Mr. Higgins Mr. Chairman, before going into
the motion proper,
[1] and so that I won't use up
time when I may need it, I want to draw the
attention of members to the two sheets I have
taken the liberty of having placed on their desks.
I am sure they are known to most members, but
some may not be as familiar with it, and I thought
it would not be any harm, in our discussions, to
have them actually prepared. You will notice the
first page, "United States Concessions to Newfoundland", and the word "Secret" marked
on it.
On that page are concessions given to Newfoundland for which she had to pay certain
concessions to United States. On the other two pages
are the concessions that were given without any
consideration on our part whatsoever....
Mr. Chairman, in moving the motion which
appears under my name on the order paper this
afternoon, I would remind you once again of the
terms of reference under which this Convention
is constituted, and in particular section 3, which
makes it necessary for this Convention to recommend forms of government. My own inclination
in the matter, would be to recommend one form
of government only, namely responsible government, but to conform to our terms of
reference
under the Convention Act it is necessary to
recommend
forms of government. Therefore this
resolution means, if it passes, that two forms of
government will be recommended to His
Majesty's Government to be put before the
people at a national referendum.
Let us review briefly the steps that led to the
formation of this assembly of which we are members. In the years of the world depression,
beginning around 1930, Newfoundland, in company
with the rest of the world, got in deep water. This
condition was by no means peculiar to Newfoundland, as you all know. The government
of
the day, under the late Hon. F.C. Alderdice, became worried about the condition of
the country,
and approached the United Kingdom in the mat
1234 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
ter. As a result of this application the famous
royal commission presided over by Lord Amulree was appointed. It is of interest to
note at this
time that in the last election for responsible
government the party led by the late Mr. Alderdice won by a sweeping majority, and
only two
of the opposing party were elected, the present
member from Green Bay
[1] and the member from
Bonavista, Mr. Bradley, and voicing all your sentiments, I say we are all glad to
have Mr. Bradley
back with us today. There was also elected for the
Alderdice party at that time Mr. K.M. Brown,
another member of this Convention, although not
with us just now unfortunately; and also at that
election we have another member of this Convention contesting a seat, in the person
of the
representative from Bonavista Centre, Mr.
Smallwood. His opponent at that time was Mr.
Quinton. I feel fairly safe in saying that had Mr.
Smallwood been elected at that time it is possible
that we would never have lost responsible
government, because we all know, particularly in
this House, what an ardent exponent of responsible government Mr. Smallwood was all
through the years of Commission government,
and up until a short time before this Convention
opened. In newspaper articles, which I would
read to you if permitted, Mr. Smallwood
demonstrated himself as the most eager advocate
of responsible government. In his "Barrelman"
programmes he spent many years helping along
the cause and, in fact, it was not until he came in
close contact with residents of Canada at Gander
that his ardour cooled, until now he is the most
destructive opponent of responsible government
as we knew it in 1934. Who among us here will
forget his damning speech at the introduction of
his confederation resolution on October 28,
1946? Let me quote from that speech:
Compared with the mainland of North
America we are 50 years, in some things 100
years, behind the times. We live more poorly,
more shabbily, more meanly. Our life is more
of a slruggle. Our struggle is tougher, more
naked, more hopeless. In the North American
family Newfoundland bears the reputation of
having the lowest standard of life, of being
the least progressive and advanced of the
whole family. A metamorphosis steals over
us the minute we cross the border that
separates us from Newfoundland. We are not
indignant about them; we save our indignation for those who publish such facts, for
with
all our complacency, with all our readiness
to receive, to take for granted, and even to
justify these things amongst ourselves, we
are, strange to say, angry and hurt when these
shocking facts become known to the outside
world.
I do not know who is making them known.
Gentlemen, to me these are just the vapourings
of Mr. Smallwood. I well remember Mr. K.M.
Brown standing up there and saying, "These
words pierced me to the heart."
However, to return to events leading up to this
Convention. The commission under Lord Amulree was constituted by a royal warrant dated
February 17, 1933. It consisted of William Warrender MacKenzie, Baron Amulree, Charles
Alexander McGrath and Sir William Ewen
Stavert with Peter Alexander Clutterbuck as
Secretary. This commission assembled in
St. John's on March 13, and began its sessions on
March 20, 1933. During its collection of
evidence, it also visited Canada, arriving there on
April 29, and leaving on May 27, 1933. During
that time the commission had interviews with the
Canadian government and took evidence of witnesses. They adjourned their sittings
in July and
began to compile a report which was presented
on September 14, 1933.
[2] This report, which was
the basis for the formation of our present Commission of Government, was contained
in a
volume of 283 pages, complete with maps and
other exhibits.
As you are aware, the reason for this commission was the inability of the Newfoundland
government at that time to pay the interest on the
bonds. A number of people in Newfoundland
thought and still think that there would have been
nothing wrong in Newfoundland defaulting on its
bond interest at that time, and as events proved
later, some of the major countries of the world
did so. However, little Newfoundland could not
do so because it would be a disgrace to the
Empire. I would quote to you paragraph 513 of
the report:
We have been content to dwell on the
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1235
consequences of default to the Island itself
and to pass over the effects which default by
a part of the British Empire would be likely
to produce on other parts of the Empire and
even elsewhere. The people of Newfoundland would not, we are sure, be prepared to
ignore this latter consideration as a matter of
no concern to themselves. As we have said,
default by a British community would be
without precedent, and such a step would at
once retard the general recovery and tarnish
the good name of the British Commonwealth. Alike in its own interest and out of
loyalty to the Commonwealth, the Island
should take every possible step to avert so
great a misfortune.
I would draw your attention also to paragraph 551
of the report, which I quote to you:
After much anxious consideration, therefore, and in spite of a strong pre-disposition
in favour of the maintenance of established
representative institutions and of responsible
government, we have been forced to the conclusion that only by a radical change of
regime for a limited period of years can the
Island be assisted to effective recovery....
And also paragraph 557:
After examination of all the alternative
courses that have been put before us from
time to time and of the variants that have
suggested themselves to us, we have no
hesitation in saying that, in the circumstances
now prevailing in Newfoundland, the
proposal that a system of "Government by
Commission" should be established for a
limited period of years affords the best hope
of enabling the Island to make a speedy and
effective recovery from its present difficulties. We proceed, therefore, to outline
the
plan of reconstructions which we propose to
recommend, a plan which has been specially
devised to meet the present emergency and
which is based on the understanding that, as
soon as the Island's difficulties are overcome
and Newfoundland is again self-supporting,
responsible government, on request from the
people of Newfoundland, would be restored.
And also the summary recommendations contained in paragraph 562:
1. The suspension of the existing form of
government until such time as the Island may
become self-supporting again....
