Mr. Vincent Yesterday I moved the adjournment of the debate with the hope of getting
precedence to the floor; since then I have been
told that there are quite a few members who wish
to speak on this motion and I may say that I
propose to finish my address within 20 minutes.
As the Convention fast draws to its long-expected end, its conduct has indeed become
commendable; so much so that one of my delegate
friends yesterday called it the glad-handers club;
and in speaking to the motion certain members
have even waxed poetical. My respected and
close personal friend, Mr. Hickman, at the con
clusion of a very fine address a few days ago,
invoked in his usual masterful way the poetical
phraseology of our national ode. Mr. Vardy, my
associate from Trinity North, content with nothing less than the original, wrote a
poem which he
quoted in support of his arguments, and seriously,
Mr. Chairman, our poet of the year, your friend
and mine, delegate Ike Newell,
[1] had better look
to his laurels or Mr. Vardy with his free verse may
supplant him — that verse was entirely free, I am
sure, Mr. Vardy!
Now, as the Convention is about to conclude
its findings and make its recommendations; as
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1309
Newfoundland, the land we love, finds herself at
the crossroads, a bit hesitant as she reads the
signpost plainly marked, "A Date With Destiny",
I too would become poetical and quote from a
little poem which I have carried in my scrapbook
for some years now. I do not know the author, sir,
but it does seem timely and appropriate as Newfoundlanders generally wait expectantly
for the
referendum day. It goes like this:
*
It may be rather far-fetched, sir, to say that our
date with tomorrow will be from there to forever,
but certain it is that in the national referendum
which is to be held next spring, we trust, the road
we as Newfoundlanders take may determine to a
great extent our way of life for years to come, and
possibly the destiny of generations yet unborn.
What of the future, then? Is the road ahead a clear
one? Is it likely to lead to the uplands of happiness
and prosperity, or is it still to be befogged and
dimmed with hesitation and uncertainty? Does
government play an important role in determining our way of life? Or is it true that
our prosperity, our future place in the sun will be
determined by economic factors beyond our control? One delegate speaking a few days
ago
pleaded for a government that would provide
those elusive peaks of attainment called
economic security and political stability. Mr.
Chairman, I very much doubt if any government
in the world can provide such blessings, and
although I am inclined to agree with that
gentleman that there is a form of government that
might go a long way toward such an attainment,
yet in the main, the responsibility for our future
prosperity as a people and for our stability of
government will rest entirely with us. For
whatever form of government we adopt, there
will still be those strong westerlies dashing the
cold Atlantic spray in the face of the industrious
fisherman as his boat navigates the stormy waters
of Cape Freels. There will still remain those long
and weary nights as fearless schooner fishermen
keep their watch and hope for daylight, as their
ships plough up the coast to the far-flung harbours of the Labrador. Yes, there will
still be the
elements to contend with, the vagaries of the
weather to worry over for Mr. Fudge's hardwork
ing farmer in the Humber valley. Forms of
government cannot change this, yet good, wise
government can and will help to a large extent in
the alleviation of a great many of the vexing
problems that now face our people. But we must
not expect too much. And here I would quote the
words of John Galsworthy, when he wrote: "History tells us that the status quo is
of all things the
most liable to depart; the millennium of all things,
the least likely to arrive."
Mr. Chairman, I believe I am right in saying
that there is not a man or woman of voting age in
this country who does not believe in the concept
of self-government. That almost legendary figure, honest Abe Lincoln, talked of a
government
of the people, by the people and for the people.
Maybe such a government never did exist.
Maybe it is like Sir Thomas More's Utopia, a
myth, a daydream, which for its author meant
having his head cut off by order of an unscrupulous monarch whose only philosophy
was
a blind belief in the divine right of kings.
In addressing myself to this motion, I am
placed in a rather awkward position. As a member of this Convention, I ask myself
what is
expected of me at this juncture. A great-uncle of
mine at the turn of the century contested a section
of the district which I have the honour to represent. Unfortunately he was defeated.
Asked some
years later what caused his defeat, he said his
defeat was the result of his having the courage of
his convictions. At the risk of suffering a like fate,
should I at some future date decide to follow
Major Cashin's career as a politician, I am going
to frankly state my convictions, although in order
to be fair, I must first say that I support the idea
of placing both forms on the ballot paper in the
referendum. I would explain here, sir, that I am
merely supporting the putting of responsible and
commission forms of government on the ballot;
I cannot and will not recommend them.
Moreover, I want to make it unmistakably clear
that in supporting them, I am not trying to place
any restriction or limitation in the way of the
people in their exercising a choice of a form of
government not included in this resolution.
Mr. Chairman, speaking in this assembly in
1310 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
the early stages of the debate in the autumn of
1946, I said that if a referendum were to be held
tomorrow I would not vote for a retention of
Commission of Government. In January 1948, I
see no reason to change my opinion. As Mr.
Keough said, Commission of Government may
have brought system and method to the civil
service; Commission of Government may have
introduced many long-wanted reforms; Commission of Government may have expanded our
public health service. With that I entirely agree,
but gentlemen, Commission of Government has
outlived its usefulness, it has nothing to offer for
the road ahead. It was a necessary expedient. But
the measure of its performance in the past, under
circumstances vastly different from what they
will be tomorrow, can be no prediction of its
achievement in the future. In fact, sir, the whole
concept of such a form of government is wrong.
Any form of government which is in itself the
essence of naked power, and which shows scant
respect for, and little concern with popular public
opinion, cannot in my opinion be a good form of
government — in short, it is a dictatorship. Let
me illustrate, let me take you back to the northeast
coast, where 15,000 people living between
Gambo and Carmanville are isolated from
December until April. Their economy is for the
most part built on the fisheries. All supplies and
local products are, of necessity, waterhauled.
From time to time intelligent and progressive
citizens have petitioned for a road system to link
up those northern communities. Such a road system would naturally be a costly project
and
maybe not commercially profitable; but from an
economic standpoint it might well lead to a wider
diversification of the fisheries there; it might
enable fishermen to rush their product to a
centralised curing plant, and their salt product to
a sheltered shipping point. It might well be a wise
expenditure of public monies heretofore called
'dole', but petitions of popular opinion on such
matters are given scant attention. In more cases
than one, high officials of government have little
inside knowledge of the real wants of the people.
But yet without stint or scruple that same government will expend many thousands of
dollars on
a macadamised Road De Luxe,
[1] while fishermen
and labourers in Bonavista Bay and Notre Dame
Bay wallow in mud, and get pushed around with
a lot of other unfortunates in the cabin of a 40-foot
motor boat to try to make the railheads at Gambo
or Lewisporte some 40 miles away.
Mr. Chairman, our hard-working toilers want
more than three square meals and a tight roof, and
they deserve more, and I would repeat that they
do not take very kindly to the policy of any
member of this Convention or government that
would put the Avalon first and the rest of the
country afterwards. I see no earthly reason why
we should retain the Commission government.
Mr. Smallwood said a few days ago that there are
many who would vote for it. I do not follow that
line of reasoning. Do they believe that Commission of Government brought prosperity
to Newfoundland? Are they forgetting the lean years of
six cents a day dole? Do they think Commission
should be credited with the upsurge of prosperity
created by the influx of scores of millions of
dollars of foreign capital into this country during
the war years? Or would they credit the Commission government with world prosperity
— a
prosperity engineered by the warmongering of
that misguided prophet called Hitler. Furthermore, sir, in the event of our being
financially
unsound in the not too distant future, are the
adherents of this form of government asking
themselves now, do they expect the brave but
impoverished mother country, now battling inflation with a fierce austerity programme,
to come
to our aid? The Englishman is a gallant fellow,
but just now he is up to his neck with his own
worries, and it is just plain folly to expect help
from the imperial government should we fall
upon lean times. It is just not good cricket and it
is unreasonable. With no assurance of help,
financial or otherwise, let us ask ourselves,
"Should we retain Commission of Government?"
The answer should be emphatically, "No." It
would indeed be a grave mistake. Our date with
tomorrow is going to be a long one, not just
another temporary expedient. We must take the
long-range view, for our choice may well be the
government of a century. In summing up this
phase of the motion, I repeat that I will not vote
for Commission and I will not recommend Commission. It has outlived its usefulness
and should
go. I repeat again, I am unable to recommend it
to my constituents or to Newfoundlanders generally.
