Mr. Fogwill Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I do
not intend to take up much time in speaking to
this resolution. At the onset I wish to make it clear
that I am in support of it, particularly that part
relating to the restoration of responsible government. I feel that in responsible
government we
have the best opportunity for the future. It is
because I am not less interested than you are in
the future of our country that I feel confident in
justifying that statement. Now, sir, before all else,
I think we must recognise that we are entering a
new era. Things perhaps will never again be just
as they were. We are moving out of old conditions and old social and economic surroundings.
We are at the crossroads. Let us accept that as a
fact, as simply and as categorically as we can, and
let us build our house of the future accordingly.
It is my conviction that the Newfoundland people
are about to face a second great test of their
powers of survival as a separate unit in the British
Commonwealth. We have to be careful and see
to it that we are not saddled with a group of
experimenters and so-called planners with their
intricate formulas of social and economic
security under the misguided notion that
economic security and freedom and liberty are
one and the same thing. If you were to ask me, on
what group of our people falls the greatest responsibility for the future well-being
of Newfoundland, I would put my finger on those who
drudge in the city, town and village, and those
who toil in the forest, in the mines, on the land
and upon the sea —- these are the people of labour,
Mr. Chairman; these are the people who built this
country, in good times and bad. It was the men
and women of labour who made our cities, towns
and villages and serviced them; it is they who
built our churches and schools and staffed them.
We are here, Mr. Chairman, representing those
people, to consider the good and welfare of them
all. So let us see to it that their faith in democratic
government is not injured — and when we speak
of faith, I say that faith can be applied to the
events, problems and controversies of modern
living, especially in the field of industry and the
relationships of business and labour. Our problem is to restore human affairs in this
country to
a satisfactory state without sacrificing the essential framework of our way of life.
To save what
is good in our present economy based on a
legitimate profit motive and the natural right of
private ownership, we must first get to know
entwining abuses, and then be prepared to cut
those abuses away. What is basically good in this
country of ours must be thoughtfully and conscientiously observed in the face of sceptical
and
perhaps muddled thinking — that will take time
and study, and study takes time and sacrifice. We
must prepare, as any alert businessman would do
to save a going concern, to sacrifice whatever
does not contribute to the general good. The
Newfoundland people must be careful in their
consideration of their domestic problems. I feel
confident, Mr. Chairman, that the people of Newfoundland are not going to be prompted
by any
jittery impulse to grasp at some quick social
formula that promises some kind of a general
remedy. The toilers of this country will decide in
their own good time and in their own way without
any flag-waving speeches and fancy talk from
anyone. That is the way I look at it, and I believe
the great majority of our people look upon this
question in the same way. They will decide for
themselves. It is quite true that we in New
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1253
foundland have had to contend with economic
factors much less favourable than some
countries. Of course we ate dole in Newfoundland during the depression — the world
ate
dole. In Europe and in the Americas, a hundred
million human beings ate dole, and there are
many eating it today. Some of the finest cities in
the world have their cracked pavements, sagging
roofs and tumbledown shacks. These things are
there for anyone to see, this position is not
peculiar to Newfoundland. A political change
cannot bring forth economic reform and freedom
from want. The resources of this country are as
God made them, and any change in the form of
government will not bring a change in climate. It
will not bring more fish to our shores, nor make
the day longer, nor will it bring us any nearer to
the great centres of supply. No, Mr. Chairman, a
particular form of government will not give us
economic security. It has been stressed here that
there can be no political freedom without
economic security. Where can this be found, this
political freedom coupled with economic
security? It has never existed. Are we to receive
this gift overnight? Trash and nonsense! If we
want political freedom with some measure of
economic security, we shall have to dig and sweat
for it. It is the only way. Life was more simple at
one time, Mr. Chairman, it was not the tremendously complex thing we know today, and
we
should remember that any individual solution to
a local problem is a definite contribution to the
solution of national problems, which are cumulative. If we want democracy in Newfoundland
tomorrow, we must live it today.
Fundamentally the Newfoundland scene has
not changed, but we are slowly moving away
from old methods of doing things, perhaps even
without our knowing it; we are moving through
a transitional period in this present century; the
whole financial, government and economic
structure of our island has been vastly changed;
we have to adapt ourselves to new world conditions. And before we take one step forward
into
the future, we Newfoundland people must see to
it that we have restored to us our hard-won rights
as a separate unit in the Empire. In closing, sir, I
say that we must find for ourselves a framework
of philosophy of life that will make it possible for
us to approach and solve our problems in an
intelligent and therefore democratic manner.
Mr. Harrington Mr. Chairman, I have waited a
long time and in patience for this day. I can still
remember Friday, February 16, 1934. I had just
passed my 17th birthday, and like most young
Newfoundlanders of the day who had finished
school the preceding June, I was more taken up
with the problem of what to do next than with
affairs of state. Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, I had
sufficient sense of destiny to realise on that bleak
February day 14 years ago, that something
momentous was happening which, though I was
not aware of it at the moment, was to have great
meaning in time in my own personal life. I
sensed, sir, then, that it was a great historical
moment, and in a way, perhaps, I was a living
symbol of the belief then held by a great section
of our people, that the system of government that
day being inaugurated in Newfoundland was destined to open up a new era for this country.
This
sense of destiny and that faith — more conscious
than expressed — caused me to wander that
afternoon to the vicinity of the Newfoundland
Hotel to gaze at the notables as they arrived in
their cars, and vanished into the impressive portals of that structure on their way
to the Ballroom,
where the deed was to be done.
The papers said the weather was ideal, but I
know better. It was cold and bleak, a grey
February day as I recall it, and it has seemed to
me, in every day that has passed thereafter that I
think upon that scene, that a greyness comes into
my soul as well. For you see, sir, I was young
then, green; I knew little of governments and less
of politics. The only recollection I can summon
to my mind of the days of parliamentary government in this island is a recollection
of the general
election of 1932, when the Alderdice government
was elected, whose manifesto said in effect that
it would seek the appointment of a royal commission to study the situation of the
country and
recommend as to the alteration of the existing
constitution. but that no such recommendations
should be carried into effect without an appeal to
the people. Well, in June, 1932, I was more
interested in the Council of Higher Education's
examination papers for grade ten, than I was in
the personnel and manifestoes of the contending
parties in that election. I can still vaguely recall
the indifference with which I and my companions
passed shops and offices in whose windows long
lists gave the hour-to-hour results of the polling.
1254 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
And so in 1932, but more so in 1934, two crises
of our national life were reached and gone
through, and the ignorance and the unconcern of
youth thought less of them than of summer
holidays in 1932, and a job in 1934. And yet, in
looking back, I sometimes wonder if some of the
unconcern was more imagined than real; that the
sense of destiny may have gone deeper than I
thought. Else how, sir, I have often said to myself,
"How can you account for this?"
This is a portion of the Evening Telegram, for
Saturday, February 17, 1934. I am not going to
read what's in it, but I want to refer to it for just
a moment as I move on to deal with the motion
before the Chair. The pages contain a detailed
description of the proceedings that went on inside
the Newfoundland Hotel on the previous day
while I stood outside in the bleak day and
wondered. I do not propose to describe that scene,
which is so familiar to so many of our people, nor
to list the imposing array of very important persons who attended in one capacity
or another. But
I wish briefly to summarise the meaning of that
scene and that event as it then appeared.
The new Letters Patent of 1934 suspended the
Letters Patent of 1876 and 1905, and contained
in the third paragraph the statement that the new
Letters Patent "would provide for the administration of the said Island, until such
time, as it may
become self-supporting again", and was a natural
sequel to the 1933 Act which declared that when
the country was self-supporting again and on
request of the people, responsible government
would be restored. On this celebrated occasion
Governor Anderson, who opened the proceedings, said in part:
His Majesty's Government in the United
Kingdom has treated us
generously, and has
given us the opportunity of bringing back
prosperity.
[1]
The message from the Dominions Secretary,
which the Governor read, said in part:
We recognise the courageous spirit of
patriotism with which the former government and legislature and the people of Newfoundland
have agreed in the interest of their
country's recovery to
accept a suspension of
responsible government; we feel that there
could be no better augury for the success of
the new form of constitution. The object of
the Letters Patent now proclaimed is to provide for such time as may be necessary
to
enable it to become self-supporting again.
We hope and believe
that the result will be to
place its affairs upon so firm and sound a
foundation that a recurrence of the present
difficulties will be well-nigh impossible.
[2]
Thus spoke the Dominions Secretary. The
Hon. F.C. Alderdice, ex-Prime Minister, on that
occasion said in part:
In return for the financial assistance extended by the United Kingdom government
we agreed to relinquish temporarily the
privileges of responsible government, and to
place ourselves under the form of regime
which has been officially inaugurated here
today. Upon this point I will merely say that
while our people welcome the inauguration
of this
temporary form of administration,
unfettered by extraneous influences, and
dedicated solely to the rehabilitation of Newfoundland, at the same time they recognise
the necessity of striving earnestly and
diligently in extricating the country from its
present difficulties and thus hastening the
day when we shall be able to lay claim to our
former status, in the British Commonwealth
of Nations.... This form of Commission
government will, in my opinion, rapidly and
permanently improve conditions in Newfoundland. Freed from the distracting elements
of political expediency and party
interest, the Commission's energies and activities will be devoted solely to the implementing
of a program of expansion of the
country's industries, the broader development of its trade and commerce, and the
placing of its financial fabric upon a firm and
lasting foundation.... The immediate objective must be to rescue the country from
the
peril of collapse which now threatens to overwhelm it, to instil new heart and confidence
in the people and to bring about conditions in
which, provided that they play their part, they
will be assured at least of earning a
livelihood. When the first objective has been
achieved, the next objective must be the formation of a long-range plan, based on
an
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1255
exhaustive study of local conditions, and calculated by the creation of and development
of new sources of wealth, so to strengthen the
economic structure of the Island as to prevent
the recurrence ... of those periodical visitations of pauperism and distress to which
it has
hitherto been subject ....
[1]
I ask you to contemplate just for a moment or two,
just how far, and to what extent, subsequent
events and history came up to such high hopes
and sweeping promises.
That, Mr. Chairman, was 1934. I had a lack of
understanding then. But to resume my case history. Failing a job that year, I got
the opportunity
of attending the Memorial College, and a new
phase in the education of a Newfoundlander
began. I studied economics and political science
amongst other things, and for the first time in my
17 years I began to develop an interest in the
history of my own country and the story of our
people. I read books which I did not know had
been written, and learned of men whom I did not
know had existed, and of deeds and events I was
not aware had ever occurred in the very city I had
grown up in, and the many places that were
familiar only on the map during the day's lesson
in geography. And there grew in me, Mr. Chairman, a slow, impotent rage; to realise
that what I
witnessed and read of February 22, 1934, was not
something that had occurred to meet an emergency of a moment, but was in actual historical
fact
the culmination of a process that covered centuries, and was as calculated and as
ruthless as it
could be, having regard to the various periods of
history, and the sense of values that each generation of men and their governments
had lived by.