6. Your Majesty's Government in the
United Kingdom would, for their part, assume general responsibility for the finances
of the Island until such time as it may become
self-supporting again, and would, in particular, make such arrangements as may be
deemed just and practicable with a view to
securing to Newfoundland's reduction in the
present burden of the public debt.
And further to sub-paragraph 3 of paragraph 634:
It is essential, if this object is to be achieved,
that the country should be given a rest from
party politics for a period of years, and we have
no hesitation in saying that, in the circumstances now prevailing in Newfoundland,
the
proposal that a system of "Government by
Commission" should be established for a
limited period affords the best means of enabling the Island to make a speedy and
effective
recovery from its present difficulties.
And also to sub-paragraph 4 of paragraph 634
sub-paragraphs A and G:
A. The existing form of government
would be suspended until such time as the
Island may become self-supporting again.
G. It would be understood that, as soon as
the Island's difficulties are overcome and the
country is again self-supporting, responsible
government, on request from the people of
Newfoundland, would be restored.
To go further in this description, in January
1934 the Legislative Council and Assembly, in a
joint address to His Majesty the King, requested
suspension of the Letters Patent, and the issuance
of new Letters Patent to provide for the administration of the island until such time
as it
became self-supporting again. On January 30
1934, by the Newfoundland Act, 1933, provision
was made for the administration of Newfoundland during the period whilst the operation
of the former Letters Patent was suspended, and
so Commission of Government was brought into
being.
You will thus see quite clearly that it was the
intention of the compilers of this report and of our
House of Assembly and Legislative Council, and
furthermore of the British government, that Commission of Government should only be
a temporary measure. I should like to give you my
opinion, for what it is worth, on the legal position
1236 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
arising out of the agreement made with this
country when we agreed to relinquish responsible government.
The strict legal position is that this country
was entitled as of right to demand the return of
responsible government as soon as we were self-
supporting. The only justification for this Convention is to present the facts to
the people of the
country, to enable them to make up their minds
as to whether or not they wish to advise the
United Kingdom government that it was their
desire that responsible government be restored.
The only choice that can be put at the referendum
is between responsible government as it existed
prior to 1934 and Commission of Government as
it presently exists. I am quite certain that the act
constituting this Convention was never intended
to cancel the agreement between the Newfoundland and United Kingdom governments
and that the words in our Convention Act, "forms
of government", must and can only mean two
forms, Commission of Government or responsible government. I say this, Mr. Chairman,
in spite of any contrary interpretation given by
our constitutional expert, Professor Wheare.
To buttress my opinion, I would refer you to
the White Paper, namely the
Report on the Financial and Economic Position of Newfoundland
presented by the Secretary of State for the
Dominions to Parliament in June, 1946.
[1] On the
first page is stated, "Under the agreement made
with the Newfoundland people in 1933 a pledge
was given that as soon as the island's difficulties
had been overcome and the country was again
self-supporting, responsible government would
on request from the people of Newfoundland be
restored."
Mr. Higgins The Chadwick-Jones Report. I
would refer you also to the statement made in the
House of Commons on December 2, 1943, by
Mr. Emrys-Evans, Under-Secretary of State for
the Dominions during the debate on Newfoundland affairs:
The arrangements made in 1933 included
a pledge by His Majesty's Government that
as soon as the island's difficulties had been
overcome and the country was again self-
supporting, responsible government, on request of the people of Newfoundland would
be restored. Our whole policy is governed by
this undertaking. As soon as practicable after
the end of the war, that is, the war in Europe,
machinery must be provided for enabling the
Newfoundland people to examine the future
of the island and to express their considered
views as to the form of government they
desire, having regard to the financial and
economic conditions prevailing at the time
If the general wish of the people should be
for a return to responsible government, we
for our part shall be very ready if the island
is then self-supporting to facilitate such a
change. If, however, the general wish should
be either for the continuance of the present
form of government or for some change of
the system which would fall short of full
responsible government, we shall be
prepared to examine such proposals sympathetically and consider within what limits
the continued acceptance of responsibility by
the United Kingdom could be recommended
to Parliament.
And now, gentlemen, to enable you to express
your considered views as to the form of government you should recommend, I intend
to read to
you the summary of the reports on our three main
industries — mining, forestry and fisheries, and
the concluding paragraphs of the Economic
Report. The most important one first — the
fisheries. I would direct your attention to the
mimeographed sheets which are on your desks
entitled "United States Concessions to Newfoundland," and "Reduction in Tariffs of
interest
to Newfoundland other than those obtained in
direct negotiations."
Previously the quota for fresh-frozen fish was
an annual one beginning January 1 each year. The
quota was always used up within the first few
months of the year.... Our main operations do not
start until May, so Newfoundland was getting
very little if any benefit from the reduced quota
rate. Now the quota is subdivided into four
quarterly periods which improves our position
tremendously. The credit for making this arrangement goes entirely to Mr. R. Gushue,
Chairman of the Newfoundland Fisheries Board. I
asked Mr. Gushue his opinion of the future of our
fresh-frozen fish in the United States as compared with that of other countries. He
told me,
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1237
"Because of its freshness and quality, there is a
strong demand for Newfoundland fish." I direct
your attention to the note on page 2 relative to
fresh-frozen fish: "The head of the National
Fisheries Institute of the United States has
predicted an increased consumption this year."
The explanation is that the United States
authorities estimate their annual consumption for
a three year period as 180,000 tons and of that,
quotas permit 15% or 27 million pounds to enter
the United States at the low rate of 1 7/8 cents per
pound, the remainder at 2 1/2 cents per pound. As
the rate of consumption increases, the amount
coming in at the lower rate increases. Whilst the
former rate was the same, it was not bound. The
agreement cannot be varied for three years and
then if it is not denounced it carries on indefinitely.... On being asked what effect
this agreement
would have on Newfoundland, Mr. Gushue said,
"It gives security to fresh-frozen fish operators
and the advantage of a quarterly quota. It will
mean that more fresh-frozen fish will be
produced than last year and so on from year to
year. It is bound to mean increased employment."
On being asked how our fresh fish business compared with similar kinds elsewhere,
he said,
"Newfoundland has made progressively greater
gains than any other country. The standard of our
plants is higher than that of any other country."
"This", he said, "was confirmed by two Norwegian experts who came here two months
ago
and came back again." "They tell me", said
Mr. Gushue, "that there is nothing like our plants
on the North American continent."
This year we are going to have a record for
saltfish going to Puerto Rico and this month we
are making the first direct shipment to Cuba. The
chairman said, "we can look forward to an increased demand in America, both north
and
south, for saltfish." The great reason that is important is that we will be paid for
the saltfish in
dollars.
