
As you are aware, sir, it seems to be clear from
opinions expressed at this Convention that Newfoundland interests have been, in some
cases,
neglected, especially in connection with the leasing, without consideration for Newfoundland,
for
99 years of certain of our territories to a foreign
government, though an admittedly very friendly
one. Owing to the secrecy of the Commission's
deliberations we do not know to what extent our
Newfoundland Commissioners fought for our interests in these matters; but it is fair
to assume that
as Newfoundlanders they did their best in at least
mildly protesting against long leases; and
probably felt that anything stronger than a mild
protest would be, and perhaps was quite useless
in view of the fact that they were in a minority on
the Commission. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that they must have been influenced
while the
war was in progress by the fact that everything
was of minor importance except steps for winning the war; and one can quite understand
their
disinclination to make themselves strongly objectionable at that time, entirely apart
from any
personal considerations.
The Commission government, in the appointment of whose personnel the people of Newfoundland
have had no say, is admittedly all
wrong in principle, and this our Commissioners
themselves will admit and have admitted. Again,
it is impossible to argue that some form of responsible government would not be right.
I would
1300 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
certainly favour responsible government in some
amended form, a much simplified form, more
suitable to our conditions.
In spite of what I have stated, however, I feel
I would not be doing my duty if I did not suggest
that the electorate would be very well advised to
carefully consider before marking their ballot the
possible advisability of waiting a few years more
before taking a leap in the dark, and diving again
into the dangerous waters of the old form of
responsible government, at a time when the
whole world is so very seriously upset politically
and economically. I am not definitely advising
this course, but I do believe that the electorate
should take it very seriously into consideration
when they come to mark their ballots.
Now sir, I am going to suggest that it should
be recommended in our report that in the event
of the electorate possibly deciding in favour of a
continuation of Commission government for a
few years, some machinery should be immediately set up in the form of a royal commission,
or
a special committee, whose duty it would be to
spend the next few years endeavouring to formulate an improvement upon our old form
of
responsible government with a view to making it
more suitable for our peculiar needs, and also in
studying the confederation issue. I have often
wondered, Mr. Chairman, whether in actual fact
party government is necessary at all in a small
community like ours. There is no party spirit or
division in our St. John's Municipal Council,
although there is lots of bickering and difference
of opinion; they seem to do very well under the
chairmanship of a mayor who, whatever his
faults may be, has a singularity of purpose in his
devotion to his job of administering, with the
assistance of his councillors, the affairs of our
city to the best advantage, financially and otherwise. There is room for thought in
this.
This royal commission or committee which I
have suggested would, I hope, also study the
practicability of forming some arrangement
under which Great Britain, Canada and the USA
would take a joint interest in our affairs, for
reasons which I have many times pointed out. It
is probably not generally known at this Convention that the USA and the United Kingdom
set
aside, at the time they were taking over certain
bases in the Caribbean and West Indian districts,
a large sum of money to be spent on satisfying
the people of that region that they were going to
take a special interest in their affairs in return for
the concessions granted, with a view to improving the standards of living in these
areas. This is
being administered by what is known as the
Caribbean Commission, and I am informed that
the Canadian authorities have been also cooperating with it. The amount of money set
aside
for the purpose was large, many millions of dollars. I believe the committee is still
sitting and has
not yet concluded its work. Is not this a precedent
for Great Britain, the USA and Canada to get
together to see whether our people are not entitled
to some consideration with a view to the improvement of our standard of living, in
return for
the concessions which Newfoundland has also
yielded for the benefit of those countries and of
democracy in general? The royal commission or
committee which I have suggested might, perhaps, also act as a link between the Commission
of Government and the people of Newfoundland.
The absence of such a link has been one of the
causes of dissatisfaction with the Commission.