Mr. Chairman, it would take all the time that
is alloted to this entire debate, even to outline the
cruel and bitter story of this island's history and
its steadfast growth in the face of the most implacable obstacles that any white colonial
people
of the British Empire has had strewn in its way
towards progress and fulfillment. "The visitors
who came and went" says one authority,
like tides and winds, and who embodied the
very spirit of mutability and anarchy, had the
first century to themselves. Their being alternated with not-being; they lived like
seals
and thought like geologists; to them Newfoundland was little more than a sunken fishing
bank with a dry top here and there, and
they left indelible traces of their genius on the
place. During the next century a few small
groups of settlers arrived who were imbued
with the ideas of permanence, home and
order, but they were overshadowed by the
influences which were already there .... Time
with its cradle and war with its winnowing-
fan proved that the future belonged not to the
annuals but to the perennials. The proof was
given at the close of the second century, but
the whole of the third century the visitors
became so unimportant, and the settlers so
numerous, that it was at last unanimously
recognised that Newfoundland, instead of
being half colony and half fishing bank, was
a whole colony like other colonies, and with
a destiny of its own. The final recognition of
this fact ushered in the fourth century of
Newfoundland. The wheels of the chariot of
history moved very slowly as though tortoises were in the shafts, and it took three
centuries to arrive at the starting point of
other colonies' histories.
[2]
There in a nutshell, in the words of J.D. Rogers,
is the history of Newfoundland.
In the records the history of Newfoundland
began in 1497, when the history of North America also began. But in the actual fact,
the history
of Newfoundland as a country beginning to go
somewhere of its own, made its first feeble steps
with the granting of representative government in
1832, and its first real strides after the granting of
responsible government in 1855. It cannot be
repeated too often, the condition of Newfoundland up to the 1850s — the middle of
the
last century, just about 100 years ago — because
no man, woman or child can fully appreciate or
realise what happened in 1934 without that
knowledge. The island was a wilderness. It had
no roads, no communications of any kind. Its
population, just beginning to grow after centuries
in which settlement was forbidden, had only
reached a figure of some 70-80,000. It was only
a little over 20 years since the first white man had
crossed the island from east to west, and brought
1256 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
back some knowledge of the interior and the
wealth it contained.
[1] Then in 1855 Newfoundlanders were given responsible government —
but I shouldn't say they were given it — no, rather
that they won it, which they did. Now if ever a
people were politically immature, they were that.
They had barely 20 years of representative
government, since l832, that Nova Scotia had
had since 1758, Prince Edward Island since 1769,
New Brunswick since 1784, Upper and Lower
Canada since 1791. And the granting of responsible government to these other British
North
American colonies had come anywhere from six
to 14 years before Newfoundland. The Newfoundland people in 1855 had had less than
25
years to prepare for mastership in their own
house, full self-government for which those
others had been preparing for 60 to 80 years.
Newfoundlanders began self-government with
two strikes on them, as we say.
But they had the stuff. They were no better, no
worse than their neighbours, even though the
system of education which had been slowly and
painfully built up by the various denominations
had its beginnings early in the 19th century, little
more than 100 years ago. On the other hand, in
the neighbouring provinces of British North
America, and in the new republic of the United
States, schools, colleges and even universities
had been in existence, from the middle of the 17th
century onwards, permitted by law and encouraged, as they were forbidden and discouraged
in this island.
And then, Mr. Chairman, even when responsible government was granted, it was not at
all
that complete and full authority some of us
believe it was. Actually Newfoundland was
never quite free; never wholly independent.
Hence the pages of our history contain episode
after episode of struggle between the oldest
colony and the mother country, principally over
fishery rights, which were a bone of contention,
not only between England and France (witness
the French Shore), but between England and the
United States as well. There are dozens of instances, great events in our story, that
recount how
Newfoundland's political leaders went as delegations of a sovereign people to London,
to Ottawa,
to Halifax and to Washington, and by sheer persistence and dogged courage buttressed
by
shrewd and farseeing minds, gradually weakened
and finally broke these outside controls on our
country and its people, till in 1904 the French
were gone, and in 1910 the Americans withdrew
— 1904, 1910, only yesterday.
Mr. Chairman, I did not propose when I set out
to speak on this motion to give the Convention or
the country a history lesson. But it seems to me
that without a study, even a cursory one, of that
history, none of us can properly assess just what
our maligned responsible governments did for
this country. As I said at the beginning, our
collapse of 1934 was deeply rooted in the facts
of that history. As I pointed out the other day, the
commission form of government was suggested
for this country in 1895, when she was in financial straits after the bank crash.
But the men of
that time were made of sterner stuff; they rose to
the occasion, and Newfoundland weathered the
storm and went on to the 20th century and an age
of new and greater development. Although we
are still very close to the events of 1933 and 1934,
it is fair to admit, and has been admitted in many
responsible quarters, that Newfoundland was
asked to pay too high a price for her solvency.
Professor Harold Innis, author of
The Cod
Fisheries, declared with reference to this,
The decline of bankruptcy as a method of
adjustment brought the collapse of responsible government. It was significant that
a
banker occuped a prominent position on the
Royal Commission which recommended its
abolition. When Newfoundland's dictatorship as a whole refused to accept the highly
questionable policy of one of its members,
Mr. Thomas Lodge, he argued that, "To have
assumed responsibility for the good government of Newfoundland from altruistic motives
and to have achieved economic
rehabilitation might have cost the British taxpayer a few millions. It would have
added to
the prestige of the British Empire." But that
will not do. "For those who believe in
democracy the prestige of the British Empire
must have suffered a blow with the destruction of its fundamental basis in the oldest
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1257
colony. We cannot base our argument on the
importance of the British Empire to the maintenance of democracy when we calmly allow
the light to go out in Newfoundland.
[1]
These words, written in 1940 of the events of
1933-34, are full of portent today, as a more huge
and menacing figure of totalitarianism advances
on the strongholds of freedom everywhere.
But getting back to my case history Mr. Chairman. I studied the story of Newfoundland,
and I
drew my own conclusions. So much so that in
1943, when I made my first public address — a
toast to Newfoundland — the sum and substance
of my belief was contained in one sentence; that
as far as I was concerned, "the miracle of Newfoundland was not that so little had
been done
here, but so much." The Amulree Report, with its
condemnation of our public men, became the
textbook of all those whose intention, deliberate
or otherwise, was to damn with faint praise all
responsible governments of Newfoundland because it was the fashion. I think the attitudes
of
many Newfoundlanders to our former public
men, especially those who should have known
better, can be best summed up in a portion of the
Gospel according to St. John: "They shall put you
out of the synagogues; yea, the hour cometh, that
whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth a
service to God." And my own attitude on the
radio, six times a week as Mr. Smallwood did
before me, is contained in the two verses that
immediately precede that portion I have quoted:
"He shall give testimony of me; and you shall
give testimony, because you are with me from the
beginning. These things I have spoken to you,
that you may not be scandalised."
No, Mr. Chairman, there was no excuse for the
suspension of responsible government in this
country. No method of cure could be as drastic as
that for whatever ills beset us. They cut the legs
from under us and still expected us to walk and
to advance. If one could strain a point and find an
excuse for the suspension of responsible government it might lie perhaps in the words
of Commissioner Lodge, just quoted: "To have assumed
responsibility for the good government of Newfoundland out of altruistic motives and
to have
achieved economic rehabilitation might have
cost the British taxpayer a few millions. It would,
however, have added to the prestige of the British
Empire." But that did not happen.
What did happen? From 1934 to 1940 this
country, this people, suffered privation the like of
which was never known in her history. I was a
civil servant from 1937 to 1941, in the Department of Public Health and Welfare. Every
day
there passed through my hands, as through the
hands of many others, the harrowing story of the
misery, distress, sickness and death; the Gethsemane, as someone already has said
in here, of
an entire people. I say there was a reason, too, for
that — the absence of our traditional democratic
institutions. Do you expect me to believe, that
had Newfoundland retained the parliamentary
system of responsible government that this
country would have had to wallow in squalor and
despair until a war brought unheard-of wealth to
the island? Do you really believe that Newfoundlanders elected by their fellow-Newfoundlanders
would sit indifferent to the cries and
demands of the electorate? Do you think they
would give away parts of our territory for 99
years, without seeking and demanding something
in return? But there is no need to go on, you know
the answer as well as I do.
I fully agree with Mr. Smallwood, that Commission of Government is not a right or
permanent form of government for the people of this
country; but I cannot agree that responsible
government is so full of the doom and disaster
that he now so ardently declares it will be for
Newfoundland. In 1934 Mr. Smallwood was
older than I am now, and the Who's Who of
Newfoundland declares with respect to Mr.
Smallwood, that he was an ardent supporter of
the commission form of government in the first
few years of its career. Thereafter he realised his
error and become one of its stoutest opponents,
and as has been pointed out, up to a few years ago,
was the most redoubtable protagonist and booster
of the return of Newfoundland to responsible
government. I honestly believe that Mr.
Smallwood in that role did more than most people
to create the vague stirrings for national independence which in recent years developed
to a
strong demand in many sections of the island.
Surely, it seems fair to ask, why wasn't union
with another country suggested then either by Mr.
1258 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
Smallwood or by others as a solution for the
difficulties of the poor broken-down island of
Newfoundland between the years 1934-40, instead of now, when she is financially independent,
economically strong, and possessed of
vast potential resources and a great strategic importance?
I do not see either how the British government,
whose policy in all parts of the world is to give
control of their own affairs to whatever peoples
of the Empire seek them, can encourage
Newfoundlanders to retain the present dictatorial
system, particularly in view of the straitened
circumstances of Great Britain at the present
time; and this would tend to give some credence
to the belief still held in many quarters, despite
the rather ambiguous answer received to the Hon.
Mr. Job's question, that the commission form
may not yet appear on the ballot paper; or that a
statement of Great Britain's inability to finance
the system may be issued coincident with the
holding of the referendum. I think it is also right
to point out that at the present time the Commission of Government does not hold office
by the
will of the people. However, if at the referendum
it should be voted into power, it would then be in
the position of a popular legislature, of a kind,
and possessed of the authority to put this country
into union with another country.