In summing up the Cold Storage Industry Interim Report, the Fisheries Committee says:
To sum up the position it seems clear to
the Fisheries Committee that a very strong
case can be worked up for special consideration in any negotiations for improvement
in
trading relations with the United States of
America as well as with Canada and Great
Britain on the following grounds:
1. The future welfare of Newfoundland is
without doubt mainly dependent upon a free
market for her export products, especially
those from the fisheries.
2. The future ability of Newfoundland to
secure and maintain for her fishermen and
other inhabitants a fair and decent standard
of living is largely dependent upon such free
markets.
3. The strategical position of Newfoundland as disclosed by conditions arising
out of the recent world war, is of the utmost
importance to the millions of people in the
United States of America and also to those of
Canada and Great Britain, and all these
countries have a definite interest in assisting
the people of Newfoundland to improve their
standard of living for the following reasons:
(a) In the case of Canada the importance
of a prosperous Newfoundland is of special
interest owing to the fact that Newfoundland's imports from Canada amount to a very
large percentage of the total imports into
Newfoundland, whereas unfortunately she is
not in a position to provide in her own
country a market for Newfoundland's chief
exports. It is therefore to the interest of
Canada to help and encourage our export
trade in other directions, in order to retain and
increase her present exports to Newfoundland. Moreover, Canada has already
received important concessions from Newfoundland.
(b) Great Britain is obviously anxious to
assist us. In recent years she has supplied
grants-in-aid to Newfoundland provided
from the taxation of her own people, but it is
quite likely she may not be in a position to
continue these in future years. She can assist
us in making better tariff arrangements not
only with the United States of America, but
with other countries. Moreover, it can be
borne in mind that it was with her authority
that sections of our territory have been ceded
to the United States of America without any
suitable quid pro quo for Newfoundland.
(c) In the case of the United States of
America leases of Newfoundland territory
for military and naval bases for 99 years, and
at the same time facilities for free entry
without taxation of any sort on products im
1238 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1984
ported into this country for use of these bases,
were conceded to the United States of
America without the provision of any direct
quid pro quo for Newfoundland.
4. It would seem to be extremely important to the people of Newfoundland that endeavours
should be made to secure
favourable trade arrangements for Newfoundland with the United States of America,
not only on the basis of reciprocal tariff concessions, but also as a quid pro quo for the
concessions already granted by way of 99-
year leases and free customs entries.
I refer you next to the conclusions of the
Committee on Mining:
From our investigations we are satisfied
that the country has a great future in mining.
We say this for the following reasons:
(a) Whilst Buchans has only known life of
seven more years, the management feel
hopeful that more ore will be found at
Buchans. This ore has an assured market;
(b) Bell Island has practically unlimited
resources. Providing the ore can continue to
be mined at a price to meet outside competition, the market is assured. There is every
indication that this condition will be met;
(c)The prospects for continuous employment
at St. Lawrence appear to be excellent;
(d) Employment at Aguathuna is expected
to maintain its present standard;
(e) The smaller industries, brick, limestone,
etc. will, it is expected, continue their present
production;
(f) The iron ore deposits of Labrador, we
believe, will be a great factor in the future
economy of the country;
(g) The asbestos development in the Lewis
Hills has good promise of becoming a success;
(h) The mine at LaManche, we believe, will
go into production during the present year;
(i) The option of Tilt Cove by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Co. Ltd., may
indicate a re-opening of this mine;
(j) The prospecting program planned for the
next four years by the Buchans Mining
Co. Ltd, may very well give us a new mine;
(k) The cement proposition at Port-au-Port
and the Pilley's Island pyrites are developments that might well be considered by
the
Newfoundland Industrial Development
Board;
Apart from the iron ore in Labrador, your
Committee is of opinion that this territory has
excellent mineral prospects...
And, gentlemen, the summary of the
Forestry Report:
In concluding this report, we give for the
information of the Convention as well as the
country as a whole, the following summary
of our findings:
(1) The pulp and paper industry in Newfoundland at the present time is in a most
flourishing condition.
(2) Plans by the two companies for the future
envisage a total annual saleable production
of approximately 550,000 tons of both
newspaper and sulphite annually.
(3) We estimate that at the moment the annual earnings of our people from the pulp
and
paper industry is around $15 million.
(4) It is estimated that within a period of
another two or three years, the pulp and paper
industry will employ about 12,000 of our
people, and that their annual earnings will be
close to $20 million...
(11) Recapitulating the entire forest operations of the country, both Newfoundland
and
Labrador, we find that at the present time
some 14,000 of our people are engaged in this
major industry; that the total earning power
at present amounts to some $16 million yearly. On the most conservative basis we visualize
that within a period of three years at least
15,000 people will find employment in our
various forestry operations, and that the total
earning power accruing to them should be not
less than $20 million yearly.
With respect to the other primary industry,
agriculture, I understand that the committee
found when they made up the report that the value
of that industry to Newfoundland in 1946 was
some $12 million, but this year, I believe, the
Director of Agriculture informed the chairman of
the committee, Mr. Butt, that it will reach $15
million, so you can see that also is on the up.
And now, gentlemen, to conclude the summary of the reports — after all, the Economic
Report is the summary of all the reports that came
before us, it is the findings from these reports by
the Economic Committee. I would draw to your
attention that it is the
only report of the nine or
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1239
ten reports presented at this Convention that was
adopted. You will remember that the other night
it was actually passed and adopted unanimously.... Now, gentlemen, I go to the summary:
[1]
Now the first matter which engaged our
attention was the question of whether Newfoundland was self-supporting. The Report
of the Finance Committee of this Convention
indicates that we are. In 1945 the Secretary
of State for Dominion Affairs, according to
the British Hansard, stated in the British
House of Commons that Newfoundland was
self-supporting. And Commissioner for
Finance Wild, when he appeared before this
Convention one year ago, distinctly stated
that Newfoundland was self-supporting.
During the discussions of the delegation from
this National Convention to London with
Lord Addison, he told us the same thing. We
think therefore that we can, without further
discussion, accept the fact that Newfoundland is now a self-supporting country.
But the terms of reference of this Convention contain the following qualification:
"to
consider our present financial position hearing in mind the extent to which the high
revenues of recent years have been due to war
time conditions." In this connection we have
the following observations to make. In the
first place the war has now been over for over
two years and we find our revenues even
greater than our highest war time revenues.
Now, making every allowance for the
momentum of war expenditures, carrying on
after the close of hostilities, and allowing for
the gradual recession of this boom period, it
is yet an obvious fact that our present
revenues cannot be something dependent on
war boom. There must be some other cause,
and on examining the matter further we
found that a great portion of our present
revenue is coming to us because of the
growth of our main industries. Now, these
industries are wholly peace industries and are
not dependent for their prosperity on war
conditions. It is clear merefore that we can
properly regard our present revenues as being
anything but a result of war boom....