Responsible government was suspended in
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1311
1933. After a span of a natural lifetime, heavily
burdened with debt, its people impoverished, its
government confused, the oldest colony of the
Empire gave up self-autonomy. Newfoundland
did not give up reluctantly. The erstwhile
dominion found herself in the hands of the
receivers and little remained for her but to submit
to the indignity of losing her suffrage and becoming the administrative agency of
a country 2,000
miles away. May I review briefly some of the
factors that led up to that drama of 1933?
(1) Newfoundland had an export economy, and
there was then a world depression.
(2) Newfoundland was dependent on the
economy of countries thousands of miles away.
(3) Newfoundland had no internal market for her
products; moreover, she had to import even the
everyday commodities of life from abroad.
(4) Newfoundland's chief industry, the fisheries,
was replete with the vagaries and uncertainties
that, for want of a better name, must be called in
this country acts of God.
(5) Newfoundland never could raise any substantial internal loans; thus her debt for
the
greatest part was external. In other words, her
financiers were investors who wanted their
pound of flesh,
(6) With 6,000 miles of coastline and more than
1,300 settlements, she was burdened with a cost
of government that, to say the least, was excessive; or as someone aptly put it, she
carried the
trappings of an elephant on the back of a mouse.
(7) Responsible government did not always
adopt policies that were conducive to prosperity
and the public weal.
Mr. Chairman, I hold that economically and
geographically, the conditions that led up to the
1933 drama are not now substantially different.
We are for the moment enjoying only a temporary prosperity, the impact of a war boom,
and
a recession must inevitably come. Already there
are clouds on the horizon, and it may well be that
in the not far distant future, our then finance
minister will be off and away to ring the doorbell
of some foreign capitalist, tipping his hat, with,
"I would like a loan if you do not mind!"
Gentlemen, I am not a pessimist. I believe in
Newfoundland, in her great fisheries. I have faith
in Newfoundlanders; but faith is not enough. All
the faith in the world will not enable that fisherman who sailed in my schooner this
past summer
to pay his account and buy for a family of five out
of the $300 seasonal earnings that was his in
1947. All the faith in the world will not give him
a position when there is no work to be had. Yes,
that family allowance would give him a lot of
faith and greater hopes....
But there is a destiny in store for our beloved
island, a greater destiny than some of us perhaps
realise, a destiny that will be of our own making,
if we as a people choose wisely and well. Yes, sir,
Newfoundland has a date with tomorrow; and in
concluding I would repeat with some minor alterations, and with an apology to the
immortal poet,
a quotation from Longfellow's "Ship of State":
Thou too sail on, O Ship of State,
Sail on in union strong and great,
Thy countrymen, with all their fears,
With all their hopes of future years,
Are hanging breathless on thy fate!
Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea,
Our hearts, our hopes are all with thee,
Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears,
Our faith triumphant o'er our fears,
Are all with thee, are all with thee!
Mr. Chairman, I support wholeheartedly the idea
of putting both forms on the ballot paper, but I
cannot support the motion.
Mr. Bradley It is not my intention to detain this
Convention at any length this afternoon, and I rise
purely for the purpose of making my position
upon this resolution perfectly clear.
After a somewhat hectic and not altogether
creditable period of existence comprising some
16 months, we have reached the final and most
important stage in the life of this Convention.
Within the next few days we shall decide what
forms of government we shall recommend to the
British government to be submitted to our people
at a referendum. The first of two resolutions upon
this subject is before us now and, if I am to judge
by many of the speeches made upon the resolution thus far — and indeed by the resolution
itself
— the conviction is forced upon me that the
intention wilfully to ignore our plain duty as set
out in the terms of reference is as strong as ever.
Even before the Convention election in 1946,
at which we were sent here to discuss the matters
set out in the Convention Act, I made it quite clear
to this country that I regarded the Convention as
a completely non-political body — non-political
in the party sense, at any rate. Of course we had
1312 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
to deal with political matters, but obviously and
clearly and beyond all doubt, it was outside our
jurisdiction to deal with them as partisans. It was
not our business to advocate or oppose any form
of government. Our duty, the whole purpose of
our existence was simple and plain. It was to
recommend to the British government forms of
government to be submitted to the people at a
referendum. Nothing more and nothing less. Obviously that task was to select and recommend
such forms of government as might be suitable to
the people of the country. It was the British
government's inability to carry out this task that
brought this Convention into existence. We were
to do what they, 2,000 miles away, could not do.
Because of our closer associations with, and
presumably greater knowledge of our own
people — and remember care was taken to see
that all sections of the country were represented
— because of these associations, we should be
able to judge more clearly not what the people
actually wanted — that was for them to say —
but what they might want, what might be suitable
to them. Our own personal predilections and
prejudices, our own party loyalties and antagonisms, our own political beliefs and
faiths
were all entirely outside the scope of that purpose
and should never have been pemtitted to enter in.
Indeed, if we had adhered strictly to our plain
duty, we would have completed our task, made
our recommendations, and up to the dissolution
of the Convention not one Newfoundlander need
have known what particular form of government
was favoured by any individual member of the
Convention. We are not here to express our
political views or to advocate any form of
government, but simply to study calmly, not as
party hacks, what in our opinion might be
suitable to the people of Newfoundland, and to
recommend to the Government of the United
Kingdom that the people of Newfoundland be
given an opportunity to say which form might be
suitable to them. They, the people, would choose.
Unfortunately it became plain from the outset
that the Convention was to be the scene of a
struggle of ideologies instead of one concerned
for the wishes of the people, a political battleground instead of a forum of calm
investigation. Indeed, at one stage of the proceedings there
were plain indications that would shut out all but
one form of government, do away with the
referendum altogether; and it is fortunate indeed
that the British government was far-sighted
enough to retain the last word in their own hands.
Now I come to this resolution. The cloven
hoof of partisanship is apparent in its very wording. It does not recommend that Commission
government and responsible government or
either of them be submitted to the people — I
repeat, it does not recommend that either Commission or responsible government be
submitted
to the people. What it does do is to set these two
forms in a class by themselves, and it asks the
people to declare their preference as between the
two. If it passes, and I am quite sure it will,
because it has the support of the responsible
government group which constitutes two-thirds
of this Convention, if it passes it is plain that any
other form of government is excluded. I want to
repeat that, sir. If this resolution passes in its
present form it is plain that any other form of
government is excluded. If I vote for this resolution I cannot consistently vote for
a resolution to
place any other form of government upon the
ballot paper, for I have already chosen to demand
that the people shall make a choice between these
two, and I can't now consistently add a third. I
have asked that there be a showdown between
these two forms of government, and a third and
a fourth form of government has no place in that
showdown.
Assuming that the resolution itself has passed,
and that Mr. Smallwood's resolution to place the
question of confederation upon the ballot paper
also passes, and that some other member of this
Convention proposes a resolution that representative government be also placed upon
the
ballot paper and that passes, now what position
are we in? Isn't it an absurdity? The first thing
that we recommend is that we have a showdown
between responsible government and Commission government, and the winner of that duel
is
then to take up the cudgels with the other two.
Obviously the position is an absurd one, and no
man who votes for this resolution can, in consistency, vote to place any other form
of government on the ballot paper.
Again, I would point out that our duty is to
recommend forms of government to be submitted
to the people. Nowhere in the Convention Act do
I find anything authorising us to make recommendations to keep any form of government
off
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1313
the ballot paper, and this resolution is clearly in
that category. It is obviously restricted. You can
only have two in an alternative, and this resolution is alternative in its character.
"Choose ye",
this resolution says, "between this form and that
form." To read it in any other way would be, of
course, completely senseless. Is it not an attempted interference with the prerogative
of the
British government to determine what shall and
what shall not be put on the ballot paper? Obviously if there is to be a duel, a showdown
between two forms, that is a recommendation that
no others be submitted. It is only within the power
of the British government to say that no others
shall be admitted. It is not within our province.
I draw these matters, sir, to your attention.
They are for your consideration. They are your
responsibility and not mine. For my part I am here
to vote for those forms which I think should be
submitted to the people, and to refuse to vote for
those forms which I consider should not be so
submitted; but I have no right whatever, under the
Convention Act, to ask the British government to
keep any form off the ballot paper, either directly
or inferentially, and that is the effect of this
resolution. As to the forms of government for
which I shall vote, the form which I shall support
at the referendum, that is an entirely different
question. I am not bound to disclose my political
views to this Convention, or to anybody unless I
so desire, and I shall not do so this afternoon.
I have only to say in conclusion that I favour
the submission of both Commission of Government and responsible government to the
people,
but I do not favour a resolution which attempts to
exclude everything but these two; and that is what
this resolution does attempt to do. I consider that
it is framed, not to put the two forms it mentions
upon the ballot paper, so much as it is to keep all
others off. I shall vote against the resolution, sir.