I am not unconscious of the fact that the
amounts at present being expended by the Commission appear to be extravagant and I
have no
doubt that this is giving serious worry to our
Commissioners. If a responsible government
takes over at an early date, this worry will be
transferred to their shoulders, and if I were a party
politician, I would hesitate before taking on the
job of reducing this expenditure and thereby,
perhaps, reducing the efficiency of social and
other services to our people. A part of our surplus
is certainly disappearing in consequence of the
necessity of advancing part of our own dollar
surplus to provide payment in dollars to our
fishermen for their produce, but to be fair to the
Commission, it is reasonable to ask, what would
a responsible government do in such a case?
I cannot wholeheartedly support Mr. Higgins'
motion as it stands, but would support it
wholeheartedly with a slight amendment limiting
the continuance of Commission government to,
say, four years, and with the hope that a provision
would be made that if a renewal of Commission
of Government should be the choice of the
people, then a royal commission or something of
that sort, with economic experts thereon, would
be appointed to further investigate and report
upon:
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1301
1. Suitable amendments to our old form of
responsible government, a matter which I notice
several supporters of responsible government
have advocated during recent addresses;
2. Investigation of the practicability of the so-
called Con-Dominion suggestion, and of closer
fiscal relations with both the USA and Canada;
and
3. Investigation in much more detail of the impact of confederation with Canada.
The weak part of Commission government, in
my opinion, has been the control of our affairs by
a British department (often by subordinates in
that department) 2,000 miles away from what
should be the real seat of government. I cannot
altogether subscribe to the charges that the Commission has been wilfully wasteful;
and in that
respect they have certainly not been worse than
many of the former responsible governments,
whose spending was, in most cases, only limited
by their revenues, plus the amounts they could
borrow. True, their revenues were limited. There
is bound to be an end of lavish expenditures, and
even amongst our more wealthy neighbours this
must come to an end — as witness the present
so-called austerity programme now in force on
the mainland. It certainly may be necessary in
Newfoundland and every other country to reduce
public expenditures before very long; and it
would seem to me that any party politicians
taking charge at the present time and being
obliged to cut expenditures, would very quickly
become unpopular.
Before leaving this question of Commission
government, which has received some hard
knocks during our deliberations, I would like to
emphasise at least a few good things which I think
it has accomplished. Its deficiencies and mistakes
do not require setting out by me as they have been
amply exposed during our debates, but I think we
would not be doing our duty if we did not remind
the people of Newfoundland of some of the accomplishments which have benefited the
country
during the Commission years. These seem to me
to be as follows:
1. The refunding of our debt, which was only
made possible by the guarantee of the British
government and which has saved a very large
amount of interest.
2. The payment out of funds taken from taxpayers of Great Britain of sums amounting
in
total to over $16 million as grants-in-aid, free
grants from the Colonial Development Fund, and
loans from that fund which were eventually converted to free grants.
3. The payment by the British government of
the remuneration of the three British Commissioners for a period of 14 years.
4. The setting up and supporting of a sane and
most useful marketing system for our fishing
industry, which has definitely resulted in a more
stable position and which, in my opinion, could
not have been attained under responsible government as evidenced by the failure of
a similar
attempt by a responsible government after the
end of the first world war.
5. The formation of co-operative societies,
with their most useful study clubs, which have
encouraged and are still encouraging careful
thought by that most important section of our
people, our fishermen.
6. The constitution of many municipalities
whose constituents are learning in a practical way
the meaning and difficulties of local government,
and whose experience and influence must have a
marked effect in future years on the responsibilities of the people in connection
with responsible governments.
7. The extension of our social services, especially the medical and hospital services
all over
the country.
Surely, in common decency we owe a large
measure of gratitude to the British people for
their assistance, from their own funds, of the
substantial and generous financial help detailed
in the paragraphs which I have just quoted. Let
us be fair, Mr. Chairman, in view of the facts and
admit that these seven accomplishments listed
warrant the thought that perhaps three or four
more years of Government by Commission might
do us no harm, and I am not at all sure that the
wisest words spoken at this Convention were not
those spoken by my friend, the member for St.