Reviewing therefore the results of our in
vestigation, we arrive at the following conclusions:
(1) That Newfoundland is at present a
self-supporting country based on sound
economic factors;
(2) That all the evidence available to us
indicates that this position of self-support
will continue in the foreseeable future.
In view of the above, we feel that it is not
beyond the province of our report to conclude
with the observation that it would seem to
your Committee, in reviewing their investigations, that it is to be regretted that
the list
of our assets does not contain in greater quantity, one which we cannot place in the
columns of our Economic Report; we mean
faith in ourselves, the faith and confidence
which every man owes to himself and his
country. This lack of faith, of course, is not
so with all of us. Our farmers cannot understand the mystery of growth, yet by faith
they
cast their seed into the earth and God gives a
bountiful harvest. Our fisherman knows not
the fortunes which await him on the bosom
of our waters, but each year finds him ready
to venture with faith and confidence upon his
quest, and it is proper that this should be so.
For faith and trust are in the inescapable laws
of both individuals and nations. To use the
words of the late President Roosevelt, "We
have nothing to fear but fear itself."
That, gentlemen, is the summary of the findings of the Economic Committee, which has
been
subscribed to unanimously by the members of
this House. Now to get back to the motion. I think
I have ten minutes, Mr. Chairman, if I am right.
I don't want to go over the time.
Mr. Higgins Thank you. Well, gentlemen, if
this motion which is tabled before you now passes, and it is the only recommendation
that goes
to the United Kingdom, where does this leave us?
It puts the country exactly where it was before
this Convention started. It puts the problem clearly up to the United Kingdom government,
where
it should have been from the first. It says, in
effect, that the people of Newfoundland, through
the voice of its elected representatives, is requesting the United Kingdom government
to honour
1240 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
its bond, because the agreement under which this
country agreed to relinquish responsible government was indeed a bond subscribed to
by the
United Kingdom government. Then you say,
"Has this Convention been a complete waste of
time and money?" I for one, and I know that most
of you here will agree with me, think that this is
not so. I submit that if it has done nothing else but
awaken this country from its torpor, from its long
sleep, from its lack of interest in all things political, then it has more than justified
its existence,
but I say that it's given to the people of this
country not only that awakened interest, but a lot
of valuable facts that in a large measure and to
great extent a number of us never would have
acquired. We may say that they have gotten them
in capsule form, through the radio, but nevertheless they have gotten those facts.
I would say that
the members have put a lot of hard work into this
Convention, at great inconvenience to themselves and in many cases at financial loss.
If, at
times, tempers have flared and matters have gotten somewhat out of hand, this was
only to be
expected, and it merely proves to me how
seriously the members of this Convention were
taking their duties.
All things being considered, I am satisfied that
this Convention has justified its existence, and a
lot of thanks are due to the radio operators and to
the gentlemen of the press, because all the talking
we have done would have been to naught if it had
not been broadcast. It is true that at times we have
been abusing the radio, but at all events, whether
it has prolonged the Convention or not, whether
some people think it has been a pretty high rate
of entertainment they have received, I say that
what they have heard on a number of occasions
is not the true worth of this Convention, and that
the members have done a good job, and that the
end has justified the means.
However, to return to the motion, and my own
opinion that we assume our true obligation of
responsible government. We have heard, here
and outside, the members of responsible governments of the past slandered. This has
not been
confined only to our own countrymen, but it
appears in the columns of that famous Amulree
Report as well. With all due respect to our own
countrymen and the compilers of that report, I
want you to consider the revenues of this country
and the revenues that the men who ran our
responsible government had to contend with.
Responsible government was attained in 1855,
and it is very difficult in this day of big money to
realise that in 1855 the first responsible government of Newfoundland had a total
revenue of not
more than $500,000. And all you have got to do
for the other figures is to go to the Finance
Report, where you have the figures from 1897 up
to the present day. In 1897 there was merely $1.7
million in revenue, in 1902 there was $23 million, in 1909 $3 million, in 1914 $3.9
million.
The first time we got up to $10 million was in
1919, and back it went again to $8 million for a
number of years. In fact the highest revenue that
responsible government ever had to run the business of this country was in 1929-30,
when they
had the enormous sum of $11.5 million.... So
gentlemen, all I can say to you is that to run this
country on the amount of money that our past
governments had to run it with, was nothing short
of miraculous. Where else in the world could it
have happened? Where else could you get the
men to do the job? I might be permitted to
paraphrase Mr. Churchill: "Never did so few do
so much with so little"; and I might add, "for so
little."
What did they get out of it, I ask you? Nothing,
except the satisfaction of sewing their country.
All the way down the line from Dr. Carson, the
ancestor of Mr. Job, our government had good
men and true, and what did they get for their
services of this country? Abuse in their lifetime
and slander of their names after their death. So I
say to you in all sincerity that Newfoundland has
a debt you can never repay to these great men of
our past governments, who served this country
only too well at the expense of their own happiness and well-being. Let us in some
measure, as
some recompense for their work and as a tribute
to their memory, resolve to once again relight the
fires that they so well lit, and so valiantly and
nobly created. Let us keep our trust with them,
and have faith in ourselves and in our country. I
move the motion, sir.
Mr. Vardy Mr. Chairman, I have much
pleasure in seconding the resolution moved by
Mr. Higgins. It is, in my opinion, the most important business yet brought before
the Convention,
so important in fact, that it behoves the most
flexible mind to examine soberly and carefully
the stark realities of what might be the outcome
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1241
of a hasty decision. If I had worded this resolution
I would have said:
1. Be it resolved that this Convention
recommend to the United Kingdom government that the wishes of the people of Newfoundland
should be ascertained at the
earliest moment as to whether it is their desire
that a revised form of self-govemment of not
more than 15 men elected from 15 districts to
constitute the local government of Newfoundland, be restored; and that, in view of
our important strategic position and the unretrievable commitments of the Commonwealth
Office with respect to American and
Canadian bases in Newfoundland territory,
an international committee of three be appointed from the respective governments of
Great Britain, the USA and Canada, to take
charge of our foreign policy in matters of
defence only, it being understood that this is
not to be construed as giving any right to any
outside power to interfere with our domestic
or economic control of all local or foreign
economic affairs.
2. Or that the present form of Commission government be continued for a period of
not more than four years.