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to this
motion, so ably proposed by Mr. Gordon Higgins
K.C., and also very admirably seconded by Mr.
Reuben Vardy. I might say, sir, at the outset, that
I agree wholeheartedly with this motion made
and I shall attempt to prove in a few moments
why I believe it.
There are one or two things I would like to
mention, and the first is that I have been very
greatly impressed by the spirit of the debate on
this motion and secondly, very greatly impressed
by the quality of the various speeches which have
been delivered. There is just one thing I want to
say in connection with the remarks made by my
friend Mr. Keough, yesterday I believe. Mr.
Keough apparently wishes to establish himself
and Mr. Newell as the two people, alone of all
this Convention, whose wish and desire and hope
is for three square meals a day. So far as I can
gather they are convinced that the other 42 or 43
members of this Convention don't give a tinker's
cuss as to what happens to the man on the bill of
Cape St. George. Both Mr. Keough and Mr.
Newell are workers in the co-operative movement, and I therefore cannot understand
either of
them thinking that nobody else in this Convention cares for what they term the underdog.
He
said yesterday, and I quote as nearly as I can, that
"If the fisherman or the poor farther or the poor
whatnot in this country could obtain his three
square meals a day, little did he worry as to the
man at the seat of government getting away with
a draft." Now that is a very false philosophy, and
I am surprised that any man who is supposed to
be a leader in a co-operative movement should
ever express it. "If you can get your three square
meals all right, don't worry about the fellows who
are ruling over you." That is the opinion expressed by Mr. Keough, and Mr. Keough
is a
friend of mine, and I sincerely hope he made a
mistake and said something he did not intend to
say. It is an absolutely false philosophy that you
are going to make dumb, driven cattle of our
people, or any other people. Is that all you want,
to be fed and left alone like animals? I sincerely
hope not, and I hope Mr. Keough and Mr. Newell
will tell the people that in addition to being fed
three square meals a day, and a mug-up at night,
in addition to that they will teach our voters to
think, and that they have to take an interest in the
men that they send to rule over them. I hope they
will not forget that...
Now, I had planned and had set out to prove
the very thing, the very statement which has just
been read by my friend Mr. Bradley. Some of the
things which Mr. Bradley said I do not agree with,
but I shall endeavour to prove that Mr. Bradley is
absolutely correct, and that is that once having
recommended these two forms of government, to
do any other would be ultra vires, and I shall
endeavour to prove it. First, I am going to speak
from a text — not scripture — and I want to quote
1314 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
one or two things, I am quoting from the editorial
in the Evening Telegram of 17 February, 1934.
Mr. Chairman I can't permit you to quote from
a newspaper. You can summarise it, but you can't
quote from the newspaper.
Mr. Hollett Well, this is the way it goes, something like this, since you won't allow me to look
at the newspaper.
Mr. Hollett I have the newspaper here, very
carefully preserved in mothballs. Some papers
smell better if they are preserved in mothballs.
Mr. Chairman I simply stated that you can't
quote from newspapers.
Mr. Hollett This is taken from the editorial,
which says, "Newfoundland received from His
Majesty a pledge which will be faithfully adhered
to. It will receive back its constitution, and its
place among the dominions when it proves itself
equal to the responsibility which such status requires." I quote you that, and I shall
refer to it
again in a minute. I shall quote also from the
Hansard of the British House of Commons, 2
December, 1943.
Mr. Hollett Certainly, 2 December, 1943. At
that time the Undersecretary of State for the
Dominions made this statement: "The arrangements made in 1933 included a pledge by
His
Majesty's Government that as soon as the
island's difficulties had been overcome and the
country was again self-supporting responsible
government, on request of the people of Newfoundland, would be restored. Our whole
policy
is governed by this understanding."
I quote you these two things, and I don't call
it my scripture, but you might call it that if you
wish. I quoted first from the Evening Telegram
to show the opinion which the people in this
country must have held in February, 1934. I am
sure that's quite plain to all of you. The editor was
expressing the opinion not only of himself, but of
the whole country, that Newfoundland had
received a pledge from the British government
that it would receive back its place amongst the
dominions when it proved itself equal to the
responsibility. And I quoted also Mr. Emrys-
Evans, Undersecretary of State for the
Dominions in 1943. Evidently the opinion which
our people had in 1934 was also the opinion held
by the British government in 1943.
Now I wish to make another statement of my
own, which I shall endeavour to prove...that if
Mr. Higgins had included in his motion any more
forms than the two which he has or possibly one
of them slightly amended, then he would have
made the Convention Act ultra vires of the Letters Patent 1933-34. That is the statement which
I hope to prove and that is why I said I agree
wholeheartedly with Mr. Bradley when he made
that statement.
Mr. Chairman Do I understand your position is
that had the motion been enlarged on by Mr.
Higgins by including another form of government, or an amended form of government,
then
the National Convention Act would be
ultra
vires?
Mr. Hollett Yes, if he had included three forms,
or four forms, then I say he would have made the
Convention Act
ultra vires of the Letters Patent
of 1933-34. Now I have the Consolidated
Statutes. There are four volumes, but I have only
brought in one, because I find there the Letters
Patent from 1832 down to 1905 and 1917, including 1832, and 1855 and also 1876, and
I take it
that these Letters Patent were our constitution. I
take it that around these Letters Patent are
wrapped our very laws. These Letters Patent
themselves gave our past legislators the authority
to create these acts, every one of them. Not one
of them could have been made unless there had
been the Letters Patent to give the legislator
authority, or the Governor authority to sign these
acts. Whether you agree with me or not, that is
definitely my opinion.
Now, sir, 1933. Up to that time the Letters
Patent 1876 to 1905 were actually the constitution of this country. In 1934 these
were
suspended, and we had the Letters Patent 1934 in
their place. I take it therefore as self-evident that
all acts of law or otherwise that have been made
by the Commission of Government since that
time are made under and by virtue of the Letters
Patent, 1934. I want, sir, your opinion on that.
Mr. Chairman That is correct. I think the effect
of the Letters Patent of 1934 was to suspend our
free political institutions under the several acts to
which you have drawn our attention. I think that's
a very safe and inescapable conclusion.
Mr. Hollett All our laws since are based on
these Letters Patent?
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1315
Mr. Hollett Now I have here the Letters Patent
of 1934, and I want to read a section. You see just
what authority was given relative to this particular matter, or at least what was
intended by
His Majesty King George V. He issued his Letters Patent to this country in 1934, and
in them he
made certain statements and if the British government does not live up to these Letters
Patent, then
even my loyalty will get a rude shaking:
George V by the Grace of God of Great
Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions
beyond the sea, King, Defender of the Faith,
Emperor of India, To all to whom these
presents shall come. Whereby certain Letters
Patent under the Great Seal bearing date at
Westminster, the 28th day of March 1876,
Her Majesty Queen Victoria did constitute
the Office of Governor and Commander in
Chief in and over this Island of Newfoundland, and Whereas by further Letters
Patent, bearing date at Westminster of 17th
day of July, 1905 His late Majesty King
Edward VII did amend the aforesaid Letters
Patent, and Whereas (this is one of the important sections, sir) Whereas we have received
an address from the Legislative Council and
House of Assembly of the said Island, praying that we may be graciously pleased to
suspend the aforesaid Letters Patent, and to
issue new Letters Patent, which would provide for the Administration of the said Island
until, until such time as it may become self-
supporting again, on the basis of the recommendations which are contained in the
Report of the Royal Commission appointed
by us on the 17th day of February 1933.
This is the Amulree Report, sir. Let us see what
it says. If you have it in your possession, page 224
under the heading "Summary of Recommendations", sub-section G: "It would be understood
that as soon as the Island's difficulties are overcome and the country is again self-supporting,
Responsible Government, on the request of the
people of Newfoundland, would be restored."
And His Majesty King George V states definitely
in the Letters Patent that he is graciously pleased
to issue new Letters Patent, which would provide
for the administration of the said island until such
time as it may become self-supporting again on
the basis of the recommendations.
Now, if that is not plain to everybody there
must be something wrong with everybody, or
with me. Therefore this was the position. I have
quoted the Evening Telegram, I have quoted Mr.
Emrys-Evans, I have quoted the Letters Patent,
and I have quoted from Lord Amulree's report,
and all these documents indicate just one thing,
that our constitution was suspended in 1933, and
a new form of government put into being until
such time as this country again became self-supporting, and then, and then, whenever thereafter
the people of this country wanted back the former
status, all they had to do was to ask for it, and it
would be given to them immediately.