The foundation for the presumed solid entrenchment of the Commission government in
our midst is the argument that they have extended
our social services That, it would seem, is the
only argument. Yet, as I have pointed out, this
was not commenced in actuality until 1941, and
the various reports of the committees of this
Convention which went thoroughly into these
matters, all indicate that up to 1941 the policy was
to make both ends meet and no more, and that all
extensions of such services were coincident with
the influx of money from the United States and
elsewhere. So their achievement is that they spent
money, a lot of money, since 1941. It is fair to
draw the conclusion, based on their policy of the
years from 1934 to 1941, that but for the war that
money would not have been spent, because they
would not have had it to spend. When that money
is all gone, as it will be very soon at the present
rate of spending, what can we in this country
expect? Surely we do not believe that Great
Britain, a rich country before the war, which
could only allow the Commission of Government
enough money to pay the interest to the British
bondholders while Newfoundland itself balanced
its own accounts out of its own revenues, surely
we do not believe that Great Britain, a country in
dire straits after the war, can give us financial aid
to support the present system of government and
the services which we will be expected to maintain? Of course we don't!
What then? This Convention has now reached
the end of its deliberations. A few days ago the
final and conclusive Report of the Finance Committee on the Economic Position of Newfoundland
was adopted unanimously by the
members, thus acknowledging that the country is
self-supporting, and has been for several years,
and is likely to remain so in the forseeable future
— for three years at least. On that basis the
present resolution is before the Chair: "Be it
therefore 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 they wish to return to the form of responsible government or retain the present
form of
Commission of Government", or words to that
effect.
I intend to vote for this resolution, as I believe
most, if not all of the delegates here will do also.
But I want to make it quite clear that I am voting
for this resolution because it is the only thing I
can do. The 1933 Act says that responsible
government on the request of the people will be
restored. That is, the people must express their
desire for its return, as against a desire to retain
the present Commission. Since they have not as
yet in any concrete form expressed that desire,
they will be given a referendum; the matter will
be referred to them for their decision.
I want to make it quite clear and have it go in
the record, Mr. Chairman, in case it's not already
clear, that I am not in favour of the commission
system. I never was, long before I came to this
Convention. It was repugnant to me, because of
the things I had learned and come to understand.
It would be false to all the beliefs and ideals I have
ever held or followed, if I were to recommend its
retention to our people in this crisis, as we stand
in the open doorway of a beckoning and wonderful future. I have stated on every occasion
that
constitutional matters were discussed in this Con
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1259
vention that the main choice we as a people have
to make is this: "Do we want to be governed by
others, or do we want to govern ourselves?" If we
decide we want to govern ourselves, then the way
lies open at any future date, if we are so minded,
to enter into union with one of the larger countries
to the west of us.
I do not agree with the opinion expressed in
this Convention that people don't care what kind
of government they have, so long as they have a
full belly. I know that isn't true; it is in opposition
to the history of mankind. Economic freedom
does not come before political freedom, it is the
other way about. Today all over the world, political freedom is the goal of all men
— white,
yellow and black. Are we to be any less than
those? We, who for our size and population are
in an economic and strategic position today that
many peoples can truly envy?
Now, I made the statement that Newfoundland was never quite free, never wholly independent.
What did I mean by this? Simply that
while Newfoundland was theoretically under
responsible government managing her own affairs, in reality, in the last analysis,
Great Britain
had the final say on any matters affecting the
extra-territorial activities of this country. Hence,
amongst other things, the blocking of the Bond-
Blaine reciprocity treaty, when Canada went over
Newfoundland's head to Great Britain, with the
known results. Things have greatly changed
since then, and there is in existence what is
known as the Statute of Westminster, enacted in
1931 in relation to the dominions, of which Newfoundland was one in 1931, and still
is, though
with suspended status, as you yourself, Mr.
Chairman have written in an excellent article
published some years ago in the
Book of Newfoundland, edited by Mr. Smallwood.
[1] I have just
been reading a very good book on the Statute of
Westminister and its application to the various
dominions, including Newfoundland, written by
no less a person than our mutual friend and
former constitutional expert to this Convention,
Professor K.C, Wheare, whose whereabouts are
still something of a mystery to most of us.
[2] Now
it would appear that in the interval between the
conference of 1930 and the introduction of the
Statute of Westminister into the House of Commons, Newfoundland requested the insertion
of
a clause postponing the application of sections 2
- 6 of the statute to Newfoundland until its parliament adopted any or all of these
sections. Section 3 of these postponed clauses reads as
follows: "3. it is hereby declared and enacted that
the Parliament of a Dominion has full power to
make laws having extra-territorial operation."
That means, as I understand it, that if a responsible government of Newfoundland passed
in its
legislature that section of the Statute of
Westminster, by and with the consent of the
people, it could then be free to negotiate a trade
or other agreement, a reciprocity treaty on the
lines of the Bond-Blaine treaty, and there could
be no interference by Britain, or by Canada through
Britain. That is the clue to our future solution of our
trade relations with the United States.
Now the position of the Commission of
Government with relation to the Statute of
Westminster is worth noting:
In the new constitution, issued in letters
patent under the authority of this act, the
former bicameral parliament of Newfoundland was abolished, and power to make laws
for the peace, welfare, and good government
of Newfoundland was transferred to the
Governor, acting with the advice and consent
of the Commission of Government. But although the Governor and Commission were
empowered to amend, add to, or repeal any
law passed by the legislature heretofore existing, it was nowhere stated that they
were
to be deemed to possess all the powers of that
legislature, nor were they described as a
legislature or parliament. It may be argued
therefore, that no parliament exists to exercise the powers conferred by the Statute
of
Westminister upon 'the Parliament of a
Dominion', and that the adoption of sections
2 - 6 of the Statute is impossible so long as
this system of government by commission
exists. In law Newfoundland would appear to
be a dominion still (though in name only),
since section 1 of the statute extends to Newfoundland, and has not been amended to
omit
the name of Newfoundland, and section 11,
1260 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
which abolished the term "colony" as applied
to the Dominions, still extends to Newfoundland.
Again, Mr. Chairman, the words are those of
Professor Wheare.
Therefore, in voting as I will on this resolution
to give our Newfoundland people and ourselves
the opportunity of choosing between the present
system of benevolent dictatorship, and a return to
control of our own affairs, a return to self-government, I would ask them to note
what I have said
about the Statute of Westminster; and would
urge, though it scarcely needs urging, that if this
country elects to run its own affairs again, that it
insist of its leaders that the Newfoundland parliament adopt the postponed sections
of the Statute
of Westminster, particularly section 3, which will
give us the necessary full control and independence to deal with the USA, towards
which
the hopes of our people have gradually turned as
the solution to whatever economic difficulties we
have had or may have in the years ahead.
Mr. Hickman Mr. Chairman, I would like to say
first that I am heartily in support of the motion
before this House. To my way of thinking, and
supported by the facts which I have been able to
acquire during the long session of this Convention, I cannot help but feel that the
people of this
country should first be given the opportunity of
having restored to them their own right to free
democratic government of themselves and by
themselves; and this principle should, I feel, be
adopted whatever the circumstances may be. As
it happens, this National Convention has unanimously found this country of ours to
be self-supporting and the previous Commissioner for
Finance, Mr. Wild, stated also that Newfoundland was self-supporting; but even in
the
event of their not being so, I have come to the
conclusion that this should be the first step in any
reformation of our political and economic affairs.
I say that I have come to this conclusion by facts
and other material considerations that I have been
able to acquire and carefully study since the
opening of this Convention. It has been proven to
my own satisfaction that a country can only
decide its own future, both securely and safely,
through its own government elected by and with
the support of the people. It has been obvious to
me in recent months, the hopelessness of endeavouring to find so-called security through
methods so undemocratic and so futile of any real
success — so helpless in the hands-tied-behind-
the-back approach. Neither can our present form
of government, however well or poorly they have
governed, find a solution to our country's future.
They are not our representatives in our sense of
the word. Better it be that we decide our own
future through our own elected government, even
with the unavoidable ups and downs, and remain
a people happy in the knowledge that we are our
own masters and command our own destiny.
As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, this National Convention at the outset appointed committees
... and after the completion of the work by the
several committees, each report was brought
before the full Convention and debated and questioned in what I would consider a very
thorough
manner. To the members of this Convention,
politically and governmentally blindfolded for
some 12 years, these reports were undoubtedly of
great benefit in helping them assess the present
economic position of our country, as well as
providing them with some foresight of at least the
near future, which in this upset world today
would not be possible in a great many countries.
I consider that the Finance Committee's report
was really in substance a summary and factual
finding of the remainder of the reports, and particularly so was their report on the
economic
position of Newfoundland, which clearly indicated what the people of this country
could expect and realise in what was quite rightly called
the "foreseeable future". It has been clearly
shown to me that this country is economically
sound, self-supporting, and in a better position
today than it has ever been in its history, and I
doubt if there is a country in the world that can
compare in this respect to Newfoundland. Our
basic industries are in a much more sound, diversified and better economic position
to face the
future than they were before the war and, for that
matter, any previous period in our history.
Briefly, sir, our fisheries, still the main industry of this country, have made great
and rapid
strides of improvement, and are stronger than
ever. The foundation of the fishing industry is
today more solid than at any time in our history.
The saltfish branch has been greatly improved by
useful help in production and curing, and particularly so in the standard of pack
for each
market, which has made such a great impression
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1261
on the buyers in our foreign markets and which
is accounted for by the compulsory inspection of
all grades including even the inferior and West
Indian qualities. The marketing system has
gradually become one of the finest, and has now
brought the control and selling under one organisation, which works in conjunction
with our
Newfoundland Fisheries Board. The result has
put us away ahead of our Canadian competitors
both in our more diversified marketing and our
selling.
I mention these few facts to show the advancement made in this branch of the industry,
and
so that our people can realise that we have today
a more solid and closely-knit operation of this
part of our primary industry. The development of
the cold storage division of the fisheries, covering
our fresh processing and filletting methods, is
only now in its infancy, but has rapidly developed
in the short period in which it has been operating.
The investment of local capital monies in this
branch of the fisheries has been tremendous, and
with the recent acquisition of two new trawlers
from the USA, is still further providing proof of
improvement in our fishing methods, as well as
increasing our production of not only codfish, but
of many other kinds which are in demand in our
fresh frozen fish markets. New developments of
recent years are the fish reduction plants, such as
the herring oil and meal plant at Curling, and the
one in course of construction at Belleoram. Here
again we have a new source of national production which bids fair to become a big
factor in the
economic future. Increased and improved
methods of whaling have added to our volume
and value of exports. There is canning of fresh
codfish at Fogo and the new proposed plant at
Bay Bulls, and the new herring and mackerel
canning plant at Petries in Bay of Islands. These
adventures are all of but a few years of age, and
are extra developments and additional sources of
income to our producers that we did not have
prior to 1939. We live by what we produce and
export, and these additional industries make our
economy more solid than ever before.
Our paper industry, likewise, has not stood
still. The addition of a sulphite plant in Corner
Brook, together with a large, estimated $12 million extension to the paper mill at
the same place,
will provide labour and income for a great many
more of our people than for any time in our
history. There is talk of another paper mill on our
southwest coast.