George's, or from the bill of Cape St. George,
when he suggested that perhaps we were about
five years too soon in starting the deliberations of
this Convention. I am personally convinced that
the institution of municipalities and co-operatives, as well as recent developments
and improvements in connection with our trade unions,
are going to be determining factors in helping the
future thinking capacity of the Newfoundland
1302 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
electorate, and that a few more years of this sort
of self-education will help Newfoundlanders to
weigh more carefully than they have been able to
do in the past, or even than they can do today,
what is best for the future welfare of their beloved
country.
As I do not wish to delay matters by moving
an amendment to the resolution before the Chair,
I support it with the definite expectation that the
suggestions I have made will be taken into account when our report is being formulated.
Let us
look, and advise the electorate to look carefully
before they take their leap. God grant them
guidance.
Mr. Northcott It gives me much pleasure, sir, to
speak to the motion so ably moved by my learned
friend, Mr. Higgins and seconded by my good
friend, Mr. Vardy.
The time has come, sir, at last when we as true
Newfoundlanders can talk on forms of government now before the Chair and make recommendations.
In reviewing the many reports of the
Convention, I with many others am satisfied that
this country is not only self-supporting, but is in
a very good, sound, healthy condition, financially
and economically; and under good, wise counsel
and leadership, we should continue to be a strong,
happy, contented and a prosperous people.
My mind goes back to 1932-33 when, as it
were, our backs were up against the wall due to
the scarcity of dollars to run the country. Cannot
the same be said of many countries of the world
at that time? And did not a great many nations
default? If we had gotten a little help at that time
from our so-called good neighbours, there would
have been no need of the National Convention
today and Newfoundland would still have
retained responsible government, and I have not
the least shadow of a doubt but that our country
would have been very prosperous and happy
today. However, since 1933 a lot of water has
gone under the bridge. We have had many ups
and downs, many broken hearts and homes due
to the world war; but thanks be to God we are still
a great people and a great country; and, sir, under
Divine guidance, good government and real
leadership we shall, as Mr. Fudge has said, sail
our good ship safely to port and to safe anchorage.
Our great, friendly neighbour, America, is
slowly but surely opening the way for our fish to
enter into its markets, and when once we can ship
a great many of our fishery commodities into that
great republic, our people will obtain a better
price for their fish, and a much better standard of
living will be assured. But on the other hand, Mr.
Chairman, we must insist on giving them a number-one article so that we can hold the
market for
all time. I understand too that provision is being
made to take care of some of our saltfish. Therefore, with our fisheries in fair and
improving
conditions, our paper industries going full blast,
our mines working to full capacity, our railway
working full time, our farms doing well and being
extended rapidly; and last but not least, with the
very great iron ore deposit with its many, many
millions of dollars worth awaiting to be
developed on Labrador, how in the name of common sense and decency can one do otherwise
than support wholeheartedly the restoration of
self-government?
We are the crossroads of the world today, and
I pray that we, as real men, will see to it that we
remain as such; and may we use our bargaining
power wisely and well and for the betterment of
the country as a whole, and not for a mere few.
God gave us this great land to use to the best
of our ability, and not to abuse; and today our
country is only in the making. It is true we have
weathered many a storm, but as free men, and as
never before, may we march ever onward to
make Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders one
great happy family; and I am sure that if we do
just that, we cannot go far wrong, and there will
be no place for greed or graft in our midst.
And now, sir, in conclusion, about Commission government. It came in Newfoundland
when
our government, shall I say, faded out. The
Commission of Government was given grants-
in-aid by the mother country to tide us over the
terrible times we were then passing through.
They have made much progress. It is true they
have made many mistakes — what government
doesn't? But we should be ever grateful for their
strong arm in time of weakness.
The time is ripe, Mr. Chairman, for us to take
up the torch ourselves and wave it high, and to
see that it is kept waving for all time. Gentlemen,
I shall support the motion now before the Chair.
[Short recess]
Mr. Butt I just noted that Mr. Job is a generation
older that Mr. Northcott; Mr. Northcott is a
generation older than I am; and I thought this
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1303
might be a good time to make a few observations.