Mr. Emrys-Evans said something else on that
same date, 3 December, 1943, and it is important,
very important. He said this:
As soon as practicable after the end of this
present war machinery must be provided for
enabling the Newfoundland people to examine the future of the island, and to express
their considered views as to the form of
government they desire, having regard to the
financial and economic conditions prevailing
at the time. If the general wish of the people
should be for the return of full responsible
government, we, for our part, shall be very
ready, if the island is then self-supporting, to
facilitate such a change. If, however, the
general wish of the people should be either
for the continuation of the present form of
government, or for some change of the system which would fall short of full responsible
government, we shall be prepared to examine
such proposals sympathetically and consider
within what limits the continued acceptance
of responsibility by the United Kingdom
could be recommended to Parliament.
Their position is, therefore, "You have now Commission of Government, should you wish
to
retain it, very well. If you want return of responsible government, yes, or even if
you want Commission government amended somewhat so that
some representation may be given the people of
your country, we will consider that." So I say that
Mr. Higgins could have arranged his motion in
such a way that we could put on the ballot paper
responsible government or some amended form
of Commission of Government, or he could do it
as he has done it. Other than that, I see no room
for any other matter to go on the ballot paper.
1316 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
Mr. Chairman So that I can correctly anticipate
you, I will remind you that the duties of the
National Convention are set forth in section 3 of
the Act.
Mr. Chairman I do not wish to disturb your
argument — you are giving me considerable to
think about. What I would like to know is what
connection there is with any legislation outside
the Act — what jurisdiction it would have under
section 3? How are forms of government limited
within section 3, bearing in mind the expression
employed is "to make recommendations on possible forms of future government?"
Mr. Hollett You can have responsible government back, or some measure of responsible
government back.
Mr. Chairman How do you delimit the expression "possible forms" — why not 62 or 52?
Mr. Hollett It is not stated by law; it is in the
Letters Patent.
Mr. Chairman No. I will have to construe your
remarks in the light of the act constituting the
National Convention. What they do outside is of
no concern to me. My only duty will be to concern myself with the interpretation of
the National Convention Act.
Mr. Smallwood Point of order. My point of
order is that every word uttered by Mr. Hollett to
this moment is
ultra vires under the Act. He is not
entitled to argue at all in this matter, except upon
the basis of the National Convention Act which
is the only authority we have in this Convention.
Mr. Chairman I rule now as a matter of law,
and from which any member is entitled to seek a
declaratory judgement in the Supreme Court if he
likes that this Convention has absolutely no right,
no jurisdiction, no power to review the Letters
Patent. The legislation passed by the Commission of Government does not come within
the
purview of this Act. By accepting election and
serving under the National Convention Act you
are precluded and estopped by your conduct from
raising anything outside the Act. What you are
entitled to think or do as private citizens, quite
obviously no limit can be placed upon that... I
rule definitely that this Convention has absolutely no jurisdiction whatever to review
in any
sense, shape or form any legislation outside the
scope of the National Convention Act; and it is
outside the National Convention Act unless and
until it is incorporated by reference into the Act.
Mr. Hollett I hope someone is taking account of
the time. When I set out to speak I told you I was
about to try and prove that if Mr. Higgins' motion
had contained any more than two forms of
government, then the Convention Act would
have been
ultra vires to the Letters Patent, 1934.
Mr. Chairman There is no connection between
the two. I am not concerned with your interpretation of the Letters Patent of 1934,
I have nothing
to do with it. I am concerned with the carrying
out of the Convention Act. Anything else is completely irrelevant to my purpose. You
are not
going to review the Letters Patent, and as far as I
am concerned you are not going to review the
conduct of the British Parliament. What you
choose to do outside this chamber, there is no
limit to your views, you are free to express them
as a private citizen. I would remind members that
there is a limit under section 3 to what you will
review here... Anything else is completely irrelevant, illegal, invalid and it is
ultra vires to the
section to which I refer.
Mr. Hollett I am not asking for your interpretation of the section.
Mr. Chairman I do not want to be cut off, and
I do not want to be spoken to sarcastically when
I am making a ruling on a point of law. Your only
redress is to seek a declaratory judgement, and
unless and until you obtain a declaratory judgement reversing my opinion, I am not
prepared to
brook any argument.
Mr. Hollett I told you, sir, if you will bear with
me, that I was not asking for an opinion...
Mr. Chairman I rule that the point of order was
well taken; you are dealing with matters that are
of no concern to you as a member of the National
Convention.
Mr. Hollett I take it that it would be of concern
to consider whether I, as a member of this Convention, can do something which is repugnant
to
the law under which we live. The Convention Act
is in existence by reason of, and only by reason
of, the Letters Patent 1933.
Mr. Chairman As far as I am concerned the
National Convention Act is the result of the Commission of Government's exercising
the legislative power which was conferred on it by the
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1317
Letters Patent which were proclaimed effective
February 1934, suspending our free political institutions. That is the position in
a nutshell. What
I will be able to think and what I will be able to
do after next Friday, and the very limited things
I am permitted to do right now, I want to assure
you will be two different propositions.
Mr. Chairman The point of order was that your
references to the Letters Patent 1934 was
ultra
vires to the National Convention Act. On that
point I ruled that the point was well taken. We
have no jurisdiction to deal with it at all. Whether
there has been a breach of good faith by the
imperial government is a matter upon which I am
not permitted to make any comment.
Mr. Hollett I did not make that statement. I
pointed out that if Mr. Higgins had included
another form in addition to the two, into that
motion, I could not find myself for a moment
voting for it, simply because if he had done so he
would be doing something which was repugnant
to the law under which we live, that is the Letters
Patent of 1933.
Mr. Hollett It is a question of the law under
which we live.
Mr. Chairman I have to construe the validity in
the light of the Convention Act. I do not propose
to concern myself with anything else. I am not on
an originating summons reviewing any legislation other than the National Convention
Act, that
is the only thing. The validity or otherwise of Mr.
Higgins' motion in its present or other form has
to be construed in that light, and it stands or falls
in the light of the interpretation to be placed upon
the National Convention Act and nothing else.
Mr. Hollett I think some people in this Convention are deliberately misunderstanding me. I am
not trying to talk out of order.
Mr. Chairman I do not know whether that
remark is intended for me or not. The ruling
which I gave is a matter to which I have given
serious thought since I was in constitutional law,
since 1933. Therefore I am going to discharge my
duty, and members will have to discharge their
duties under section 3 of the Act, whether they
like it or not. It is too late now to say your are
dissatisfied about it. I did not pass the Act. I take
no responsibility for it. Your duties here and mine
are regulated and determined by the National
Convention Act, not the Amulree Report, not the
Letters Patent, not anything else. Here it is. Here
is what we are operating under. The validity or
otherwise of what goes on here has to be determined in the light of this Act alone,
nothing else
but.
Mr. Hollett I want you to understand I was not
speaking contraminded to your judgement or
decision. I shall say nothing more than I want to
make my position clear. The position which I
took in the first instance was that if Mr. Higgins
had included another form of government in addition to the ones he has there in his
motion, that
I should have had to vote against it simply because I think it would have been repugnant
to the
law of the land. I was endeavouring to do that,
and in order to do that I am not allowed to quote
the law.
Mr. Chairman I do not like your terminology.
You are misconstruing something I have said and
I am not going to have it. My position is that you
have no right to review the Letters Patent or any
other piece of legislation under this Act. You can
vote how you like and as you see fit, but you
cannot come in here and attempt to put a construction on section 3 of the National
Convention
Act, under which Mr. Higgins' motion was
tabled, by reference to legislation which has absolutely no bearing on the National
Convention
Act.
Mr. Hollett I want you to understand me. As I
said before, I have every respect and admiration
for your judgement. I was about to say that I did
refer to the National Convention Act in the first
instance. The National Convention Act is an act
enacted under our law, further than that I shall not
go. How many minutes have I now, sir?
Mr. Chairman I have taken some of your time
which I felt I had to do to rule on the order of
business before the Chair. I think under the circumstances you ought to be allowed
an extension
of 15 minutes.