Mr. Chairman, add all these factors together,
and you get a brighter, sounder and more solid
basis for an economic future for this Newfoundland of ours. As you will realise, not
only
will those directly employed in these industries
derive benefits, but the country generally and the
people in it will share in any prosperity derived
from our basic producing industries. There must
be the ups and downs which every country and
every nation must experience, but we were never
better equipped to face the future than we are in
Newfoundland today.
Financially, this country has enjoyed prosperity to an extent that has never been
known
before, to us or our forefathers. One has only to
refer to the Report of the Finance Committee and
particularly to their report on the economic position of Newfoundland. Last November,
I expressed my opinion on this question of
Newfoundland's finances and its future and gave
my reasons, together with figures; and I feel
strongly that we have a promising, hopeful and,
above all, a sound future as far as one may care
to see in this world; and that is as much or more
as can be said for any other country. If time
permitted I could considerably add to and enlarge
on these brief points which I have just covered.
How any man in this country which has been
known for its love of independence and resourcefulness, could fear the future under
the
improved economy and advancement in our industries, is more than I can contemplate.
We have
an opportunity that never knocked at the doors of
Newfoundland before. And if we do not avail of
this opportunity now to speak for ourselves,
govern ourselves, and be responsible only to ourselves, we will have failed in the
greatest moment
in that proud history.
In so speaking, and in making a recommendation to the people of this country that
they should
use the God-given right to restore to themselves
the responsible government which is and should
be ours by right, I would like to explain that once
we can attain this natural status belonging to
every country, we are then in a position to approach or negotiate with any country
we may so
desire, to further our interests with them through
and by our own elected government, and through
which there is no better method of arriving at
1262 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
international conclusions or results.
In mentioning this I have a particular aspect
of our future in mind. I am convinced that our
economic future, or some security of it, lies with
the USA. I say this for obvious reasons. The USA
is one of the largest purchasers of our products,
particularly of our newsprint and fish products.
The USA, in turn, can supply practically all, if
not all of our requirements. The USA is the most
powerful and richest country in this world. There
is still a tremendously large undeveloped market
in that country for our products, a market that, if
assisted by an economic union with the United
States (under which there would be reciprocal
arrangements), might mean unlooked-for
developments of our industries, particularly
processed fish of various kinds, a development
that could mean much to our country. We could
buy a lot more needed goods from that great
country in return. We have the Americans here
now in the bases they have established, and in
return for a beneficial arrangement with them, I
see no reason why these bases and facilities could
not be further extended, thereby providing an
increased volume of employment for some of our
people, and in return giving to the US a more
beneficial defence system and a less restricted
action in the planning of defences, which would
be to our advantage as much as to theirs. This
would be a negotiated agreement, only possible
through a government of Newfoundlanders
elected by the people. In addition to the possibility of an economic tie-up with the
US, I
believe it would be possible to re-open discussion
on the question of the present bases which they
have in Newfoundland today. It is impossible for
the Commission of Government to do this, as
they, through the British government, signed the
original bases agreement and to them the matter
is closed. Our own government would, however,
be in a position to ask the consideration of the US
to the question of discussion between them and
our own elected government on the matter. I have
reason to believe that Newfoundland, through a
government of the country, would receive a sympathetic hearing, and in the light of
our desire to
negotiate an economic union, and to further offer
them extension of or increases in bases, it is not
beyond the bounds of possibility that we could
secure some yearly rental for the bases now already occupied. Even a rental small
to them
would be of no small assistance to us. The USA
does not have to re-open the question of the
leases, but I believe that there is a great possibility
of their so doing, for the reasons I have just
mentioned. Some members will endeavour to tell
you that this suggested economic union is not
possible, because the USA has favoured-nation
treaties, whereby any facilities or benefits in
duties or import restrictions of goods going into
their country, must be offered to these other
nations, on the same basis as negotiations might
be concluded with us. That might have been true
not only in fact, but in effect in 1939 and prior to
that year. Today, conditions and world problems
are different from those of prewar days.
Newfoundland's strategic position, while perhaps realised, has never been acknowledged
so
openly as today. The advancement in war tactics
as well as the discovery of such terrible weapons
as the atom bomb, have made not only the USA
but every country extremely conscious of their
vulnerability, and the USA has realised and appreciated this fact for some time. Consequently
Newfoundland, in its geographical position, is of
tremendous importance to North America. This
factor has changed the conditions of 1939 and
prior to that, and for that reason alone they might
very well consider, and be anxious to do so, the
question of an economic arrangement with this
country. There is no need for me to further outline
the benefits to our industries, both in Newfoundland and the Labrador, that could
well
materialise from such a union with America, if
we had a government of our own to make the
negotiations, as the USA could not enter into
these discussions until such time as the people of
this country have responsible government restored to them.
Before concluding, I would like to tell you, in
addition to the above benefits of responsible
government, the form and the type of responsible
government I would like to support. I realise that
many fear, perhaps, a return to a similar type of
government which they experienced in earlier
years. I consider that a responsible government
should consist of say, 16 or 18 members.
Mr. Chairman That would not be possible, unless the redistribution of 1933 were amended.
Mr. Hickman We do not need and do not want
any government of 40 or 45 members such as we
had in the past. The large number of members
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1263
was added expense, was not needed, and in fact
was not wanted. I believe in the minimum number required. The next step then, would
be to set
up a somewhat different system of operating the
government from that which we had prior to
1933. The first step would be to set up a civil
service commission composed of, say, three to
five members who would be independent
citizens, with no political attachments; obviously
they could not be a member of or connected in
any way with either the government or any opposition party. The function or duties
of this
commission would be the governing of the civil
service. In consultation with the ministers and
department heads of the various branches, they
would re-organise, where necessary, the workings of the departments, decide on the
examinations necessary to enter the service, the
remuneration, the pension systems, and the
employment and discharging of civil servants
through their departmental heads, which would
remove once and for all that political association
of the past with the procuring or losing of positions in the civil service. A person
would have no
fear of his job, no matter for which patty he might
care to vote. He would be independent of politics
and secure in his chosen profession. The standard
of the civil service could thus, perhaps, be raised,
the efficiency improved, and if the more responsible positions were rewarded in proportion,
with
higher salary in relation to services given, I feel
sure that the service could become one to envy
and provide a choice of a career with a future,
which so many of our people may not consider it,
as it exists in its operations today.
A further step would be the proper direction
in which allocations to departments would be
spent, eg the Public Works Department. It is
necessary in this case, as in that of any and all the
departments, that the allocations in each year of
the government's budgets could only be made
and controlled by the government itself in light
of its estimated revenue and expenditure, and of
the necessity of certain works to be done or public
service provided or maintained. Once, however,
the allocation is made, say to the Public Works
Department, then the spending of the monies of
each year would be in the hands of a public works
commission, including the head of that department. The spending on improvement, extensions
or maintenance of services would be done to
serve the most people beneficially and where it
would do the most good, both in respect of the
welfare of the people and the general economy of
the country. That it would be spent wisely and
fairly could be assured by your already established civil service commission, through
whom
the service personnel is controlled and who
would and could investigate any political implications or unfavourable methods of
expenditure, resulting if they so desired, in the relieving
of his position of the one responsible for the
department concerned. In this respect, the civil
servants taking these responsibilities would need
to be reimbursed in relation to their position.
This method of public service would have a
much-desired result in the elimination of political
promises to voters, either by individuals or parties, and would make useless the election
promises of roads to be built in any particular
settlement, or the digging of a well for Uncle
Tom; and unswayed by the old familiar promises,
would permit the voters to elect the member, or
party, in which they would have the most confidence to govern this country. It would
take the
political interference out of the civil service, provide for better government administration,
and
go a long way to assure that the best government
was elected, which might not always have been
the case in the past, where wild and extravagant
promises persuaded the people to vote against
their better judgement. Each department could be
similarly handled.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have endeavoured to
give just a simple illustration of my conception
of the form and manner in which our government
of the future should be handled. I realise that I
was perhaps generalising, but my suggestion
would take a few months of close study to iron
out the wrinkles and avoid the pitfalls, and time
does not permit me to in any way do justice to it
in the short period I am allowed in the debate on
this motion. I trust, however, that I have in some
measure shown the members of the Convention,
as well as the people of the country, the basis on
which our own government should be administered.... Along the lines of these principles,
we can have a better-than-ever self-governed
Newfoundland. Some people may be inclined to
doubt the practicability of my suggestions, but I
am convinced that it could be worked out practically if tackled in the proper manner
by sensible
1264 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
men, of which there are no small number in this
country.
Since entering this National Convention I
have endeavoured to look at the facts we have had
before us with an unbiased mind. I have been
sincere; and have endeavoured to be fair in all my
criticisms and findings, and to look at this whole
question of our future in the light of what is best
for the most of our people, and best for Newfoundland.
There were words written some number of
years ago, not written for the most important time
in our history, but nevertheless most fitting to this
time of very far-reaching decisions:
As loved our fathers so we love,
Where once they stood we stand;
Their prayer we raise to Heaven above,
God guard thee, Newfoundland.
Mr. Cranford Mr. Chairman, in 1934 when the
Commission of Government took over the affairs
of this country, a great many people, including
myself, thought it was a move in the right direction. We thought it would be like
a father who
saw that his children had gone astray, and had
made a move to put things right. The people of
this country today are greatly disappointed, or
may I say disgusted to find that such was not the
case. It was more like a group of people who
would like to hold the reins of power forever. In
the light and knowledge of the actions of Commission of Government, and confirmed
by this
National Convention, every action of the Commission was to make the people of this
country
believe that we could remain solvent only under
the form of Commission of Government, and that
government only is honest enough to carry on the
affairs of this country. That is as I see it, and I
would like the people of this country to understand that I am not dictated to by any
man, nor
aml affiliated with any firth or corporation, either
in business or politics.
There never was a government that was in a
better position to do what was best for this
country than Commission of Government. They
were under no obligation whatever to the voters;
therefore there was no pressure that could be
forced upon them, and no excuse they can give
for not doing everything that was in the best
interest of the country. What do we find? From
1934 to 1939, the only difference between Commission of Government and responsible
govern
ment was that the British government recognised
the Commission of Government, when they were
not prepared to recognise responsible government. That is the only difference that
I can see;
they carried along on the same lines as all former
governments, without any improvement
whatever. They made no attempt to change our
method of business to help the fishermen and
workers, but instead made it worse for them, and
for the country in general. They put us further in
debt. In 1939 the Commission of Government
had a deficit of $4,069,320 as compared with a
deficit of $1,528,525 in 1934 when they took
over. I refer you to the Financial Report, pages
20 and 30. It can be clearly seen that the Commission of Government did not handle
our affairs
any better than responsible government in the
light of our financial standing from 1934 to 1939.