The National Convention, which is now coming near its end, came into being as a result
of the
existence of another organisation. It might never
have been called into existence if there had never
existed in Newfoundland a regime known as
"Government by Commission". The main reason
for the existence of the National Convention lay
in the desire of the United Kingdom government
to ascertain whether Newfoundlanders wanted a
continuation of Commission government or
some other form in its place. In my opinion, the
problem is probably stated in this motion of Mr.
Higgins to which I now speak. I support that
motion because I can admit of only two forms of
government known to and experienced by contemporary Newfoundlanders — self-government
and Commission government. There are other
forms of government existing in the world today,
all the way from Russian communism to British
socialism to American or Canadian federalism,
and other forms operating within the British
Commonwealth which may be possible or
suitable forms of government for Newfoundland.
But these forms are outside the practice of
government in Newfoundland and at the moment
we have no means, in my opinion, of testing them
accurately and fully enough to warrant asking the
people of this country to make a decision on
them, apart from the two which I have mentioned.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that
any people should be asked to choose between
more than that form of government which they
have and one other, at any one time. Will any
delegate please tell me any other people who
have been asked to do more anywhere at any
time? Normally to make a radical change in the
form of government requires many years of actively educating the people for that change.
Mr.
Higgins' motion covers the choice that I think
should now be put to the people of this country.
Some 20 months ago when the Convention
was being born, I had the privilege of telling
groups of people now within the sound of my
voice, that if they elected me as their delegate
they would understand that I would be looking
for that form of government which would give
the greatest possible freedom, consistent with a
tolerable standard of living. As this Convention
comes to an end I feel that I have now a duty to
perform. And after some 20 months of getting
information, comparing, studying and discussing
facts, I am now ready to discharge that duty. I am
ready, fully aware of the import of this matter, to
give my most serious and considered opinion as
to what form of government is in the best interest
of Newfoundland.
Some 20 months ago, I confess, I had my
doubts as to whether full self-government, which
offered the greatest political freedom, could give
us a tolerable standard of living. In common with
other Newfoundlanders I had been conditioned,
consciously or unconsciously, by the economic
depression which struck me as it did many other
Newfoundlanders. I had been conditioned by the
obvious weaknesses of the democratic way,
which had earned the phrase "decadent", until a
war against dictatorship awoke the democracies
into galvanised action. Like many contemporary
Newfoundlanders, I had also been conditioned by
the provincialism of living in an island, and I
think I may also add, by the insidious propaganda
of those who were weak in courage but strong in
playing safe. I had almost come to believe that
there were none so poor as Newfoundlanders in
that depression; none so depraved as
Newfoundland's politicians of that period; none
so poorly endowed by nature with natural resources to work on as this island home
of ours.
Later, I began to have my doubts as to whether
Newfoundland poverty was even as bad as that
of the depressed areas of England, or of the
"Grapes of Wrath" areas in America, or many
other places that could be mentioned in other
countries. Reading of the bosses of American
politics or the Canadian equivalents, I had begun
to doubt whether alongside them our politicians
were not just pikers. Still, as I say, I was in doubt.
I felt I knew what Newfoundlanders wanted —
that is, political freedom consistent with fair
security, but I was not sure which was the best
way out; considering seriously, for instance, a
modified form of Commission of Government as
perhaps the possible solution. In other words, I
entered the Convention with an open mind. In the
20 months to which I refer I have read a lot of
Newfoundland history, a lot of present day
economic and political papers, and I have, in
common with all you gentlemen here, had the
opportunity to study, and in some measure report
on the economic state of our country. I had also
the opportunity, in common with six other mem
1304 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
bers, of conferring with the United Kingdom
government in London.
As a result of all this I have now made up my
mind, with all the detachment and intellectual
honesty of which I am capable, that full self-
government would be in the best interests of
Newfoundland, particularly at this moment in our
history. My reasons for coming to this conclusion
will, in some measure, be set before you now.