Mr. Hollett I want no extension of time. Section
3 of the Convention Act says it shall be the duty
and function of the Convention to meet to consider and discuss amongst themselves
the changes which have taken place in the economic and
financial position of Newfoundland having due
regard to the effect which wartime prosperity
may have had upon it; and then to make
1318 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
recommendations to His Majesty's Government
in Great Britain as to suitable forms of government for Newfoundland. That is as near
as I can
go to it without referring to the Act. Now, sir,
forms of government may mean very little, they
may mean a whole lot. But I feel that a proper
approach to this problem can best be made if we
keep in our mind's eye a picture of the growth of
political theory down through the past years, and
particularly the picture as presented to us from
the time of James I by such philosophic writers
as Thomas Hobbes, Rousseau, Edmund Burke
and John Stuart Mill.
Time does not permit of a prolonged dissertation upon how men, by a slow process,
arrived at
the point of thinking in terms of democracy as we
know it today. But briefly let us refresh our minds
with regard to certain essential points. James I of
England, like the Tudors before him, believed in
the divine right of kings; in other words, the right
to govern and regulate the actions of mankind
was a right divinely bestowed. The Tudor
monarchs claimed this divine right of supremacy
over the lives of their fellow men, and so did
James I, but unlike the previous kings he attempted to justify this claim to sovereignty
by an
appeal to the will of God as revealed in the
Scripture, and as manifested in the order of nature. The conclusions he arrives at
are summed
up at the end of his book, The True Law of Free
Monarchies, 1598. These are his words: "The
King is overlord of the whole land. In the Parliament (which is nothing else but the
Head Court
of the King and his vassals) the laws are but
craved by his subjects." You will remember how
in trying to defend this philosophy one Stuart
king lost his head, and another was deposed and
banished.
The idea was growing amongst men that an
elected parliament was more than a mere craver
of laws — they were the cravers of the laws and
framers of statutes as expressed by the will of the
people. Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan
said — whereas James claimed sovereignty from
God, Hobbes goes a step further towards present-
day thinking. He saw clearly that the divine right
doctrine was a bankrupt trouble-maker, but he
saw equally clearly that some person or persons
not only do claim sovereignty, but must do so if
society is not to disintegrate. However, he argues,
sovereign power must be absolute. There must be
a common power vested in one man, or one
assembly of men, by all the people. All men, he
says, must submit their will to this absolute will
of one man or assembly of men, and their judgement to his judgement. Although he favours
absolute power, a mortal god so to speak, he admits
that the people from whom such power comes
ought to reserve certain rights in case the
sovereign authority or government should overreach itself.
John Locke, who tried to defend the revolution in England of 1688, rests his defence
on the
grounds that government depends upon the consent of the people. "There is", he says,
"a contract
between the government and the people. If the
government violates this contract, revolution is
justified." Both Locke and Rousseau — Locke in
his book Two Treatises of Government and Rousseau in his Social Contract — claimed that an
ideal government for any people is one which
permits self-government by the people, and that
true self-government is the imposition by each
individual on himself of rules and limitations
demanded by him of all others. The evolution of
self-government, however, was slow. It took the
American Revolution of 1775 and the French
Revolution of 1789, as well as the teachings of
Tom Paine and Jeremy Bentham, to instil into
men's minds the idea of liberal, social and parliamentary reform. These latter writers
argued
that customs, laws, institutions and constitutions
could be evaluated in terms of one standard only,
and that is the greatest happiness of the greatest
number.
Burke, who wrote about the same time, was
most conservative, and held that the people
should draw on the experience and wisdom of the
most intelligent and most honest in the community. It remained, however, for John
Stuart
Mill in 1861, in his considerations on representative government, to outline clearly
that
political theory which most men in democratic
countries believe in today. The form of government for any country, he argues, is
open in some
degree to choice. By what test shall we make our
choice? The test, says Mill, is twofold. First, to
what extent does a proposed form of government
make for the moral and intellectual development
of the people? Secondly, to what extent does it
make use of the moral and intellectual resources
at its command? On these grounds, he says, the
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1319
ideal form of government would be a complete
democracy. But a complete democracy is not
practicable. The device of government by elected
representatives is, however. as close as a modern
state can come to straight democracy. What, he
says, are the distinctive characteristics of the
form of government best fitted to promote the
interest of any given people? One of the first
conditions on which good government depends
is found in the qualities of the human beings
composing the society over which the government is exercised.
The first question in respect to any political
institution is how far it tends to foster in the
members of the community various desirable
qualities, moral and intellectual. The government
which does this the best has every likelihood of
being the best in all other respects, since it is on
these qualities, so far as they exist in the people,
that all possibility of goodness in the practical
operation of the government depends. The other
constituent element of the merit of a government
is the degree in which it is adapted to take advantage of the amount of good qualities
which
may at any time exist, and make them instrumental to the right purposes. The superiority
of
popular government rests upon two principles.
The first is that the rights and interests of any
person are only secure when the person interested
is himself able and disposed to stand up for them.
The second is that the general prosperity attains
a greater height and is more widely enjoyed in
proportion to the amount and varieties of the
personal energies enlisted in promoting it.
Human beings are only secure from evil at the
hands of others in proportion as they have been
and are self-protecting; and they only achieve a
high degree of success in their struggle with
nature in proportion as they are self-dependent,
relying on what they themselves can do, either
separately or in concert, rather than on what
others do for them. "If", says Mill, "we consider
the influence of a form of government upon character, we shall find the superiority
of popular
government over every other still more divided
and indisputable. The question really depends on
another and more fundamental one, namely,
which of two common types of character, for the
general good of humanity, it is the most desirable
should predominate, the active or the passive
type; that which struggles against evils or that
which endures them; that which bends to circumstances or that which endeavours to
make
circumstances bend to itself."
Now, are we Newfoundlanders of the passive
type of character? It would seem so. "For", as
Mill says, "there can be no doubt that the passive
type of character is favoured by the government
of one or a few (such as seven men appointed by
one man 2,000 miles away — Commission of
Government); whilst the active self-helping type
by a government of the many." I am not in accord
with the idea of government by commission, by
the Dominions Office, andI think every man here
will agree with me on that.
Irresponsible rulers (i.e. irresponsible to the
people) need the quiescence of the ruled more
than they need any activity but that which they
can compel. The only government that can freely
satisfy all exigencies of the social state is one in
which the people participate. Any participation
in government, even in the smallest function, is
useful. And I want to indicate there, what part in
the government today do our people share? What
part do they take in the government of this
country? None whatsoever! Absolutely none!
We are all like the man to whom Mr. Keough
referred yesterday: we do not care who sits in the
seat of government as long as we get three square
meals a day. Think that over and ask yourselves,
do we or do we not want to be ruled by Commission of Government? But participation
by the
people in government should everywhere he as
great as the general degree of improvement in the
community will allow; and nothing less can be
more desirable than the admission of all the
people to a share in the sovereign power of the
state.
In a commonwealth, however, says Mill, "exceeding a single small town, [all cannot]
participate personally in any but some minor
portions of the public business, it follows that the
ideal type of a perfect government must be representative." That is to say, that the
whole people,
or some numerous portion of them exercise
through deputies periodically elected by themselves the ultimate controlling power.
Now, representative government must fulfill three
fundamental conditions:
(1) That the people should be willing to
receive it.
(2) That they should be willing and able
1320 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
to do what is necessary for its preservation.
(3) That they should be willing and able
to fulfill the duties and discharge the functions which it imposes on them.
When, sir, people have not sufficient value and
attachment to a representative constitution they
have no chance whatever of retaining it. Representative institutions necessarily depend
for permanence on the readiness of the people to fight
for them in case they are in danger. When
nobody, or only a small fraction, feels a degree
of interest in the affairs of the country necessary
to the formation of the public opinion, the electors will seldom make any use of the
right of
suffrage but to serve their own private interests
or the interests of the locality, or by some one of
them with whom they are connected as adherents
or dependents. The smaller class who, in this state
of public opinion, gain the command of the representative body, for the most part
use it solely as
a means of seeking their own fortunes. Representative government cannot permanently
exist
when you find such conditions.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what
happened to Newfoundland in the years past. We
were passive. We did not want to govern ourselves. We elected men and sent them to
the House
of Assembly and promptly forgot them for four
years. And another crowd came along and said,
"What about electing me?" And they elected
them, to forget them again. You have to get
people talking politics, and fighting over it if
necessary, and until then we are not fit for responsible government or Commission
government, or
any other kind of government.
Can we, as a people in this Newfoundland that
was ours, fulfil these fundamental conditions, or
have we in order to advance in civilisation some
lessons to learn, some habits not yet acquired, to
the acquiring of which representative government is likely to be an impediment?