However, as the first and most important part
of this resolution can be properly taken care of by
the first duly elected government, I am prepared
to support the motion as it stands, as our people
must perforce either want selfgovemment or they
do not want it, and I am fully prepared to accept
their judgement on the matter. There is one
reason why I would agree to putting Commission
of Government on the ballot paper. At any time
after 1936 to 1941, when we began to feel the
effect of the war time prosperity, it is the generally accepted opinion that the big
majority of our
people would have readily agreed to the return to
self-government without modifications. Under
the unprecedented prosperity of our country,
through circumstances over which the Commission of Government had neither influence
nor
control, a large number of our people have lost
sight of the true causes for the influx of foreign
capital and the high prices for our commodities,
and they have been giving credit to a form of
government of which neither the personnel nor
the form had anything whatever to do with it. I
do not quarrel with anyone who disagrees with
me, not even the members of the Commission
themselves. That is their right. In my opinion
most of them on the Commission at present are
fine men, and I have a high opinion of them; but
they and others who have served that unpopular
body have agreed openly that the form is wrong
for any country in this modern age, when all
people, regardless of race or creed, are clamouring for the right to choose the form
of government
under which they will live. But for the fact that I
know our surplus would be gone in four years
unless it could be locked up outside their reach, I
would like to see them suffer for some of the sins
for which I know the government of that four
years will be held responsible, but for which
resettling world conditions will be to blame. By
that time I feel we will have our feet on terra firma
and be able safely to carry on without the aid of
any surplus.
For the last time in this Convention I shall
repeat paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Atlantic Charter:
2. They desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed
wishes of the peoples concerned
Territorial changes did take place in Newfoundland without the freely expressed wishes
of
the people. If it was the wish of the people,
Newfoundlanders were not consulted and these
wishes were therefore never expressed.
3.They respect the right of all people to
choose the form of government under which
they will live; and they wish to see sovereign
rights and self-government restored to those
who have been forcibly deprived of them.
What greater authority could we have that our
cause is just, that we are not infringing on the
rights of others, than the signed statement of these
two great world leaders and statesmen? This
famous declaration was made in Newfoundland
waters. So far, I refuse to believe they were not
sincere; but less than two months from now will
prove whether it was an empty, fake promise to
Newfoundland or a friendly sincere pledge, conscious of the very great wrong that
had been
perpetrated against our people. I stated in my
radio address of December 20, 1947, "Great
Britain has a solemn obligation to perform
toward Newfoundland, that obligation must and
will be kept or she will be condemned forever in
the eyes of the civilised world. No political excuse will save her. We, the people of New
1242 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
foundland, are holding her to that written and
spoken word, and it must be our duty afterward
to decide our future destiny as a free people." I
do not need to point to Newfoundland's loyalty.
This has been amply demonstrated on numerous
occasions and will be again if Great Britain does
now, in what I consider her very last chance, give
the freedom, rights and honour to Newfoundland
for which we have paid for many times in blood.
I could not honestly call it a privilege or a favour,
it is a just and honourable debt for which we, with
her, side by side, gave the lives of the bravest and
best of Newfoundland's manhood and womanhood. That debt can only be repaid by speedily
undoing a wrong, by immediately granting what
costs her nothing, not even her pride, self-government without delay to the people
of Newfoundland. I have stated that in my opinion this
will be Britain's last chance to do the right and
proper thing If she fails in this crucial hour, she
will do what the vast majority of the English-
speaking world in the west is expecting, drive
Newfoundland into the arms of the United States
of America. There is a parable that says,
"Children obey your parents." Again, "Parents
provoke not your children to anger lest they rise
up against you." It is a common expression these
days, that if Britain does not very soon wake up
to her responsibility toward her oldest colony,
Newfoundland must appeal to that great
democratic republic to the west to save us from
our friends. We are conscious of Britain's plight
financially, but she is yet a great nation and what
will make her greater still is to command the
highest respect of all her people and especially
her vast colonial empire. Many great sons have
left unbearable home conditions only to become
greater in the larger expanse of opportunity when
the shackles of intolerable home life were
released. Many depressed colonies of people
have matured to great nations when the shackles
of remote control were, at very often great
sacrifice, lifted from their domain. Surely it must
be admitted that if Newfoundland is forced to
seek a more democratic institution, she will only
do it in desperation, after the mother country has
ignored all the principles of the rights of man.
[Mr. Vardy than read a poem which is printed on page 1243*]
Mr. Chairman, I am not critical at this time of
any other form of government; there are many
forms which could find a place in our economy.
But surely to every sane, sober, sensible, normal
Newfoundlander there are certain basic fundamental principles which must, of necessity,
be
adhered to at this time. If Newfoundlanders are
to be kicked around like footballs they will fight
like demons the party who starts the kicking.
Through perservance, endurance, sacrifice and a
long history of struggle we obtained self-government. Our constitution was only temporarily
suspended. It must and will be restored, if it costs
thousands of the lives of our people. If it becomes
necessary the supreme sacrifice will be made.
Our people are true British stock, and history has
proved many times that serious repercussions and
most unsavoury situations might have been
avoided if the heads of state had not been too
stubborn to believe the inevitable could happen,
and their refusal to recognise the rights of others.
Someone must take the risk of stating these unpleasant facts in the hope that the
Commonwealth Office will see the wisdom of honouring
her obligations toward Newfoundland before it is
too late. Hatred and revenge in the hearts of our
people will be a far greater enemy than an equal
share in the Christian democratic institutions
which we have so nobly built up together. I would
at this time appeal to their sense of justice, to
establish if necessary, a precedent in British
foreign policy and "Do unto others as you would
that they should do unto you."
I have spared no efforts to study every report
brought into this Convention soberly, fairly and
honestly. It is on the facts in these reports that I
base my arguments for self-government for the
country. To those of us who have conscientiously
taken advantage of this opportunity to become
really conversant with the potential wealth of
Newfoundland, it has been an education at the
expense of the treasury for which some of us at
least are most grateful. We have delved deeply
into matters for which we previously had no
concern or knowledge, and although with the
limited time of one hour I cannot attempt to give
any review in detail, nevertheless I feel I should
digress for a few moments to outline some of the
reasons why I feel Newfoundland should return
to self-government.
1. Newfoundland is a British colony, the
oldest member of the British Commonwealth
of Nations, outside Great Britain herself.
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1243
*
And were they not English our forefathers, never more
English than when they shook the dust of her sod
From their feet for ever, angrily seeking a shore
Where in his own way a man might worship his God.
Never more English than when they dared to be
Rebels against her — that stem intractable sense
Of that which no man can stomach and still be free,
Writing: "When in the course of human events ..."
Writing it out so all the world could see
Whence come the powers of all just governments.
The tree of Liberty grew and changed and spread,
But the seed was English. I am Newfoundland bred.
I have seen much to hate here — much to forgive,
But in a world where England is finished and dead,
I do not wish to live.
What could I do but ache and long,
That my small country, peaceful, brave and strong,
Should go and do battle for England's sake,
What could I do but long and ache,
And my friends' letters I hid away,
Lest someone should know the things they'd say.
Silently, subtly they inspire,
Most of our youth with a holy fire,
To shed their blood for the British Empire.