If there had been no world war, what would have
happened? Would there be any Commission of
Government to be bothered with today? So far as
I am concerned I am going to consider the
stewardship of this caretaker government in the
light of their actions from 1934 to 1939. Since
that time illiterate women would have run the
affairs of this country just as well. For my part I
cannot see one act of the Commission of Government that could be commendable.
Mr. Chairman, permit me to make a few
remarks in connection with just two acts of the
Commission which, in my opinion, will give a
fair illustration of all their acts. First, so-called
free and compulsory education. I say "so-called"
because there is a 60% duty on exercise books,
scribblers, pencils, etc. imported into this
country. Therefore the word "free" is absurd.
"Inconsistency thou art a jewel!" Second, the
spending of thousands of dollars preaching cooperation, and causing thousands of dollars
to be
lost by the same people that co-operatives would
benefit. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be
misunderstood. I do not want people to think for
one moment that I am against co-operation, but
quite the contrary. What I want to point out is the
inconsistency of the Commission of Government. Thousands of dollars were lost to the
fishermen and workers of this country by the
creation of the government's Supply Department, by killing the trade of the outport
importer
and uprooting the business that had taken them a
lifetime to establish, and the fishermen and
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1265
workers of this country lost at least 30% on their
purchases.
Mr. Chairman, it is a recognized fact that the
government's Department of Supply picked their
favourites when appointing their committees or
groups, call them what you like. Perhaps these are
the parasites that Governor Walwyn referred to
in his farewell address, in which he said:
The cost of living here is terribly high, but
I hope it will tend to fall before long. I am
assured on the highest authority that this high
cost of living is not due to the high duties on
necessities, but is due to the high profits and
the excessive profits being made locally.
There are too many middlemen and commission agents, who are really parasites on the
community.
This expression, coming from no less a person
than a past chairman of the Commission of
Government, does not speak well for that body,
but rather verifies my statement of what can be
and is being done with the help of governments
to feed parasites rather than destroy them. It has
been said that it was rather late for the past
chairman to make this expression in his farewell
address. Maybe it was a little late, but it was much
earlier than the rest of the Commissioners.
I know that none of the Commissioners will
attempt to say that they fail to see where any evil
was committed. If they do, we could all rejoice
that such men did not have charge of the government of England at the time when Hitler
began
his threat to dominate the world. If they could not
see from the very day that the Supply Department
was instituted and its committees formed, that it
meant the domination of the trade of this country
by a few, then they were too small or indifferent
to realise what was going to take place; I hope we
won't, as a body of Newfoundlanders entrusted
by our fellow men to help to put things right. In
order to put things right, we must regard this
Convention as a declaration of war against
domination, manipulation and intrigue, and I
hope we will meet with the success that the Allied
armies met with against Hitler's domination.
Mr. Chairman, again I do not want to be
misunderstood. I know and agree that price control and the control of the distribution
of food and
other necessities for the winning of the war was
essential; but the handling of the textile business
by the Department of Supply was abused right
and left, and the outport importer was discriminated against. If there is any person
who
would like to dispute what I have said, let us ask
ourselves the question, "Did we know of any
ceiling price on a suit of clothes, or anything in
the drygoods line during the war?" No, sir, we did
not, and I say without fear of contradiction that
the Commission of Government did help big
business, and in doing so took a delight in upsetting the business of the outport
importer; and
again I repeat, the fishermen and workers of this
country lost at least 30% on their purchases.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps you do not grasp the
means whereby monopolies were created by the
establishment of the Supply Department. I will
make an attempt to point it out to you. When an
outport importer needed goods from any foreign
country, the first thing he had to do was apply to
the Supply Division of the Commission of
Government for a certificate of essentiality. That
application had to go before a committee of men
who were that man's competitors. In other words,
they were the wholesalers of St. John's. They
were given the privilege of being able to dive into
that man's private business, and even prevent him
from getting any goods. Perhaps you may ask in
what way they could do that. Well, here is an
example. I know of a man who in 1942 applied
for a certificate of essentiality for a quantity of
goods from New York. When his goods were
packed and addressed ready for shipment, an
agent from Newfoundland appeared at the warehouse in New York and seeing the address
on two
cases of goods he inquired from that firm if they
shipped to that man. When being told they had
been shipping to that man for a considerable time
he simply put the gun to the shipper by saying,
"If you ship that man these two cases you will
have to cancel our ten", with the result that that
man got no goods from the firm since.
Now these are the acts of the Commission of
Government, and I will leave it to my listeners to
decide for themselves if it was through ignorance
on the part of the Commission of Government of
how business is conducted, or was it to help their
favourites? Whatever it was, the people of this
country had to pay two profits, one to the
wholesaler and another to the retailer, which
amounted to at least 30% more than if imported
by the outport importer.
I know we have had bad governments in the
1266 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
past, governments that introduced class legislation to benefit their favourites and
supporters. I
know that, but this caretaker government outstrips them all; although I, with thousands
of
other Newfoundlanders, thought that by the advent of Commission of Government these
evils
would be remedied. But instead of the evils being
remedied they made things worse for the majority
of people, and helped a few to make a fortune at
the expense of the taxpayers. There is no need for
me to say any more about the Commission of
Government, as I know their doom is sealed by
themselves. They have been weighed in the
balance and found wanting, and should not be
considered as a future form of government.
As for myself, I am like the man and woman
who were fighting in their own backyard, when
a stranger passing by saw that the woman was
getting the worst of it. The stranger went in to part
them, when suddenly to his surprise both the
woman and the man turned on him and he had to
run for his life. They did not want any interference in their affairs. They were capable
of
settling their own squabbles together. The same
thing applies to me in considering our future form
of government. I do not want to see any more
interference in our political life. We have had it
for 15 years, and everyone knows we have had
enough of it.
Now I come to the question of responsible
government Mr. Chairman, although supporting
the motion now before us I would support it more
whole-heartedly if the words on the eighth and
ninth lines were deleted, which read, "as it existed in Newfoundland prior to its
suspension in
1934", because who in Newfoundland wants to
revert back to responsible government as it existed in Newfoundland prior to its suspension
in
1934? Who in Newfoundland cannot see the
error of our ways, and has not gained wisdom and
knowledge of the running of our affairs, so as to
conduct it on a sound and solid business method?
Who in Newfoundland would dare to say we do
not need a fusion of informed co-operations and
sound policies in the sphere of finance and trade,
and general development of the country?
I really do believe that the majority of the
people today are waiting and anxious for the time
to come when they can vote for our return to
dominion status imbued with new blood, to see
that our country is put on a sound footing, with a
determination that never again will outsiders
conduct our affairs and throw out the insult that
we are not fit to guide our own destiny.
Now let us be honest with ourselves. Let us
face the untamished, brutal fact, as one member
would like to put it, and that is, we have men in
this country who can look after our affairs, and
we need not import men to run our country, or
appeal to any other country to rock us in the
cradle. We have men who have not been asleep
during the past 14 years, and have realised how
essential it is that we look after our own affairs
instead of allowing outsiders to do it for us. We
have men in this country brilliant enough to have
seen the error of our ways, and if given a chance
would see to it that their country would be
governed just as good, or better, than any other
country on the globe. Please remember that Newfoundlanders have been classed "better
than the
best". We have men that have decided that we
safeguard ourselves in the beginning, by seeing
to it that a reformation must take place in our
constitution that will eliminate all evils, and
prevent monopolies which the fishermen and
workers of this country, in the past, have had to
support; a constitution strong enough to direct its
course in an honourable manner, beating in mind
that we live on a rock and our principal source of
living is the fish that touch in near that rock, not
in a regular manner, but in a manner that constitutes a gamble for a living. Therefore,
Mr.
Chairman, we must take the fishery as a guiding
star in all our undertakings, and other industries
will be automatically protected.
We do not care what name is placed on our
future government. What we want is a government that will carry out its obligations
to the
letter, and will be strong enough to resist all evils,
such as persons or firms that attempt to prevent
competition, that would create monopolies, and
would class them as parasites, and boycott their
goods until such time as our principal industry,
the fishery, had no competition I hope and pray
that we will not be carried away with the idea that
we are here only to try and make a beginning to
establish a government, but that we are here to
try and bring about ways and means whereby we
could live on our industries, and make laws that
will equally bear on all, and be prepared for any
eventualities that may take place in future years,
when we will be able to sing from the bottom of
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1267
our hearts, "God guard thee Newfoundland."
Mr. Chairman The motion is before the Chair.
Is the Convention ready for the question?
Mr. Hillier Mr. Chairman, I listened with very
great interest to the different speakers. They have
shown much enthusiasm for the cause they are
sponsoring. I do not propose to take up much time
in connection with the report before us. I merely
wish to say that I support the idea of placing
before the people the two forms, if I may call
them so, which are contained in this resolution,
because I feel the people have a right to make one
of these their choice. But I could not wholeheartedly support this resolution, Mr.
Chairman, and
I think that it might so happen that the other form
of government, if that may be so termed a form
of government, which is uppermost in the minds
of many scattered throughout Newfoundland —
I would not, I say, support that motion if I thought
by any chance this other form, namely confederation, will be....
Mr. Chairman If you don't mind, Mr. Hillier, I
don't want to embarrass you, but you are
required to confine your remarks to the two forms
of government.
Mr. Hillier Thank you, I do not wish to be out
of order.
Mr. Chairman I am not ruling you out of order,
I just want to draw your attention...
Mr. Hillier I just beg to support placing before
the people the two forms of government, if they
may be called forms, before the people at the
national referendum. Thank you.
Mr. MacDonald Mr. Chairman, in supporting
Mr. Higgins' motion now before this house, I do
it because I feel it is due to the people of this
country to give them a choice of possible governments. How can we do otherwise? It
is not being
fair to the people for me or any other member of
this Convention to attempt to prevent any of the
electors from voting for the government of their
choice, within limits, or to put it more plainly, a
government within the Empire.
Ever since this Convention started I have tried
to maintain a non-partisan attitude. I have tried
within my humble attainments to sift out from the
voluminous reports, and the equally voluminous
and not always edifying arguments of the various
speakers, some information which would lead me
to a decision as to the forms of government to
recommend to His Majesty's Government, and
indirectly to the people, that would be beneficial,
and also, as I understand we are expected to do,
make my own individual choice as to the particular form, that in my opinion, would
be the best
in the interests of our people generally. I have
tried through study and my own experiences to
justify my reasons for finally dealing with this
question of recommendations of forms of
government.
Personally, I am not greatly interested in
politics, beyond seeing that the people get a
square deal in their choice; I have no political axe
to grind, and it is highly improbable that after this
Convention is finished I will be very active in
political affairs. If the Convention has taught me
anything, it is that politics is not my line.