Now if we admit that a representative government responsible to the people is the
best form of
government, it would be wise to ask ourselves
what actual functions shall be directly and personally discharged by the elected members.
First
and foremost. it is understood that the people
have given to the elected body the control of
everything for their common good. Now, there is
a radical distinction between controlling the business of government and actually
doing it. There
are many things which the elected body cannot
do well of itself, but it ought to take the best
means for having it well done by others. In the
first place bodies ought not to administer, though
they can deliberate. The popular assembly is also
not fitted to dictate in detail to those who have
charge of administration. Every branch of public
administration is a skilled business.
Legislation too must be framed by minds
trained to the task through long and labourious
study. The job of the representative is not that of
doing the work, but of causing it to be done, of
determining to whom or to what sort of people it
shall be confided, and giving or withholding the
country's sanction to it when performed. The
whole function then of an elected assembly is to
watch and control the government; to throw the
light of publicity on its acts (something like the
Commission of Government, you know
gentlemen!). Now we want a government and
people prating like I am today, throwing the light
of publicity on all the acts of government — not
seven men sitting down at Government House or
some other place, and making laws and publishing them without the people having the
chance to
know anything at all about them.
Representative assemblies are often Charged
with being places of mere talking. With regard to
this Mill says, "I know not how a representative
assembly can more usefully employ itself than in
talk." When the subject of talk is the great public
interest of the country, and every sentence of it
represents the opinion either of some important
body of persons in the country or of an individual
in whom some such body have reposed their
confidence. A place where every interest and
shade of opinion in the country can have its cause
even passionately pleaded in the face of the
government and of all other interests and
opinions, can compel them to listen, and either
comply or state clearly why they do not, is in
itself, if it answered no other purpose, one of the
most important political institutions than can
exist anywhere, and one of the foremost benefits
of free government.
Such talk and free discussion coupled with
skilled legislation and administration is of the
essence of good government.
Mr. Chairman, I had considerable other things
here, and I had to cut some of it out on account
of the time. Now, what about us at this moment?
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1321
At this juncture I take it we are at the parting of
the ways in this country. Our people have the
power and the authority, or will have in May, to
select a government of their own choosing, and
it is most important that they give their every
consideration to which of the two forms of
government, or more if they are submitted, which
will best serve their interests, and to which we
can be most loyal. I am of the confirmed opinion
that an elected government, responsible to the
people, is the best form of government which this
or any other country can achieve, and I hope and
trust that when our people come to make up their
minds they will also consider that too.
I might say that I am against Commission
government. One thing about us, we have a bargaining power today, and we must use
it. We can
produce fish, ores and wood products. There will
always be a world demand for these products.
Our job is to sell, and to the highest bidder. If we
have other tangible or intangible assets, such as
a strategic position, let us sell that too, and to the
highest bidder compatible with the best interests
of the country. We have got to face facts, Mr.
Chairman. We have just fought one war, and
anybody can see that we are likely to have to fight
another war sometime; how soon we do not
know, but we have been told day in and day out
that we occupy a strategic position, and it is as
well for us to be realistic. People who live in
strategic positions run the risk of dying a sudden
death, especially in these days of atomic fission.
We know our position in the Atlantic Ocean, and
it is just as well for us to be realistic and face these
facts. Our people are going to live in a strategic
position. All right, let us elect a government and
get for the people who are doing enough to live
in this country, the best possible living that there
is in it.
Mr. Chairman, once upon a time we were
proud to call ourselves the cornerstone of Empire.
I wonder now, cannot we visualise a prouder
place in the new world structure to be? Cannot
we aspire to be the keystone in the arch of
freedom and friendliness between Canada, the
United States and the western democracies of
Europe? We can only become this keystone if we
recover and retain our independence, and endeavour to exploit our resources without
let or
hindrance.
I will leave out a lot of this here. I am a bit
upset at the moment.
I was referring to the Labrador. We are told
that we have vast potential timber wealth there.
What are we going to do about it? There's one
thing about it, if we do not keep control of it
ourselves it will do us no benefit whatsoever.
Recently I read in the Atlantic Reporter in
Canada, which has just been issued a few days
ago, under the heading of "Iron and Lumber for
Export": "The new discoveries of iron ore in
Quebec and Labrador promise the largest source
of this vital raw material since the discovery of
the Mesabi deposits in Minnesota. Preliminary
explorations of this ore body have gone far
enough to invite both Canadian and United States
governmental and industrial interest. The United
States needs Canadian ore desperately, and the
new mines open up challenging opportunities for
investment of United States capital." I ask you to
apply that statement to Newfoundland — Newfoundland ore and Newfoundland timber that's
there on the Labrador. Let us ask ourselves, can
we recommend any other form of government
than one of the two in the motion of Mr. Higgins?
The United States of America, sir, needs all
the timber she can get, and needs it badly. I ask
you again to think of the potential market for fish
and fish products in the United States. We have
the fish, and we have the men to catch it, and our
fisheries should be the great concern of all Newfoundlanders. By them the great majority
of our
people must live, and here let us shout from the
housetops the praises due to the Fisheries Board
under the able chairmanship of Mr. Ray Gushue,
and those enterprising firms in St. John's and
elsewhere in the country for their initiative in
regard to marketing, and their faith in the fresh
fish business. Take a walk over to the Southside
and have a look at Job Bros. plant, and see one of
the finest on the Atlantic seaboard. It is the only
one I have seen, but there are many others in the
country. Think on these things and again, I ask
you, what other form can we vote for except one
of the two in the motion? Come with me to Corner
Brook and Grand Falls, or go with Mr. Fudge to
Curling and Mr. Jackman to Bell Island, or go to
Gander and Harmon Field, and back to Fort Pepperrell by way of Argentia, and count
the Newfoundlanders as they toil, and the men who will
make good money at the seal fishery. Let us think
on these things.
1322 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
Come back with me now to the year 1855.
Well, you know your history. Two hundred
thousand people, and no industry except fish and
sealing. No railway, few schools, but withal a few
gallant gentlemen wrestling, by force almost,
from Great Britain the right of self-government.
Mr. Chairman, I ask you, could these men see the
frenzied efforts of some men in this House for the
past few months, would they not cry out in scorn,
"Oh ye of little faith"?
Yes, there can be only one form of government for this country, and that is self-government.
For 15 years we have been politically dead.
Men and women of 35 and under have never
voted and it is for these I worry. They not only
have not had political experience, but their minds
have been poisoned by vicious stories. Was it
done deliberately, I wonder? Their votes now
will decide the issue. Will they snap out of their
political apathy and jump into the breach and
hold fast to their heritage, or will they allow
themselves to be hoodwinked and lose it?
Never before in the history of this country was
there such a chance for us to sell our products to
a nation who can afford to buy them — I mean
the United States of America. All history is tied
up with economic strings. The destinies of
peoples depend on what they have for sale and to
whom they sell it, and I think an American dollar
is still on a par with a Canadian dollar. Are we to
get that American dollar, or must it go elsewhere?
There is only one way we can get that American
dollar, and that is by demanding by popular vote
the return to our former status, by adopting the
Statute of Westminster, and thereafter by doing
business with people who will treat us fairly.
Sir, I think I have about used up the time I had.
Is it completely gone?
Mr. Hollett I just want to say this, sir, that if
there is any misunderstanding between you and
me, I apologise. I was doing what I deemed to be
in the best interests of this assembly and the
people of this country, and I still make this assertion, that I agree wholeheartedly
with the statement made by Mr. Bradley, that if we pass this
resolution we can recommend nothing else.
That's my opinion, and I explained why. Mind
now, I am in favour of passing this. I do not agree
with Commission government — I think we
should have our former status, and I appeal to you
men to go out and tell the people that their only
hope in the future is to get back their former
status, and thereafter to see to it that the men that
they elect and send to this assembly shall spend
their time in the interest of the people of this
country, and not in doing something which does
not apply to the people. Sir, I am going to quote
just two or three words from Robert Burns. It's
Burns Night tomorrow. Burns was a common
man like the rest of us here in this assembly, but
he was a great man, and loved his country as I
hope every one of you gentlemen loves yours.