Before I give my reasons, however, I would like
to say that I am accepting without question the
assumption that the political freedom which goes
with self-government — with all its dangers,
weaknesses, corruptions, responsibilities on the
part of politicians and on the part of citizens —
is the goal of all peoples like ourselves, nurtured
in the democratic tradition. I therefore propose to
give my attention chiefly to this matter of
material security, which is not unnaturally agitating men and women and on which is
laid the
emphasis of our times, always bearing in mind,
however, that too great a price must not be paid
for the one at the expense of the other. There will
be, as I think it is inevitable, some repetition in
what I have to say at this time. Nearly all of it has
been said before, perhaps on more than one occasion.
The most important point of all, the point
which caused the turning-point in my thinking,
arose out of our visit to London; and this was that
it was only by getting our own government — I
am giving the substance of what we were told by
the Secretary of State — that we could raise the
question with our friendly and wealthy neighbour
nation, the USA, on some form of concessions,
by trade agreement or otherwise, for the granting
of extra-territorial rights to that nation without
our consent. I am well aware that Newfoundland
had to be, of necessity, whether she liked it or not,
a factor in the defense of the western hemisphere,
which she will have to be in the future, whether
she likes it or not; just as Canada will have to be
a factor, and in the end will be dominated by the
USA in that respect. But I am also aware of the
fact that a nation which today, in common with
the British Empire, represents the highest ideals
of "live and let live" in this world of ours, would
not be unwilling to take the necessary measures
to see that a small people from whom she has
taken, in no small measure, a large part of her
sovereign rights was vouchsafed some returns for
her sacrifice. And I would point out here that
what to us would be of tremendous advantage,
would be a very small concession on the part of
our great neighbour.
Now as I have said before, I am not satisfied
to let the opportunity of approaching the United
States, whether we get anything or not, go by
default because we may not have the vision or the
courage to see the possibility. It was for that
reason that I pointed out on a former occasion,
that we ought not to deliver into the hands of any
other country the controlling power of our
strategic position. But some sceptic may be formulating this question: "But what has
that to do
with the standard of living for Newfoundlanders?" If we let control go by default,
nothing. If we do not, the answer is that our right
to bargain for trade concessions would have infinite possibilities which would affect
the earning
power, and hence the standard of living of every
individual citizen in this country. A trade concession, for instance, which would
increase our
markets or even create a new market for our fish
of all kinds, could spell all the difference for our
people between a decent standard of living and
an uncertain one. Our ability to negotiate with
any country could only be the highest under
self-government; and I repeat that that was the
definite impression on this matter that I received
from the Secretary of State.
My second reason is this. I believe we are on
the verge of a tremendous development of air
traffic, and it so happens that Newfoundland is so
strategically placed as to be of the utmost importance as a junction for one of the
most important
air routes of the world. In this connection once
again it was made abundantly clear, and we got
the definite impression, that that matter could
only be handled if we were to get a government
of our own, for the simple reason that it could not
be done under the present circumstances, for
political and other reasons, by His Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom. In this matter of air control and traffic of the
future, I again
repeat what I have said before, that we ought to
be able to extract certain material rights which
ought to affect the well-being of every citizen in
this country.
My third point is this, that during the last
couple of years it has been abundantly clear that
the USA as a nation has become of necessity,
because of the depletion of her own mineral
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1305
resources, tremendously interested in the iron ore
deposits recently discovered in the Newfoundland-Labrador. As that development takes
place, no government however benevolent could
look after the material interests to be derived
from the situation as well as a government of
Newfoundlanders fighting for Newfoundland's
interests It is admitted on all sides today that the
development of this mineral wealth can be
probably one of the most important, if not the
most important development that has ever taken
place in the history of this country. To bring this
home to us, let us suppose that the people of
Newfoundland would be assured in the future of
another industry which would be as valuable to
Newfoundland as the development of the paper
industry at Comer Brook. That is the position
with regard to the almost certain development of
the mineral deposits of the Labrador, if we can
believe the facts which have been placed before
us. The important thing to me is this: that we, the
people of Newfoundland, who should reap the
advantages from this wealthy resource, should be
in a position to get all the material advantages for
our own people.