Mr. Chairman, we have in the motion before
us two forms of government, responsible as it
existed prior to its suspension in 1934, or that the
present form of government he continued. Let us
consider both in the light of the opinions of some
of our people. First, responsible as prior to 1934.
We had this type of government for about, I think,
80 years. During this time, we had what might be
described as good, bad, and indifferent governments — it all depends on our own political
leanings. We had leaders who were statesmen,
not politicians; others who were politicians, not
statesmen. It has been said that the difference
between a statesman and a politician is that the
former thinks he belongs to the state, and the
latter that the state belongs to him. I am afraid we
have had a few of the latter. In my own recollection of governments, going back about
50 years
or so, I have seen some of our public men practically ruin themselves in their businesses,
owing
to the interest which they took in their public
duties, as Mr. Higgins intimated. I have also heard
others accused of gross incompetency and worse; I
suppose it's all in this game they call politics.
During the period that Mr. Higgins refers to,
when revenues were low and we carried on, he
must concede the fact that the expenses of
government were correspondingly low, and certainly it is no argument to compare responsible
government with Commission of Government,
who, while having exceedingly high revenues,
also had to face exceedingly high costs of maintenance and capital expenditures.
We also sometimes forget that during the 20
years before Commission our credit was good,
1268 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
and in consequence, through continued borrowings, our public debt rose by leaps and
bounds; when we ran out of cash, we simply
borrowed more, thus sending our costs of government soaring. When we could not borrow
more,
then came the grand finale — no credit, no cash
to pay our bills, resulting in loss of responsible
government and the inauguration of Commission
of Government. It must be conceded that some of
our troubles were caused by world depression,
but I think the Amulree Report intimated that not
a few of our troubles were caused by incompetence on the part of our own governments.
We
did not like that report, which may or may not
have been exaggerated in some particulars, but at
least it was a report from a highly competent body
of men who made an independent enquiry, and
reported as they found.
We are now giving the people the choice of
going back to the same kind of government we
had prior to 1934, with all its failings; the kind of
government which will probably carry on in the
old tradition, fill positions in the civil service
from the ranks of party heelers, irrespective of
their abilities, who would only hold office during
the tenure of that particular party, and then out;
give old supporters a job for a couple of years,
and then pension them with a good retirement
allowance; in other words, upset the system the
Commission of Government has gone to some
pains to inaugurate in our civil service during the
past 14 years. We will also have our old system
of indirect taxation, a system which gives us a
good revenue when prices of imported commodities are high, and the people find it
hard to
survive.
In fine, Mr. Chairman, under responsible
government we have the glorious privilege of
having our very own independent system of
government; but can we afford this? Can we hope
to stand alone, and still afford our people and the
comparable standard of life as enjoyed by the
peoples of the American continent? It has been
said, and I think truly, that Newfoundland might
carry on under responsible government if the
people were satisfied to have a lower standard of
living than that of the peoples I have already
mentioned. The electors should give this particular form of government due consideration,
and a lot of serious thought before supporting it.
The second form of government mentioned in
the motion is the present one, Commission of
Government. This administration has, in my
opinion, done a good job generally speaking; it is
not an ideal form of government to have permanently; it has the disadvantage of being
a
system of taxation without representation, a system that has caused untold troubles
in the world,
a system that lost the American colonies to
Britain, and was probably the cause of the war in
South Africa. In Newfoundland it has probably
outlived its usefulness, and I think the time has
arrived to take more of our responsibilities on our
own shoulders. But let us give credit where credit
is due, the Commission of Government has done
some good work during its tenure of office; it has
been an honest administration, it has undoubtedly
put the civil service on a more businesslike basis
than any of our own governments ever did; it has
given our young people a better opportunity to
advance in that service, and to feel that their
positions do not rely on changes of government.
It has increased our social services in the matter
of health services and education, although much
still remains to be done. It has endeavoured to
give us good roads, though undoubtedly they
overdeveloped the fisheries. It must be conceded
that they had large revenues to accomplish all
this, but it also shows they had the will to do it.
They may have made mistakes, but who doesn't?
We should at least be thankful to the British
government and the Commission of Government
for the conduct of our affairs during the past 14
years.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I feel it is my
duty as a member of this Convention, knowing
that some of our people wish it, to support the
motion before the Chair, and give them the opportunity to support either of the two
forms of
government mentioned, should they so desire, at
the same time reserving my right as an individual
to question whether either of them would be in
the best interests of our country.
Mr. Bailey Mr. Chairman, with regard to every
minor and major event in this world there comes
a time when, to use a nautical expression, "this is
the pay-off", the meaning of that term being "a
coming to an end". I can say for myself and a
large number of members in this Convention,
with cheerful hearts, the
Evening Telegram
notwithstanding, in retrospect one can see the
mistakes, but that is nothing. We can profit by it.
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1269
If a man never makes a mistake, on investigation
you will find out he never accomplished anything. I will leave that to posterity...
I have done
my best as I saw it. I have put quite a few yaps in
it, and I suppose that people thought they could
do it better. My only comment on that is that it is
a shame that those people did not tell the public
what experts they were, and got the people to
nominate them for the election. What an awakening the people would have had! What
service they
would have rendered to the country! Surely Newfoundland should have had the best,
but we are
just a bunch of common people, trying to find a
way out. Some could have done better, others, I
venture to say, worse. I will excuse that, especially those of the younger generation.
They have
been left in a fog of political oblivion for 14 years
and were never taught, and never knew how a
democracy works. I wonder what one columnist
would have written or thought if she had attended
the House of Commons and heard the Commons,
with the enemy at the gates and the world falling
to pieces, take time out to debate if the women
sailors' undies would be pink or blue — and other
matters just as irrelevant. Perhaps it would have
been OK for the Commons to have done that,
being learned in the way of democracy, but for
Newfoundlanders — I guess they expect the
courts of Newfoundland to produce philosophers, but what a kick they got! It is only
common
men who came in here and I guess we will go
down in history as the only
codvention that ever
sat!
I take this out of a poem, "The Human Nation"; I quote the first verse:
To each is given a kit of tools,
A shapeless mass, a book of rules,
And each must carve e're life is done
A stumbling block or a stepping stone.
This I have kept constantly in mind through life,
and especially since I have been in this assembly.
I weigh this from every angle, and I can assure
you it has been my guide. I want to leave, not a
stumbling block for the generations that come
after, but a stepping stone to higher heights.
I have no political aspirations, for I believe
that in the parliament of the future the people
should not only elect those who should rule them,
but nominate them as well. This is my political
belief, and I can't see anybody with common
sense nominating me, and I don't see any political
party taking me in. For one thing I don't take the
nod from anybody in either hell, earth or heaven,
only my Creator, and sometimes not from him —
if I did I would be a better man.
Those forms of government, which according
to those terms of reference we are to advise the
home government on, I take each in turn. First, I
believe this is the biggest "jumblement" that was
ever foisted on a people, and I am not going to
jumble it any more. But with regards to myself I
am going to make it clear, the stand I am taking
and why I am taking that stand. I am voting that
responsible government go on the ballot, but I
firmly believe that there should not be a ballot,
that Britain, with or without the consent of the
people, should give back that which never should
have been taken away — the right that 1,400 of
our finest laid down their lives for, and at least
1,400 more went to an early grave for— the right
of self-government. And the hard part of it is that
those in Parliament who at the time raised Cain
because it was taken from us when they were in
opposition, today are in power and have put into
operation this cumbersome, expensive
machinery, while without any fanfare they have
turned loose, to full and dominion independence,
nearly half the Empire. We would have got the
same treatment if we had been 1,000 miles
southeast of where we are... Well, as long as
water runs I'll always believe that an Englishman's word is not worth the oxygen he
uses up
to form the word or sentence. Why has this happened? I'll whisper a secret, gentlemen.
We did
not take the nod, the imperial nod in the sixties,
and this time by hook or by crook we are going
to take the nod. Now the only thing between us
and that imperial nod (in fact now it is a frown)
is the people's "X". God grant they will use it
wisely. For myself, never will a foreign power,
no odds how friendly, hold dominion over the
152,000 square miles of this earth's surface, with
my consent, that our forbears helped to claim and
colonise.
I look back on the history of my own family,
outlawed and under sentence of death after the
Jacobite rising in Scotland. The two brothers
came to the Isle of Man and from there to New
1270 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
foundland, about the 1730s. If any of you read
Parson Harvey's
History of Newfoundland[1] —
"1812, did today visit the family of William
Bailey at Little Harbour, and christened his family" — that was my grandfather's father,
Newfoundland-born. William Bailey's father
believed in self-government and swinging a
claymore in defence of what he believed was the
right form of government for him. He did not get
it there, but in the woods of Newfoundland he
found it far from ideologies. Today our
forebear's theories are right, for apart from a
minority, all the world plans for self-government
— all those who can get it. I know there are
certain sections of this world where a minority
rules. They are behind an Iron Curtain. We are
the only ones in the Anglo-Saxon world who are
deprived of that right. Power politics are doing
that to us. Latitude and longitude today determine
the amount of self-govemment we will have if
the powers that be have their way, and this is
contrary to the Atlantic Charter, contrary to
democracy and also to the American way. A cry
was raised in the 18th century there, about taxation without representation. Britain
found out to
her cost that by not heeding that cry, it had to be
rammed down her throat, and the operation was
painful. Had power politics been forgotten then
and the rights of men taken into account, I wonder
if the affairs of this world would not have been
different. I doubt today if we would have had the
two bloody wars we have had lately and that
peace would be on this earth. I believe that all
people should govern themselves. It should be
the right of any man to do just that. Why deny it
to me? I have been deprived of that right for 14
years and a right good mess has been made of it.
Of that I will speak later. I have paid a little more
than lip service to democracy. That's why I
joined a queue four city blocks long, four deep,
to put on a uniform August 6, 1914. If anybody
saw the crowd there that day you would see there
was a lot of us of one single mind. It is a service
that all citizens should give, and if you count the
number in this gathering that have served their
stint in defence of King and country and look at
them when the vote is counted, you'll find out
that the great majority of them believe in the
divine right of self-government. Let the vote
speak for itself. The world will soon have a
chance to learn how it will go. Men from this
island built up a name to the Germans, the "White
Indians", a name Newfoundland can cherish, a
name their sons can be proud of, a name equal to
the Scotsmen's name of the "Ladies from Hell".
You'll note the enemy gave them both names and
only two classes of men in the Empire, the
Scotsmen and Newfoundlanders. There must be
nothing wrong with a country that can produce
men that even the enemy will name — nothing
that can't be cured. Scotland is turning her hand
today towards making her homeland fit for her
"Ladies from Hell" to live in. What are we doing?