And with apologies to the spirit of Burns, and
with the changing of but one word in his brief
stanza, I say:
*
Mr. Reddy Mr. Chairman, all thinking people
in this country will agree that the time has come
when we should arouse ourselves to a sense of
our real responsibilities, and unite in a determined effort to steer our ship of state,
storm-
beaten though she may be, on the right course to
safe harbour; to make sure that Newfoundland
comes into her own, and that she should take her
rightful place in these free-thinking, liberty-
loving sections of the world to which her loyalty,
fine principles of justice, and fair play entitled
her. I feel that the newly elected government of
Newfoundland should be different from the old
responsible government. Its members should be
limited to the lowest minimum. I would like to
see the introduction of new social legislation,
which would improve the standard of living for
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1323
our toilers on the deep, as well as our forests and
our mines. I would like to see a scheme whereby
our fishermen would become shareholders in the
enterprise which through their efforts and long
toil they had elected to build. This scheme is very
much a reality in other countries, and is proving
very successful. I have no hesitation in saying
that the development in our fisheries, our mines
and our forests, over the period of the next 20
years, will exceed our wildest imaginations. Let
us go forward unafraid, for a greater Newfoundland is here.
Mr. Chairman, our position now is the same
as it was in 1932. So I think that the great unsolved problem of Newfoundland is the
economic problem — that of surveying, measuring and developing our natural resources,
and of
re-organising our existing industries. The difference is that now I know that if that
problem is to
be solved, it will be solved only by a government
of Newfoundland elected by the people....
When the royal commission came here in the
19305 we expected a full and ungrudging recognition of the statesmanlike governments
in office
from 1931 to 1933 — recognition of their
patriotic and really effective efforts to reorganise
and finance our governmental machine, recognition of the magnificent new spirit, new
order, and
the change of heart of the government. In Newfoundland today not a dozen men would
not
disagree with this statement, that with the system
of treasury control, the public debt converted to
a lower rate of interest that would save $2 million
a year, and the same degree of financial assistance which the Commission of Government
had
actually received, Newfoundland now would be
in no sense or degree worse off than she is after
rule by the Commission.
Who speaks for Newfoundland today?
Nobody speaks for Newfoundland. Nobody has
the right, nobody has been authorised. In the
absence of a House of Assembly or an opposition,
the Newfoundland people are left voiceless. Anything could be put over on them, anything,
turning our country into an international settlement
like Shanghai, or making another Hawaii of us.
That is why the people must be organised.
In 1934 we made a mistake in surrendering our
responsible government, but may I say we made
a great mistake once before, in November - December, 1933. That was when the whole
idea
of suppressing self-govemment and substituting
Commission government was flung at us. We did
not dicker, we did not attempt to better it, we did
not demand modifications. No, we took it all
down, hook, line and sinker, and we appointed a
deputation to go across to interview the British
government — to plead for softening the
proposals? No, we simply dotted the i's and
crossed the t's. Let us not make that mistake
again. We can get back responsible government,
all we have to do is insist on it.... Let us all agree
that this form of Commission government must
be stopped. Does it automatically resolve our
problems to scrap this system? What shall we
have to replace this present form? Responsible
government, you say. Yes, responsible government, but only in the sense that the government
is responsible to a parliament elected by the
people. The principle of responsible government
is right. It is sound. No other form of government
is right, or can succeed, but we are unworthy if
we fool ourselves into the belief that the adoption
of this sound British and democratic principle
will automatically solve our problems.
Responsible government is the normal thing
in the British Empire. It is practised in the United
Kingdom, in Northern Ireland and in Eire, and in
Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and
Canada. Under responsible government the
government executives are responsible to parliament. Parliament is elected by the
people, and the
government can hold office only as long as it
commands the confidence of parliament. Parliament itself, having been elected by the
people,
and having to answer to the people again when
the term is up, is necessarily responsible to the
public. That is the glory of responsible government; but it also possesses some dangers.
Is it
possible to set up a system that will prevent the
evils of 1920 - 1934, or at least the more serious
of those evils? Let us not make the mistake of
attributing to responsible government the many
evils and weaknesses which in fact are the results
of other causes altogether. But having guarded
against making that mistake we may yet honestly
recognise the dangers that do lie in the practice
of responsible government — recognising them
so as to start preventing them, or cataloguing
them, or classifying them, and then devising
ways and means of heading them off. We have
two great sources of knowledge in our effort to
1324 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
safeguard ourselves against repetition of the evils
we knew before: our own experience, and the
experience of numerous other countries who
have practised responsible government.
Mr. Chairman, while Mr. Higgins was speaking here a few days ago, Mr. Smallwood
criticised his remarks as being taken from Mr.
MacKay's book on Newfoundland, without
giving Mr. MacKay credit for it. I now have to
confess to Newfoundland that the words of this
address are those of one of our prominent public
men, which I copied and repeated today. They
were uttered by Mr. Smallwood himself, and I
merely repeat them, use them, and give my support to Mr. Higgins' motion.
Mr. Chairman The motion is before the Chair,
gentlemen, and time is running out.
Mr. Roberts Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak
to the motion before the Chair, I wish to say I will
vote for the two forms of government, namely
responsible and Commission, to be placed on the
ballot paper. Briefly I will endeavour to give you
my reasons for so doing, by showing the merits
or demerits of each form
Responsible government is the ideal for the
people of any country to strive for. I wonder if
Newfoundlanders are doing just that? I am sure
they are not, otherwise there would not be so
much talk of other forms of government, or, as
we find all over the country, an indifference to
any form. Probably there is a reason for all this
confusion. It seems strange, does it not, when we
see the peoples of many countries today, large
and small — and the European countries especially, devastated by war, famine and disease,
their natural resources — striving to the point of
bloodshed to drive foreigners out so as to govern
themselves; while we in Newfoundland with
balanced budgets, a surplus, our resources barely
scratched, seem afraid to govern ourselves, or too
indifferent to bother what happens to us.
It must seem peculiar to the peoples of other
countries, but it may not be so hard for us to
understand the situation when we review our past
political history, and think of what happened to
us after almost a 100 years of responsible government. With all due respect to our
politicians,
some of whom were great men, there must have
been too many amongst them who did not have
the best interests of the country at heart, otherwise we would not have landed in
the mess we
did.
When the country became self-supporting,
and it might seem that we are today, England was
to restore to us responsible government. She did
not do so, and consequently the mother of parliaments has been called by some people
everything
but a lady. But after 14 years of Commission of
Government, to whom is she to pass back the
reins of power? To the people who relinquished
it? Where are they today? You can almost count
on the fingers of one hand the men of the government who are left, or who would care
to take
control. Well, it may not be nice to say, but
nevertheless it is a fact that the people of this
country would think long and hard before trusting
their destiny into those hands again, although, as
I say, there may be some good men amongst
them. Well then, who next? Probably the Responsible Government League we have heard
of, consisting of good influential citizens of this city,
businessmen and lawyers. Proper men, one
would think, to run the affairs of this country, but
the argument against these, especially in the outports, is the age-old prejudice of
merchant versus
fisherman, St. John's versus the outports. Why
should St. John's run the outports? Very narrow
views, and I wish I could say they don't exist, but
unfortunately they do.
If that is the case, someone would suggest the
National Convention, a body of men elected from
every district, a cross-section of many trades and
professions. Surely these must be the men we
have been wanting for years. But what do you
hear from all parts of the country, from all classes
of people? We have been termed wranglers,
wasters of public time and monies, incapables
etc., and people hold up their hands in horror at
the thought of trusting the affairs of this country
to our incapable hands. How often have I heard
the expression, until I am ashamed to say that I
am a member of the Convention (although we
don't deserve it), "If these are the sort of men we
are likely to get to govern us, God help the
country in a very few years." So the thought has
been continually in my mind — how, after 14 or
15 years, could England give us back responsible
government? Who is to take it back? The question has never been answered by the people
who
advocate it.
Still, if we wish to govern ourselves, we must
have Newfoundlanders, and we must find the
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1325
men, sooner or later; and if good men do not come
forward, then incapables will. It's a Newfoundland problem to find good men. Newfoundlanders
go to other countries and do well, become
clannish, and in war they are very loyal, but at
home we are suspicious of our governments and
one another, very divided in our opinions. Lord
Ammon, of the British Goodwill Mission, who
visited here some few years ago said, "If I talk to
five Newfoundlanders I get five different
opinions. How can I tell the British Parliament
what Newfoundlanders want? They do not know
themselves." The British Parliament knows the
state of affairs out here, and regardless of what
people might thing, I am of the opinion they are
doing the right thing not to give us back responsible government. They will let us
decide for
ourselves at the referendum, and then if the
majority should wantresponsible government we
will get it. I have yet to be convinced that England
will force us into any form of government, although we have given her plenty of provocation
to do so. Throwing ourselves on her mercy in the
1930s after admitting we could not govern ourselves, she had every right then to attach
us to
Canada or any other country, on any terms. Instead, she tried to build up our economy
and to
give us another chance.