We'll come in — we'll fight and die
Humbly to help them and by and by,
England will do us in the eye.
We're so darn simple, our skins so thin,
We're a down-trodden people but we'll come in.
I thought of her colony far away
Where my friends were starving on six cents a day,
And I said, My God, can it ever be,
That a will to fight is born in me.
What do I get but a crust of bread
Or a crude wooden cross placed over my head.
If we are equal in brains and pay,
Why are we not equal in what we say?
We fight a dictatorship so we are told,
We are classed with the best and just as bold,
But when it's all over the Allies are free,
Newfoundlanders return to a sham liberty.
May God in his greatness direct from above
A democracy true for the land that we love.
Why is it that we have to keep reminding Britain now and then
That other countries breed other men?
We are not children, we know our sire,
We're the kind of people the world admire.
So let us in peace be brave and true,
And democracy will come to Newfoundland too.
1244 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
2. She has always been as patriotic as any
member of the group.
3. The circumstances surrounding our unfortunate position in 1933 were very largely
brought about as a result of patriotism in the
first world war, and the ultimate cost of pensions and allowances for those who survived.
4. The general world depression being the
other main factor, we were tied to Canadian
currency, and were therefore at the mercy of
Canadian banking institutions for our survival or otherwise. Also the countries to
which our exports were destined were unable
to pay for our products.
5. The person who conceived the idea of a
commission form of government for Newfoundland was not a Newfoundlander and it
was done, in my opinion, mainly as a spiteful
gesture to prevent his political opponent from
returning to power, with little thought or
regard for the serious implications of his act.
6. Our country is now self-supporting and will
be within the reasonably foreseeable future.
7. Our main industries are in a very healthy
condition. The reports of this Convention
have unquestionably brought out this fact. It
is true the codfishery is still undergoing a
process of modernisation brought about chiefly
as a result of the machine age, but the irregularities of the moment will right themselves
in a short time and the subsidiary industries
being created from the by-products will more
than recompense the country for any reduction
in the sale of the basic article.
8. It was a definite commitment on the part
of Great Britain...
9. It was a solemn pledge from the two great
leaders of the Allied cause that self-government would be restored to Newfoundland.
With a sound government of about 12 or 15
men of strong character, not afraid to put more in
work than they would try to take out in cash, men
of vision with ability of leadership who would
command the respect and confidence of the electorate, men who would be far-sighted
and
courageous enough at times to hurt in order to do
their people good, and I am convinced the hour
will produce these men, Newfoundland will survive the Gethsemane of the past 14 years.
To put
it mildly, it has been humilating, and closes the
most shameful chapter in the history of British
justice. God grant that it shall never happen in an
English-speaking colony again. No one in Newfoundland seriously expects a bed of roses
to lie
on, and if they do they must be careful they do
not find themselves among the thistles instead,
for they also look lovely from a distance.
Our country is not developed, and we do not
owe money. We can have social security, a
modern way of life and plenty of remunerative
employment for our people, if we are prepared to
take on a national debt equal to what we would
take over by joining any other country. In 1933
our national debt was a serious item in our
economy, but in 1948 even the $100 million
would not be a great source of worry. There are
hard days ahead, but I have faith in our people,
and in our ability to survive. The lesson of 1933
is one we should never forget, and in my opinion
both the United States and Canada regret to this
hour they did not act at that time to save Newfoundland from losing her democratic
institutions. I never could understand their lack of
foresight and interest in their weaker, friendly
neighbour at that time, and I would urge all
Newfoundlanders to unite at this time and guard
your heritage. We have been elected to recommend a form or forms of government. I
have
given many forms serious consideration. To
preserve our own respect and the love and respect
we have always had for the mother country, there
is only one I can honestly commend to our
people, namely, without reservation whatever,
the restoration of self-government for Newfoundland.
There will be a second choice for me, however, and that will still be self-government
with
modifications as outlined in the beginning of this
address, and if outside powers or interests control
our sovereign territory they should compensate
the people of Newfoundland for the right to use
our children as targets in the first line of defence
of the western world.
*[See bottom of next page]
Mr. Smallwood I do not want to see the debate
drag, as there are only four days in which to carry
it on. I am going to vote for this motion proposed
by Mr. Higgins and seconded by Mr. Vardy, because it is my duty to vote for it, because
all the
motion asks us to do is to recommend to the
British government that Commission government and responsible government be submitted
to the Newfoundland people in the referendum
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1245
this spring. The motion does not ask us to be in
favour of responsible government or Commission government. It does not ask us voters,
as
citizens, to vote for either of these two forms of
government. If it did, I would not vote for this
motion. It only asks us to recommend that these
two forms of government shall be laid before the
people of the country to vote for or against, in the
referendum. I believe that the Newfoundland
people have every right in the world to pass their
verdict on these two forms of government in the
referendum; so I am going to vote to give the
people that right.
I want it to be clearly understood that in the
referendum itself I shall not vote for either
responsible or Commission government. I shall
vote against both of them, as a citizen of Newfoundland. I shall vote against them
in the
referendum as a member of this Convention. I do
not think our people will vote for either one of
them; but I think they must have the right to do it
if they wish.
Sir, I am against responsible government coming back to Newfoundland. In principle,
I think
responsible government is right, but in practice,
I think it is wrong. I think if we went back to
responsible government we would bring misery
and suffering on our people. I think it would be a
terrible gamble to take. When I say that responsible government is all right in principle,
I mean
that all people should have the right of self
government, all people should have power over
the government — the power to elect it, and the
power to put them out if they don't do right. But
when I say that responsible government is all
wrong in practice, what I mean is that I see no
chance whatever that responsible government
would be any better for us than it was those last
20 years that we had it.
Under responsible government our country
went broke.... Our government's credit was gone
— we were bankrupt and insolvent. Our people
were on the dole in the tens of thousands. Our
children went hungry and naked. Our standard of
health fell very low, and TB increased by leaps
and bounds. I see no chance at all that we could
ever keep clear of those same terrible conditions
if we went back to responsible government, which means that Newfoundland has cut
herself clear of close organic connection with any
other country. Under responsible government we
would be on our own, ... without help from
anyone. We tried that before, and where did we
end? I, for one, am not willing to go through all
that misery again, and I don't think our people are
willing to try that again, for a "burnt child dreads
the fire". Where would people be once our little
cash surplus was all gone? Where would we turn
then for help? It is no use anyone telling me we
would never need help, because I don't believe
it. When the price of fish falls, as fall it will; when
the icy blast of depression strikes again, as it will;
1246 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
then this little country will need help. Where will
we turn for help when it comes? Will we come
crawling again to the British government, or will
we go first and crawl to Canada? No sir, I shall
not vote for responsible government in the referendum.... So far as Commission government
is
concerned, I want that to be submitted to the
people too. I think they should have the right to
vote for it or against it if they want to. I shall vote
against Commission government in the referendum, but here in this Convention I shall
vote to
give the people the chance to vote for it if they
want to. I am not one of those who are going
around damning Commission government. I am
not one of those who can't see any good in the
Commission's 14 year record, who refuse to give
them any credit. They have done some good you
know, and I am happy to give them credit for it.