The fourth reason which helped me to make
up my mind in favour of self-government is the
fact that the development of our fisheries, both
on the side of marketing possibilities and the
extension of the industry itself is, for a number of
reasons, stronger today than it has ever been. In
spite of the present difficulties, particularly exchange difficulties which I feel
certain will be
resolved, the over-riding consideration is that for
no little time to come there will be a shortage of
food in the world which Newfoundland fish will
help to fill. I believe that our recent progressiveness in the fisheries has been
due to a realisation
on the part of Newfoundland exporters of the
need for modernisation and diversification, and
for a more co-operative approach to the marketing problem which found its instrumentation
in
the Fisheries Board and further, that a government of Newfoundlanders would not jeopardise
these accomplishments, but would be anxious to
advance them still further.
Further, since 1934 (which we were bound to
take into consideration under our terms of reference) due to the goodwill and assistance
of the
British government, we were able to reduce our
permanent burden of debt interest by 100%. I
would point out that this amount of about $2.5
million yearly would, in our time of depression,
have very possibly saved us the loss of what
ought to be a very prized possession — political
independence.
Further, I am convinced that if we could once
get that spirit of national pride which pervades
the more progressive nations, big or small, we
would be in a position to take on to ourselves
under present conditions the whole of the balance
of our national debt. That national pride can best
be fostered at this time by the feeling that once
again we have had the guts to take our political
and economic future into our own hands as an
expression of faith in our country and in ourselves. There are a number of other things
which
have been added to the development of the
economy of the country. They have been mentioned so often that I propose to skip over
them.
Finally, there is still another reason why I feel
that self-government is the best for Newfoundland. It is a reason which is less easily
tied
down, because it has nothing to do with tangible
facts or figures. It has to do with personality, with
human hopes, with that quality of man that
pushes him onward through the generations
toward a better way of living. I happen to believe
that a man can best develop his personality, can
best arrive at what happiness is possible in this
life, through accepting all the dangers and possible catastrophes of independence.
The man
who relies on himself, we all know, takes a risk
on everything that he has — his health, his ability,
his wealth, his circumstances. But the man who
relies on others, who has no thought or power of
earning which is really his own, no achievements
that he can regard with pride as his own, no
victories over his own personal struggles — such
a man can know no victory because he knows no
defeat. So, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is with a
nation or a counuy; countries, like men, can only
achieve real maturity by accepting the challenge
of free will to make or break themselves.
Life is a struggle, and only those who do not
face this fact must escape into dependence upon
stronger personalities. One gentleman said,
"Responsible government is right in principle,
but wrong in practice." He was expressing an
escape into theory. Anything that exists in real
life cannot be right in principle and wrong in
practice. The most one can say of it is that it is
1306 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
being practiced with the hope that its weaknesses
will gradually be overcome. It can be right in
principle and imperfect in practice, but not
wrong. By making such a statement the
gentleman is being very naive. He is making the
sort of statement that has no meaning in real life.
Why it was made, people can judge for themselves.... It is not self-government that
is wrong, that
has its weaknesses, it is we who have the weaknesses, the men and women who in the
last
analysis make it what it is. But I happen to believe
in Newfoundland men and women — no better,
no worse than other men and women in their
ability to progress and improve and work out a
destiny for themselves. For the same reason I
believe that that system of self-government can
progress and improve. Otherwise I would not
advocate it. I believe men and women no longer
are satisfied with government which gives political freedom but denies freedom to
carve out in an
intricate world a means of making a decent
living. Why should we assume, as has been done
so often, that self-government is to be a stagnant,
reactionary, dead thing? Does it not exist as a
means of implementing the wishes of the people?
When we are asked what is the good of a vote to
a man who has nothing to eat, the answer is, "It
is no good." But the question itself does not make
sense. A man does not want a vote instead of
food. Nobody ever argued that. Neither does he
want food at a price which will bring the loss of
his self-respect, his power to develop and live
more fully. In short, most men who are men at all
feel that they are entitled to both. And I think they
are right. I think also, under self-government that
they have at this moment in our history the best
opportunity of getting both. Otherwise I would
not be advocating it.