I'm fairly, shall I say cosmopolitan, and in touch
with the outside — and what do I find? What is
being done to make Newfoundland a fit country
for the "White Indians" of both wars? Why those
of us who went through the hell of '14 to '18 and
who have raised our families have had 30 years
of civvy street in Newfoundland, understand
what those "White Indians" who have come back
have to go through, who know the restlessness of
settling to a different life, because war with its
months of intense boredom punctuated by moments of intense fear does something to
you. Can
we who understand war, who understand peace,
men who are at the age when men are at their best
in administrative positions, have no say at all?
Because, in a world torn by an economic crisis
the like this world had never experienced before,
Great Britain stepped into the breach. We lost
self-government, but buoyed up with the hope
that when the island was self-supporting, then
self-government would be restored at the request
of the people. Although Britain knew our resources, our liabilities, she brought us
in here in a
convention, had 45 of us running around from
Cape Race to Quirpon collecting statistics that
could have been given to us when we came in,
putting in motion cumbersome expensive
machinery after 14 years of political oblivion,
beginning with a blackening of all statesmen and
political institutions, forgetting that her own
political history was not so bright. She never
attained her position politically without civil war.
To anybody interested in political history, the
history of the Mother of Parliaments makes juicy
reading, and much can be improved on yet. I'll
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1271
handle this when speaking to Commission of
Government.
I must apologise to you for bringing in the
history of my own family, but I did it for this
reason. Each year Confederation Life puts out a
calendar they give to the public, a picture of how
our great sister dominion was colonised. You see
that great statesman Lord Halifax, with his ex-
soldier settlers, backed by British cash, planning
and building the city of Halifax. Another gives
the settlers wading ashore at Pictou to the skirl of
the pipers, a complete unit in itself. Go north to
Cape Breton Island, and at Soldier's Cove and
vicinity you'll find where Wellington's veterans,
some who stood in the squares at Waterloo,
carved out new homes. Go to south Nova Scotia,
there you'll find the Hessians, veterans of the
American war. All those were settled with British
cash, British organisation, and last of all with
British blessing and care while they were getting
on their feet. Compare that with the way our
forebears settled here, not with the help of their
government, but against the dictates of it. My
people were here about 80 years before it was
legal to build a chimney in a house. We could
forget this persecution in the past, but it is carried
on today. We must still take the nod and it makes
no odds what government is in power, whether
Tory, Liberal or Labour. We are not grown up
and must be babied, must go the way they think
we should go. Are those people mad? I can tell
them they are playing with dynamite. Take this
Convention, hardly one of us knew the other until
we met here, and today although two-thirds of us
are of the opinion that the agreement between the
British Parliament of 1933 and the Newfoundland parliament of that date should be
carried out, what do we find? Dictatorial terms of
reference passed not by Newfoundland's elected
representatives, no, but by remote control, something that won't allow us to even
mention the
agreement of 1933. It's ultra vires, beyond the
scope. To boil it down, it's this. The ballyhoo
about Newfoundland's effort in the two wars, her
2,000 dead — they did not die in defence of
Newfoundland democracy. They died for the
Czechs, the Poles, the Belgians. You have no
right to mention that agreement should be carried
out. It's ultra vires, beyond the scope of the death
in action of 2,000 Newfoundlanders and the probable shortening of the lives of 3,000
more. While
the cheers in the Commons and the Lords on
Newfoundland's effort in the war are still echoing through the buildings, they were
putting out
those cursed terms, the scalloped shroud of Newfoundland democracy. While we have
always
looked upon ourselves as the keystone in the arch
of empire loyalty, let Britain beware through this
action she does not tumble that arch down by
tampering with it.
I can only at this stage affirm my belief in a
government by Newfoundlanders for Newfoundlanders, divorced from remote control. A
government that should never have been
tampered with. We hope that those countries,
Britain and the United States, who signed the
Atlantic Charter, will take cognisance of this, our
appeal from the larger number of the people's
only representatives for the past 14 years, and
grant that dominion status be given as quickly as
possible, and allow us to put before the people
whatever type of government they believe in, in
a legal manner. Only this will give us back the
confidence that we have lost in the mother
country. Only then will we believe an Englishman's word is his bond. This has been
shown in
the manner we have been treated and I, for one,
regardless of what my fellow delegates think,
believe both the country and the people have not
been given a square deal. Politically in life I've
carried my end of the plank, in government I want
nobody to carry my end of the plank. It's my
God-given right, the right man has struggled for
a thousand years. Let Britain wipe the slate clean
of this wrong she has done her eldest daughter
and prove she is not playing power politics and
paying only lip service to democracy.
With regard to this form of government that
fate seems to have foisted on us, I can only quote
one of our politicians when he said that a certain
district left a bad taste in his mouth. This form of
Commission government has always left a bad
taste in my mouth. If it was the best form of
government in the world I would say that, and it's
not that. I cannot think how anybody with a drop
of blood in their veins could say anything else.
The first time I contacted Commission of Government it was a puzzle to me — that was
in 1936,
and in 1948 it still remains the $64 question —
how it operates. I would like to meet the Rip Van
Winkle who first worked out the plan, for I'm
sure that only somebody who has been asleep for
1272 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
100 years and had never been aware of the changes that had taken place in human endeavour,
could foist that form of government on his long-
suffering human brother, because we and the
English, if you undress us and we don't speak,
you can hardly tell us apart. I have asked myself
the question, why did our people stand for it? For
you can't give away freedom and have it. There
is only one answer to my mind. There were too
many of our bonds held in Newfoundland. I
haven't the least doubt that the constitution
would not have gone only it was a choice between
the 5% and 6% interest on the bonds and the
constitution. So the constitution lost.
In this I am reminded of a bond poster in
England during the first world war. It said, "You
gave your sons, but you won't lend your money."
In this case it was "You'll make sure of your
percentage" — the mess of pottage. And then
through promises, half truths, a heaven on earth
was promised by a nation who, for a scrap of
paper in 1914, went to war. That was our battle
cry, '33, how nice the promises, how soft the
siren's song. I have the Amulree Report; how
much it says, how little it means — something
like my Lord Addison, one question answered
seven different ways, then coming back, the other
scrap of paper treated by our sainted mother just
as callously as Germany treated that scrap of
paper guaranteeing the independence of Belgium
— so has Britain treated us, less the loss of life
and property. Let us examine the report. It starts
with a history time forbids us to go into, so we'll
take things that count for our period.
I'll first quote paragraph 218: "The credit
system might have disappeared without direct
intervention by the government, had an attempt
been made to train the people to independence."
[1]
Let's see what the Commission of Government
did to train them. Never in the history of this
island was the chance better to train our people
in independence. The dole could have been a
blessing in disguise, for it was the first time in
Newfoundland history that poor people had a
regular income, and this is what could and should
be done. It could have been tried out on a small
scale. First, two of us were sent into St. John's by
the people of Trinity South in 1939 because
things had come to such a pass that life was
unbearable, owing to mismanagement by those
in authority. The flour was full of weevils and
rope— unpalatable, nauseating. I knew what was
the matter, as from 18 to 24 years of age I had
been at sea, three years of that in the grain trade,
sometimes at sea for 117 days. If your flour tanks
weren't steamed at least once a year, the weevils
would over-top you and in the flour tanks you had
more weevils than flour. The flour was good but
a high wheat content, which lends easily to rope
and weevils. I visited the Furness sheds. The
sheds in August were packed to the metal roofs
with flour which had been there nearly a month,
although we had nearly a weekly service to the
old country, and in the summer months only a
monthly supply of flour should be kept on hand.
The winter it did not matter, as the cold weather
would keep the flour in good condition. I contacted those in authority but could not
get to see
them, although 11,000 people had sent me in
from the Broads to Lead Cove. That was the
fatherly, beneficial dictatorship we were under! I
saw a few heads of departments, but no soap. We
saw the Commissioner for Natural Resources,
and here I come to where our people could have
been lifted out of this credit system. We had an
income even if it was only six cents per day, but
how did we get it? First go to the little dictator,
the relieving officer, with a note; and then to the
local peddler who had friends at court. Mind you,
they were sure you would not learn anything, no,
you weren't grown up. Consequently, you could
only turn in your note at the peddler and take out
the bit of pork, the bit of tea, sugar, beef and last
but not least, the weevilly flour— good flour that
was spoiled by the indifference and ignorance of
the Department of Public Health and Welfare.
While travelling from Winterton to Hant's
Harbour I came across a small party, two cars.
They were boiling up. I made enquiries and found
out it was the Whitfield Laite Baritone Troupe,
"baritoning", singing the glories of co-operation
to a starving people. I had just done about 150
miles, a lot of it on foot; I had an intimate close-up
of every village from Lead Cove to the Broads,
had figures on how TB had increased in each
village. I was not in a good frame of mind,
because the thought struck me forcibly that I was
always intrigued with the idea of Nero fiddling
while Rome burnt, but I never thought I would
see Newfoundland starve while Laite "baritoned".
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1273
When we came into St. John's we saw the Commissioner for Natural Resources as I found
out he
was responsible for this campaign. I lit into him,
as I was interested in co-ops; I was on the
Labrador when Dr. Grenfell put one there, and I
had studied it in both Bristol and Glasgow. The
outcome was Mr. Gorvin asked me if I would take
up fieldwork, I said, "Yes, you give me October
and September cheques for Chelsea and Hant's
Harbour and I'll go over and form up a committee
in both places, hire a truck and go to Carbonear,
buy wholesale and distribute the whack for each
month, then the people will understand what cooperation means, and no other way. You'll
find
out the six cents will feed the larger family and
the smaller family will be a lot better off." He told
me he could not do it, he was trying it out on the
south coast. There it ended, and the hellish conditions went on until the war came
and I went
away. Mr. Gorvin informed me the government
was behind the co-op. I said, "Yes, but a long way
behind."
Why in heaven's name was this colossal fraud
worked on us? All the investigations, all the
promises, and here was a chance for a people to
help themselves. We had the men who were
prepared to work without a cent. I wanted nothing, only the dole I was getting, for
it was a pet
scheme of mine; but if I was prepared to give up
leading the people, a job would be found for me.
No thank you! I don't take the nod. Our credit
system was "an unmitigated evil, breeding
dishonesty, extravagance, luxury (mind you),
carelessness, recklessness regarding the future,
want of energy, laziness and dependence among
large sections of a naturally well-endowed hardy
and able people."