They have not done so much good as some of our
people think, but they have done some, and we
should praise them for it. Commission government, sir, is the price we paid for mining
our
people and our country under responsible
government. We made a mess of things under
responsible government, and Britain had to take
us over, but first responsible government had to
go, and Commission government had to take its
place. We needed help back in 1933-34 in the
worst kind of way. Britain was in a position then
to give us some help, in those days before she was
washed up and plunged into poverty by the war;
she was able to help us, and she did help us. We
should be eternally grateful to her for it, and we
should be eternally proud of the fact that we were
able to help her a little bit with our money during
the war.
I am not one of those who go around saying
Great Britain forced Commission of Government
on us in 1934, nor am I one of those who go
around trying to say that Great Britain is trying
to force any kind of government on us now. I
don't think that. I am firmly convinced that she
wants all of us to have a thoroughly free choice
in deciding what form of government we shall
have in Newfoundland. We have been told that
Britain would like to see us join up with another
British country. I don't know about that, but if
she would she is not trying to force us to do it. I
dare say it is true that the mother country would
like us to throw in our lot with another British
country. It seems reasonable enough; but that she
is trying to force us to do it, I simply don't
believe.
Sir, in the referendum I shall vote against
Commission government. I am all in favour of
our people having the chance to vote for Commission if they want to, but as for myself
... I don't
think that Commission government ever can succeed, nor can ever give our people the
kind of
government they need and want. The Commission government are straight and honest.
They
don't rob the public chest — of that I am quite
sure. I believe they are trying to do their best, but
their best is not good enough. So long as we stay
under Commission form of government, or if we
are under responsible government, we shall have
our present unjust system of taxation. They cannot change it. This unjust system of
taxation
crushes the life out of our people, drives up the
cost of living, and the cost of production in our
main industries, makes it impossible for Newfoundland's main industries to compete
with the
industries of other countries, unless they pay our
producers just barely enough to exist on. So long
as we have this unjust system of taxation the only
way our main industries, especially our fisheries,
can compete with the industries of other countries
is by paying our producers, our fishermen especially, a smaller share than the producers
and
fishermen of other countries get. Our fishermen
are forced to have a lower standard of life.
Mr. Chairman, it matters not what form of
government we may have in this country, so long
as that unjust system of taxation is kept on us; so
long as our wicked customs duties are kept on; so
long as our government uses customs duties to
collect the bulk of their revenue... I will give you
just one example of what I mean. Last year, 1947,
our bank fishery was pretty successful. The
fishermen who toiled on our highliner in the bank
fishery, the
Freda M, what did they get? Around
$1,550 per man. That was counted pretty good,
wasn't it? And yet what do we find? We find that
other Fortune Bay fishermen, toiling on other
vessels, Nova Scotia bankers, who got about the
same quantity of fish in the same year, were paid
$1,000 more than the
Freda M's men, I mean
$1,000 per man more — in fact over $1,000 per
man. I am not blaming the owners of the
Freda
M; I am not saying one word against them, because I know that it cost a lot more to
fit our the
Freda M than it cost to fit out the Nova Scotia
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1247
bankers of the same size. That is what I mean
when I say that our unjust system of taxation
drives up the cost of production. The customs
duties drive up the cost of production, and after
paying more to fit up the
Freda M than it cost the
Nova Scotia bankers of the same size, it was
impossible to pay the crew the same wages as the
Nova Scotia men got for the same amount of fish.
It could not be done. This is only one example. I
could give you thousands of others if there was
time.
I am against the Commission of Government,
not because I think they are dishonest — I think
they are honest. Not because I think they are not
doing their best — I think they are doing their
best; but because I know they cannot do away
with out unjust and unsound system of taxation.
They cannot do away with our customs duties.
They can reduce the duties a bit here and there,
but they must go right on getting the bulk of their
revenue from those customs duties, and so must
responsible govemment.... So long as we have
the Commission form of government, or the
responsible form of government, so long as we
have either of them, we shall have those customs
duties and the profits on the customs duties, and
these customs duties will be the bulk of the
government's revenues, so I am against both
responsible and Commission government. I am
willing to give our people a fair chance to vote
for those two forms of government, either one of
them ... but I shall not vote for either one of them
myself when the referendum rolls around. I will
vote for this motion to place those two forms of
government before the people, because I know it
is my duty to do so, the duty of every member of
this Convention, but that is as far as I can go.
It will be up to our people to decide for themselves in the referendum; if they want
to vote for
responsible government well and good, if they
want to vote for Commission government well
and good, but it will not be with any encouragement from me. If those two forms of
government
happened to be the only two forms on the ballot
paper; if we had only two forms, responsible and
Commission, in the referendum, then I will vote
for Commission in the referendum. I would not
be happy doing it, and I would not do it very
willingly, but between the two of them ..., my
vote in the referendum would go for Commission
government. I would hate to be limited to those
two forms, and by casting my vote for Commission I would do it just to take the lesser
of two evils.
Some people say, Mr. Chairman, that responsible government means political freedom,
but
not economic security; some people say that
Commission government means economic
security, but not political freedom... I don't
believe it. If responsible government failed to
give us economic security, and it has failed, then
it is precious little political freedom we would
have. How can we have political freedom if we
have no economic security and stability? What is
the good of a vote to a man who is hungry? What
is the good of elections to a man on the dole? No,
I am afraid it is very little political freedom we
would have as a people under responsible
government if we had not full bellies and decent
clothes to protect us, or what my good and
respected friends Mr. Newell and Mr. Keough
call three square meals a day, and a suit of clothes
and a roof over their heads... Oh yes, it is all right
to have the glorious right to vote and take part in
elections, but I am afraid an awful lot of the glory
just oozes out of it when you are hungry, and your
children are hungry, and you have nothing to
depend on but the dole. No, Mr. Chairman, I
don't think it is true at all to say that responsible
government means political freedom without
economic security, because without economic
security you just can't have political freedom,
and I think there is very little in the other part of
the saying that Commission government means
economic security without political freedom. I
think that day is gone, if we ever had it. Just when
did Commission government give us economic
security or stability? Commission government
came here to Newfoundland in the winter of
1934. For the first six years they were here they
certainly did not give Newfoundland any
economic security. Don't forget that right up to
the outbreak of the war we had tens of thousands
of our people on the dole under Commission
government. Don't forget that just a bare eight or
nine years ago the total value of all our fish and
fish products exported out of Newfoundland, the
whole lot of them together, had a value of a paltry
$8 million — just eight years ago. Don't forget
that in the first six years of Commission government at job was the hardest thing
in this world to
get here in Newfoundland, that we had thousands
of our young men leaving school without a
1248 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
chance of getting a job. Don't forget that under
the first six years of Commission government we
had no economic prosperity or security or
stability. Then the war broke out, and hundreds
of millions of dollars poured in here from Canada
and the United States to build all those bases.