"But", says my timid friend, "who will
guarantee that he will get both? Who will guarantee that his interests will not be
forgotten? Who
will guarantee him against inefficiency in
government, corruption among politicians,
preferment among certain classes? That is a $64
question." It is indeed a $64 question. And the
answer is, "Who other on this earth but you and
me, sir, who other but the little fellow, the fisherman, the farmer, the logger, the
teacher, the office
clerk?" He and his fellows must see to it that the
politicians they vote for — or even more effectively sometimes, the politicians they
refuse to
vote for — the economic planning they agitate
for, the values they would set store by, will be
implemented; and if we ordinary citizens do not
see that this is done, then forms of government in
themselves are meaningless and all our work and
talking in this Convention for the last 20 months,
in my personal opinion, futile.
If we as voters do not want corruption, we
must throw out those who practice it. If we are
offered the kind of candidates whose integrity
does not satisfy us, then we must organise to
replace them by others whom we the people will
prevail upon to offer themselves, at our request,
to the service of their country. If politicians, on
the other hand, do not want to be hampered in
their desire to be statesmenlike by job-seekers,
by incessant requests to spoonfeed certain communities, then they must initiate certain
safeguards against such weakening paternalism.... The people must encourage the formation
of decentralised government through
councils, boards and municipalities.
In discharging my duty as a member of the
Convention as a result of no little study and
thought, by giving my opinion on the question
of forms of government, I am in honour bound
to say something else which is of great importance. Whilst I think that Newfoundland
and
Newfoundlanders have most to profit from a
form of government which is free and independent, I am duty bound to say that I believe
that that form of government does not necessarily
offer the easiest way. I believe it demands more
sacrifice, more native ability, more self-administered checks and responsibilities
than any
other form considered in this Convention so far.
I feel it would be wrong to recommend self-
government to the people of Newfoundland as
the easiest way out. But just because it is not the
easiest way out, and because of the future potential of this country, I feel, after
20 months of
study, that given the effort, the results will be the
most rewarding from self-government.
In speaking to another motion a short while
ago, a gentleman here said, on the same point to
which I have just referred, that another form of
government would not necessarily mean that we
would not have to struggle for an existence. I
would like to bring that in to emphasise the last
thing I propose to say and it is this: that only by
knuckling down to our problem, by doing it our
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1307
selves, can we hope to bring about in Newfoundland that decent standard of living
and certain independence which we all desire. One great
man, now passed to his reward, said it this way
— a man who devoted his life to achieving small
steps towards the future betterment of Newfoundland, a man whom Newfoundlanders have
reason to respect, Sir Wilfred Grenfell; what he
said was this: "What this country needs is not
infallibility, but courage."
Mr. Vincent I move that the debate be now
adjourned until three o'clock tomorrow.
[The motion carried, and the remaining orders of
the day deferred]
Mr. Higgins As Iintimated yesterday afternoon,
I proposed, with the consent of the House, to
introduce this evening a motion whereby members absent through illness or for good
and sufficient cause, would have the right to have their
wishes recorded at this stage of the proceedings.
As you will remember, sir, I intimated some
months ago that Mr. K.M. Brown had made a
request to me that provision be made whereby his
vote could be recorded. You are aware of the
details of our application at that time time to make
provision in this respect. Because of that, and I
think it is imperative, if the House is satisfied to
receive the motion I think we should pass it as
soon as possible, and perhaps I could make the
motion now.
Mr. Chairman In that case, I will try and endeavour to ascertain the wishes of the House. As
the House is aware, this is a motion of urgency,
but I am not expected to receive a motion without
previous notice. In this particular connection the
matter was gone into at a private session held
approximately a month ago, and I think it was
agreed that some machinery should be set up
whereby Mr. Brown, because of illness, would
not be deprived of the privilege of recording his
vote. In fact, I would be prepared to record it now
under rule 39. I must assume Mr. Brown is in
good standing, at all events, and the nature of the
motion has already been made known to the
house.... The motion therefore is that the operation of rule 13 be suspended so as
to permit Mr.