[1] That's the charge, but what did
they do to stop it? Sent around a baritone troupe,
put everything into the peddler's hands, so in
January he could count his profits until next
January. You can be sure nobody was going to
get an outfit under these conditions. I have always
said if the mother country had had our interests
at heart, she would never have given this form of
government, but it seems like we have got into
the old girl's hair too often, and this generation
was going to take it and like it. I have stated, and
I'm still of the opinion, the least we should have
had was a modified form of North of Ireland
status, where we would have had a say in our
local affairs. If our politicians were as black as
they were painted by those titled nincompoops,
then could you cure it by taking away from us the
only school we could learn in? It's like examining
a schoolboy and finding out he was behind in his
grades and, because that was the case, closing up
the school. Can you tell me that a country that had
come up through parliamentary procedure for
1,000 years, and had a parliamentary history so
juicy it would make ours look like the Lord's
Prayer in comparison, now that they had a chance
to put in a normal school and teach us, what did
they do? They closed up the little red schoolhouse
of democracy we had, and for that and the treatment we have had for the last two years,
I'll never
forgive a Britisher. Had they come in, given us
the right to manage our own local affairs, adjusted our currency to our markets by
putting in
a national bank, and taking the load off the fishermen who had to carry the weight
of selling in a
cheap currency market and buying a dear money
market — we, the fishermen, were ground down
by those two opposing forces, aided and abetted
by an obstinate limey bureaucracy. We have to
get divorced from the dear Canadian dollar. If
markets can't be found in Canada for our
products, then we have got to have a currency
either tied to the pound where we sell, and where
we can buy when things get to normal, or else
with the US, where we can buy and sell. This
must be the duty of whatever government is
elected, Commission or responsible, if confederation is turned down. We cannot go
on turning cheap drachmas, lira and other cheap
currency into dear Canadian dollars, and only
buy for cash in one market. Remember it's not
going to be a seller's market all the time, and
we'll have to trim our sails to suit the breeze.
Barter will be coming more and more. Had we
turned to barter in '33, things would not have
been so hard with us. Ten years from now you are
going to find a different world.
Paragraph 634, subsection 3. "It is essential if
this object is to be achieved that the country
would be given a rest from party politics for a
period of years...."
[2] In other words, close up the
1274 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
school. Now let us ask ourselves some questions.
We have had five years, ten years, 50 years
without representative government, what then? Is
the imperial government so naive that a group of
citizens is going to grow up in Newfoundland that
are going to jump in and after 14 years under the
dictates of a dictatorship, be Sir Robert Bonds,
Gladstones and Lloyd Georges? Even those
Commissioners took some of those politicians
they blackened and who, if the people had to
elect, would not have elected them. What in
heaven's name was going to happen when this
rest period was over? I suppose the smiling lord
envisaged such a good government, that when the
period was up we would be all saints, and after
this 14 year period we would automatically, like
a child, copy our elders. But what have we had?
I'll admit the Commission of Government has
done some good — Napoleon did that, so did
Hitler — and I want every red-blooded Newfoundlander to weigh it up. Did the bad outweigh
the good, or vice versa? I am the last one in
Newfoundland to pat our old politicians on the
back. Parliamentary procedure won't allow me to
say what I thought about them. A lot was good
according to their time and place. They did a lot
with a little. That you got to hand to them, but as
fit to govern, no, and in the United States and
Canada today the same old game is going on. I
have seen some juicy things that would open your
eyes, and things in Britain that were not so hot.
There was the little story of our bonds, and this
National Convention would not be held today if
the Swedes had been as foolish as other governments. The world would be likely singing
"Deutschland Uber Alles". You know there is no
Iron Curtain for a sailor, he gets inside it. Now
come back home, we suffered from too much
selfishness, that both in the high and low. In fact
to put it mildly we got the type of government we
deserved, and I believe the Commission of
Government has done some good in that they
have taught us a lesson. But did we get a rest from
politics? Although none of those men had to face
the electorate, yet we find public wharves built
where there were only two boats, while other
wharves, one costing $80,000, went into discard.
It cost $1 million to build a railroad from Whitbourne to Heart's Content under those
politicians
playing dirty politics, yet it cost $223,000 to build
a road on the railroad bed and they have no road
there yet. I was told in England one of the finest
rows in Parliament was because up to that time,
1939, every mile of road in Newfoundland had
cost $20,000 for labour and $10,000 for
machinery. They asked if it was golden roads, so
my informant told me. We did not find any great
amount of machinery on the Transportation
Committee. We don't know how this works. I
don't... There isn't anybody to question it and
after it's done there is no questioning it.
The Department of Natural Resources recently sold two loads of herring, one 278,000
pounds,
the other 268,000 pounds, to a Canadian fishing
firm, to catch fish in competition with us, with
bait from bait depots built and kept up with
Newfoundland taxpayers' money; and it's no use
for the department to say they made a profit,
because you could not catch fish enough to pay
for the bait when you come to consider what it
costs to construct and run a bait depot — frenzied
finance!
I have before me two documents — one a
report on Public Health and Welfare, which never
was debated because we have another which is
sub judice. I don't know what this hambone Latin
is, but it looks sub juicy to me. We were promised
when we took it that there was an investigation
on and that we, in time, would hear all about it.
Well, it is dated March, 1946. Two years is long
enough to have something like this cleared up. I
cannot recommend this form of government to
the people. There are all sorts of rumours out
about it running anywhere from $100,000 to $1
million adrift. The Auditor General says a final
and definite opinion cannot be recorded by him,
as to the causes of errors and omissions without
investigating matters which are outside his
proper functions. The Auditor General says it is
his duty to inform the Commission of Government that in his view the time has come
for an
enquiry to be made. Well, we were informed an
enquiry was going to be made and we would
know the outcome of it, but that's as far as it has
gone. I think myself it's unfair for this stuff to be
around charging people. If an investigation has
been held we should be told about it, the innocent
cleared, the guilty punished — or the Auditor
General told he was getting off a lot of hot air.
It's not possible that any graft is going on in a
government the country believes is clear of those
things — that could only happen under crooked
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1275
politicians and in responsible government. Perhaps we did not get such a bargain in
giving up
responsible government after all. I always looked
upon this government as being as our Indian
friends would say, pukka, but I must admit I have
been terribly disillusioned since coming into the
National Convention.
Take the supplies. It's no secret that some
sections of the country could not get sugar
enough to fill their rations, while others could buy
it by the sack. If this is the best the Commission
of Government could do, then I don't think we
did much better by not following the old way, for
the Good Book says, he that is faithful in the wee
things will be faithful in the greater. That can go
just as well in reverse. Anyway, I would like a
look at St. Peter's private log on the Commission
of Government. Only then would I be satisfied
that everything is oak and copper-fastened. I
think one should have an opposition in a government. At least you would learn how
it was working, and sometimes you would find out about the
minor graft, even if the big got away on you.
We'll not forget the construction of the bases
— 60 cents for a Newfie driving a truck, if he had
no accident; and 50 cents per hour if he had an
accident; while his opposite number from the US
was doing the same job for $1.10. Now the
powers that be could not get around that. They
had to keep the Newfie down. It's a crime for a
Newfie to have or get a dollar. How easy to let
him get all the traffic could bear and then clap on
a 20% income tax. If traffic was dislocated on the
railroad or along the street, the income tax could
take up the slack. Today all over the world, it is
talked about how the Newfoundland government
treated their people, and would not have money
in their country when it was to be had for the
asking. I expect any day now to see one of those
vaporous terms that Newfoundland won't take
only $5 per quintal for fish. It may dislocate
something — brains, common sense, conspicuous by its absence.
I have tried to show, Mr. Chairman, that to my
mind anybody that votes for this form of government really has no knowledge of men,
let alone
of government. I'm sorry I've got to adopt it or
whatever we've got to do with it, for I'm still at
sea, but I guess with those famous terms of reference, I have to do something with
it; but it won't
be to vote for it, for I have never recognised it as
a body governing me, and I never will. It is
undemocratic, it is contrary to the laws of God
and man what Great Britain did to her own; she
did little worse when Pitt charged her with turning loose the tommyhawk and the scalping
knives
of the Indians on our own blood in the war of the
American Revolution; and until she repairs the
wrong she has done, mother or not, she will
always be to me Perfidious Albion.
I put in from 1931 to 1933 in the depression
days in the United States. I was fishing and my
wages as a fisherman were $387.78 a year. My
family ate dole under responsible government.
Then I went to Halifax. It was the same thing
there. I came back here. We had an insurance
policy. We ate that. In 1937 I headed three miles
for the dole. I expect I am the only man on the
floor who ate the dole. I went through it. I had
spent my lifetime at sea. As long as there was any
place where I could make a living, I did not care
where it was, whether it was Patagonia or Georgia, I felt that the world was behind
me. There
came a time when every part of the world was
alike and wherever I went, the most I could hope
to get was $25 a month, if I got that. I was fishing
out of the United States and we had 88,000
pounds of fish in the hold waiting for a chance to
dump it. I had to take a crust of bread out of the
gum box and dry it on the stove and eat it. I have
seen it done. When I came back here, I struck the
same thing. I had never looked after my land or
anything else. Our family was small. My land
was down, but I said, "If I can live so long,
nobody can starve me now." I went to work on
the land. I know the feeling of getting up in the
morning and taking two slices of that black mink
and wash it down with switchel tea; then swing a
pick on the rocks, trying to clear the land. I tell
you, after two hours of that, I have seen the flying
saucers before anyone else ever saw them. It is
no laughing matter. This is the reason I am here
— that is why I came in through that door — if I
do not go through it one of those days. I am in
earnest. I know what it is like. I cannot only stand
up here and tell about John Doe's beri-beri. I
know what it is myself. I know what the fishermen went through. The Commission government
lost us $2 on every quintal of fish we caught,
through the rate of exchange. It was power
politics. We went through it. I went on until the
war broke out. I came over here with 50 cents in
1276 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
my pocket, and there was 50 cents in the house.
I went to the Newfoundland Hotel; I knew Mr.
Stafford and I got my dinner. Then I got out of
the country, and thank God, luck has been with
me ever since. But I had to go aboard a Greek
ship to get a job.
The other day we had here one of the best
bargains in a ship that Newfoundland ever had,
and I do not need anyone to tell me anything
about ships. I went up and I saw the Commisioner
and I said, "Why not get her?" I was told that they
would investigate the matter. We have a deficit
on the Railway, and here was something that for
the next five years, three at least, would take
$200,000 off the deficit. But, no, that was not
worth bothering about. One of the members of a
firm here who gave me my first job, got the ship
and is repairing her here in Newfoundland. This
is what we are up against. There are roughly
4,000 seamen here and not 500 of them can get a
job. One of these days depression will strike and
we will have nothing; and when it does, God help
whoever is in charge of this country — whether
it is confederation, Commission or responsible
government. I can assure you, you are not talking
to Newfoundlanders like you had in 1939. You
have Newfoundlanders now who know what it is
to have had a dollar. Let us prepare this country
so that we can earn a living. That is why I am
here. And if we do not have a better Newfoundland in the future, I will stretch rope
for it.
[The Convention adjourned]