There was lots of work then. You could sell
anything. Now since the war ended, and with the
whole world short of this and that, we could still
sell our fish and our oil and ore, and we don't feel
like thanking the Commission government for
that. They did not start the war. We can't praise
or blame them for that. We have had Commission
government for the past 14 years — six years
before the war, six years during the war, and two
years since the war, and what economic stability
have we had? We had a bit during the war, and a
lot less since the war, and already it has started to
wear very thin for a lot of our people. It has
started to wear very thin, this wonderful
prosperity, for the 13 or 15,000 of our Newfoundland people who are on the dole tonight.
Prosperity is wearing very thin for them, but if
Commission government gave us full economic
security up to now, what chance is there that they
will give us economic security in the future?
None at all, Mr. Chairman, not a bit. The Commissioners would be the first themselves
to admit
it. There is only one thing that the Commission
government can promise us or guarantee us, and
that is that they will collect taxes from us and they
will spend the money honestly. That is, they
won't rob the till. They can't even promise that
they will do these two things wisely: wisely collect the taxes, and wisely spend them.
As for
guaranteeing economic security in Newfoundland, it is out of the question altogether.
So
you see, Mr. Chairman, the Commission government means neither political freedom nor
economic security, neither one or the other, and
responsible government does not mean political
freedom without economic security, because
there can't be such a thing as political freedom
without economic security, and in any case, what
I want in this country and for our people is a form
of government that will mean political freedom
and economic security, both, for one is useless
without the other. I can tell you that is what our
people are looking for. First and foremost our
people are looking for economic prosperity and
security. They are looking for a form of govern
ment that will give them those three square meals
a day, and a second suit of clothes, and a tight
roof over their heads, and the chance to rear their
families in Christian decency and frugal comfort.
They are looking for political freedom, but always remember that the three square
meals and
the rest of it comes first, before the political
freedom. It is a cruel mockery to talk political
freedom to a people who are harassed by want,
and don't know where to turn for the next meal,
a people who are anxious and eager to work, not
lazy, anxious and eager to work, but can't find
work.
We will make the biggest mistake of our lives
here in this Convention if we think that our
people are bothering their heads about voting and
elections and governments, or even National
Conventions, ahead of that more pressing problem of three square meals a day and a
chance by
their labour to live decently as Christian human
beings. No system of government is of the
slightest use to our people unless it gives them
that chance to make their living as decent Christians. We here can talk till we are
blue in the face
about forms of government, but it will all be a
waste of breath unless we can show the people
that some particular form of government will
give them a better chance to live and rear their
families.
Our Newfoundland people have long suffered
from a sense of injustice. They have long felt that
they were denied a square deal. They are unalterably convinced that they have been
kept down
all through the decades and centuries. They feel
that they have never gotten a square show in this
country. Our people, sir, are not lazy, they are
hardworking and loyal fathers and husbands.
They ask for nothing big and outrageous and
extravagant, but only a fair chance to earn a fair
living.
Truly this is one country of which it can be
said, "to him that hath shall be added; from him
that hath not, shall be taken away; even the little
that he hath." Our Newfoundlanders look yearningly for a new deal. Their deeper instincts
cry
out for justice. That is how our people feel and I
share that feeling to the last fibre of me. I am of
the people and for the people of the working
class, to the last drop of my blood in my veins,
the last ounce of flesh on my body. I came from
the working class, I belong to them. My brothers
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1249
toil for a living. I share their feelings and the
feelings of the toiiers of this country. They have
never got a square show and a deliberate attempt
has been made to stack up the powers of government and powers of taxation against
them, so as
to keep them down. I share that belief. Ihave no
shame in saying it. There is nothing aristocratic
about me. There is not a single ounce of blue
blood in me.
But, sir, there is another reason why I shall
vote against Commission government in the
referendum. Whatever little help the old mother
country was able to give us when we needed it so
badly before the war — and I repeat that we
should be forever grateful to Britain for what she
gave us before the war — what hope have we of
any help from her in the future, should we need
it? Never, in the history of mankind upon this
earth, never did a country suffer as did the mother
country this past ten years, since 1938. Never did
people sacrifice as the British people sacrificed
and as they are sacrificing today. They gave their
all. They threw it into the fight gladly; they
stripped themselves to the bare bone; everything
went until they were naked and empty of hand.
The whole world has stood in speechless amazement over the prodigious sacrifice of
the British
people; such effort, such sacrifice and such
courage! I am reminded of the words of Winston
Churchill, "Let no man underrate the abiding
power of the British Empire, not because you see
46 million people on our island harassed about
their food supplies, or because we have difficulty
in re-starting our industries and export trade after
six years of war effort, do not suppose we shall
not come through these dark days as we have
come through the years of the past or that a half
century from now you will not see 70 or 80
million Britons spread about the world united in
the defence of justice and way of life." These are
brave words, sir, and true words. Britain will
come back. Of that I have no doubt. It will not be
soon, but she will receive help from her sons and
friends around the world and she will strive as no
other people ever strove, and some day she will
stand among the nations of the earth.
But meanwhile, we here in Newfoundland
must vote this spring, this very spring, to decide
what form of government we shall have for our
country. We cannot lean on the old mother
country. We cannot look to her for help. We may
have some in our midst who are satisfied to have
Britain share her poverty with us. We may have
some who would hold on to the Commission of
Government in the hope that through them
Britain would, out of her own poverty and need,
help us if we should need help. I hope that the
number of such persons is small in this country.
Sir, I shall vote for this motion to place these
two forms of government before our people in the
referendum this spring, for I know it is our
people's right to decide. I have no right whatever
to deny our people their right to vote for responsible government or Commission government
if
they wish, and I shall not oppose their having that
right. I shall vote against these two forms of
government myself in the referendum. I shall
hope for a chance to vote for a form of government nearer to their hearts' desire.
Mr. Higgins Might I interject, unless some
members here now intimate they are prepared to
deal with this motion now, it might be as well to
defer it; some members who intend to speak to it
are not ready.
Mr. Chairman I am entirely in the hands of
members. It seems to me you are in a position of
what I may term an unpleasant alternative. The
sands of time are running out and from that
standpoint I must assume that time is of the
essence. However, I am entirely in the hands of
members and with that in mind then, I put the
motion to adjourn.
[The Convention adjourned]