Higgins to introduce the motion, the substance of
which has already been made known to the
House, without the necessity of giving notice.
[The motion carried]
Whereas section 39 of the rules of procedure of this Convention requires the Convention,
in discharging its duty to make
recommendations to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom as to possible
forms of future government to be put before
the people at a national referendum, to include in its report to the Secretary of
State for
Dominion Affairs the opinion of each several
member of the Convention as to the form or
forms of government which; in his opinion,
should be put before the people together with
any preference which he may desire to express as between one form of government
and another;
And whereas no provision is made in the
Convention's rules of procedure for recording the opinion of any member absent from
the Convention;
And whereas by section 54 of the rules of
procedure, when any matter arises in the
course of the proceedings not covered by the
rules of procedure of the Convention, then
the rules of the House of Assembly shall
apply;
And whereas by the rules of the House of
Assembly it would be imperative that a member be present for the purpose of voting;
Be it therefore resolved that section 54 of
the rules of procedure of the National Convention be amended by adding to paragraph
54 the following words: "save and except that
in the event of a member of the Convention
being incapacitated by reason of illness or
some other good or sufficient reason from
attending the meeting of the Convention,
such member shall have the right to have his
vote recorded by delivering to the Chairman
of the Convention an expression of his
wishes. The wishes of such member may be
conveyed to the Chairman by letter or by
telegram from and bearing the signature of
any such member."
Mr. Chairman In putting this motion, let me
again remind members that no man can afford to
disregard what each needs for his own protection.
Since it is of general application and concerns
everybody, I presume at this time that the nature
and substance of the resolution is clear to all.... Is
1308 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
the Convention ready for the question?
Mr. Hollett Before you put that — it is clearly
understood, I take it, that such indication by any
member, by telegram, letter or otherwise, will be
available to the members and to
Hansard or in
some other manner?
Mr. Chairman ....The opinions of all members
will be recorded and the opinions of such members who express a preference will also
be
recorded. Therefore, if I receive from any member any expression of opinion on either
or both
of these two questions, by letter or by telegram,
from and bearing the signatures of any such
member, it will be my duty to see that his vote on
either or both questions will be in the records of
the House.
[The motion carried]
Mr. Higgins May I advance a little further along
so that I can have it understood — I intend to
communicate with Mr. Brown. I take it, when we
finish this debate tomorrow, if the motion is
carried there and then, the members will not have
to express their preference?
Mr. Chairman There is another point and I
want to make this clear. If any member of the
House has any objection to it, I want him to state
it now. Suppose for argument's sake a poll is
taken at 5 o'clock, and 30 minutes after the poll
has been taken the letter or cable arrives from Mr.
Brown. I intend to record the views expressed by
Mr. Brown whether or not the document containing his expressions has reached me at
the time the
poll is taken....
Mr. Vardy I take it, the deadline would be the
time the Drafting Committee had completed its
report.
Mr. Chairman That is my view. Any time between now and when it goes to the Drafting
Committee, any letters or telegrams directed to
me from any members, like Mr. Brown, who are
unavoidably absent through illness or any other
circumstances, I will cause their views to be be
recorded the moment I receive the letter or cable,
and the deadline can only be at the moment when
you pass the matter over to the Drafting Committee for finalisation,
Mr. Hollett On that, would it not be passed over
to the Drafting Committee after voting is taken?
Would that allow much time to record his vote?
Mr. Chairman ....As you know, it was agreed
that Monday and Tuesday would be devoted to
the final order now on the order paper and that
means the matter would not go before the Drafting Committee before Wednesday morning.
At
all events, it is proposed to submit the draft to the
Convention for ratification and adoption on
Thursday. Any time up to next Thursday, before
it comes up for ratification, anything I receive
definitely will be recorded.
[The Convention adjourned]