The time has arrived We have the resources,
but have we the men with the courage to face the
future on our own, remembering our mistakes,
taking note of our failures, so as to apply a
remedy? The men who will handle our affairs
will need plenty of courage and brains. They will
also need to be thick-skinned and hard, to keep in
check graft, waste, dishonesty, the needless
spending of huge sums of money on party
politics, always keeping in mind the best interests
of the country, instead of their own selfish interests. The leader will do very little
if his party and
the people are not satisfied to be led in the right
direction. I want the people to note the quality of
the men who will be putting themselves forward
with the expectation of governing this country,
and to demand nothing but the best; also to think
of our huge government expenditures of today,
our isolation, our backwardness, and think long
and well before marking a ballot for a return to
the responsibilities of self-government. It's no
small thing we are about to tackle. We had an
experiment before and failed. Will we do better
another time? That's a question a lot of people
would like to have answered. Will they trust the
younger generation of today, even with the huge
revenues we have? Time will tell.
After throwing in the sponge and admitting we
could not govern ourselves, England set up a
government by commission, a dictatorial government. But after the fiasco we made of
our affairs
we needed a bit of dictatorship, and it has been
good for us in many ways. It's not the ideal thing
for Newfoundland, and it was never intended to
last any longer than necessary. They have made
mistakes, and will continue to make them as long
as they are in power, and in this respect they can
be excused, as all governments make mistakes.
The main thing is to see they are not repeated. But
they have done a great deal of good, which fact
cannot be denied by the ardent supporters of any
other system of government.
The first seven years of their rule were the
seven lean years — there was no corn in Egypt,
and very little in any other country. What could
any government do during these years to better
the living conditions of the Newfoundland
people? Many schemes were tried, many millions
of dollars from the pockets of the British taxpayer
were spewed out to keep our people alive. Many
of the schemes failed, as was to be expected, but
some were good and are functioning today. Then,
after the seven lean years, came the seven fat
years, brought about by a war which devastated
untold millions of lives and property in other
parts of the world. Their loss was our gain: money
poured so fast that the government could not
spend it. We created a surplus; we became to all
intents and purposes self-supporting. But just as
the people needed not seven years of plenty, but
twice that time to get back on their feet from the
poverty of the depression, so does the government, which required not seven years,
but I
should say 20 years to give us the social services
we require.
$40 million of a revenue will not buy as much
today as $20 million ten years ago, when we
consider the rate of government pay then and
now, and also the price of commodities. A cottage hospital, for instance, which cost
$20,000 to
build ten years ago, will cost $65,000 today. But
there is one thing about all this spending, we can
look around the country and see something for it.
Ask the people of any district where they have
1326 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
cottage hospitals and district nurses, new highroads linking smaller and larger settlements
together, bringing them in touch with new
markets, inducing tourists to come into the
country, bringing in new money. The introduction of the co-operative societies is
enabling the
working man to get every cent possible for the
products of his toil. The setting up of our very
capable Fisheries Board, with newer methods, is
raising the standard of our fish products, thereby
assuring to our fishermen higher prices. There are
other things I could mention, but these are sufficient to warrant people voting for
Commission of
Government. But I want to warn our Newfoundland people that vast government expenditures
have been built up to give us all these
services, and while revenues continue to keep up
these expenditures can be maintained, but if they
fall, which we have every sound reason to believe
they will, since a level of government expenditure once reached has a tendency to
stay put, our
surplus will soon melt away, and then where are
we? Down and out again.
We had England to come to our aid in the
1930s, and pour millions into the country.
England will not be in any position to help us for
some years to come, she needs millions and billions poured into her. What help we
can expect
from her will be negligible, if any. She will do
what she can, but it's my opinion she expects us
to go our own way and bid Commission of
Government farewell. Personally, I do not feel
that the future of Newfoundland has anything to
gain by the retention of Commission of Government, but I am in duty bound to vote
that it be
placed on the ballot paper.
Mr. Fudge Mr. Chairman, since the hour is late,
before I make my few simple remarks I would
suggest that the Convention recess until 8
o'clock.
Mr. Chairman Yes, and I would like all the
members who intend speaking to the motion to
please do so, because eventually, before the motion is put, I will have to call on
Mr. Higgins, the
mover of the motion, to reply, and I don't want
any member to feel that he is shut out.
Mr. Higgins Could we have an expression from
members now who wish to speak?
Mr. Chairman Are there any members who
wish to address themselves to this motion, will
you please give me some indication?
Mr. Chairman There are eight, and you, of
course, will be nine.
Mr. Fudge Well, if you stay here till half past
six, don't blame me.
Mr. Fudge Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the
people whom I represent and for myself as well,
I wish to make a few brief comments on the
motion before the Chair. This motion is to the
effect that in the forthcoming plebiscite, the
people of Newfoundland be asked whether they
want as their future form of government either
the responsible government which they lost in
1933, or a continuation of the present form of
Commission government. Now although I may
support this motion recommending that these two
forms of government be placed on a ballot, that
must not be taken to mean that I think these two
forms are equally good, and that whichever form
our people choose we will be just as well off with
one as we would be with the other. Not at all. I
mean anything but that. I have long ago come to
my own conclusions as to what is the best form
of government to recommend to the people of this
country, and further, sir, I am prepared to give
sound reasons for my decision.
In my opinion there should be no need for any
election at all over this matter. It should be simply
a matter of giving back to this country something
that was taken from her in 1933.
I am not going to criticise the Commission of
Government, for I sincerely believe that the
Commission has done a certain amount of good
in the country, but I am prepared, as I have been
for the past ten years, to try and see both sides and
give credit where credit is due. The Commission
of Government, as I said before, has done a
considerable amount of good but I want you to
bear in mind that those who I hear so often
condemning and accusing the old politicians of
yesterday were the very people who made it
possible, who provided the machinery whereby
those people could raise $40 million revenue.
I cannot overlook the fact that Commission of
Government — I am more or less inclined to
criticise the form, rather than the members of the
Commission — grossly ignored my comrades of
the Great War Veterans' Association some years
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1327
ago. They were looking for adjustments to heal
their wounds and ease their dependents, and they
were forced to apply to the general public of the
country who, I am proud to state, so ably came
forward and insisted that their rights be recognised. Labour is not being so badly
treated with
the Commission of Government, especially those
who grew up and were strong enough to handle
them. There are many places where the Commission might have done better, where the
Labour
Relations Office might have done much better.
We find today the cost of living, as you all know,
is terrific. But in spite of that we find men who
were expected to work one day for $4 and the next
day for nothing.
I have heard some things referred to in connection with the town councils, and I agree
with
the principle of town councils, provided they are
not a burden to our people. I have in many cases
heard old men, very wealthy and well able to
afford it say, "Oh yes, we must have a town
council — it's going to cost me $3-400 but nevertheless we should have it." But Mr.
Chairman,
that is not the same story. It did not cost them
$3-400, it cost the people, unfortunately. The
Commission made no provision whereby he or
she could not pass it on to the poor man. I deplore
that system of legislation.
Getting back to the old politicians, I wish to
be fair in this matter, and I am not trying to prove
that all our public men were angels — just as the
public men of any other country are not, and were
not angels. In every phase of human action you
will find the black sheep, but is it fair to condemn
all the apostles because there was a Judas? Is it
fair to condemn a whole nation because they have
convicts in their goals? Must we condemn
humanity because all were not perfect? Yet that
is just what they try to do with us. I would suggest
to the commission which was sent over here to
make an inquiry, that they should search the
Scriptures, and they might find something
suitable. They would find, if they took the
trouble, that it is not fair to talk about the mote in
their neighbours' eye, until they have plucked the
beam out of their own. If our old politicians were
the evil persons they say, then why was it that
when they came here as a Commission they took
into their ranks three of these old politicians? If
they are correct in what they state, by this very
act they condemn themselves. I hold no brief for
the government of Newfoundlanders who gave
away responsible government in 1933, but in
fairness I do not hesitate to give it as my belief
that if they had not been assured that responsible
government would be restored to this country
upon her becoming self-supporting, then they
would never have voted as they did. Is this not
proof, absolute proof, that when they condemned
our politicians they were lying, and knew they
were lying? People don't swallow their vomit
unless they have to.
In heaven's name, when we discuss the past
history of our country let us try to be fair, and not
blind our eyes to the truth, I knew personally
many of the so-called old politicians, and in 90
percent of the cases I found them men who had
given much more to the country than they ever
got from it. They sacrificed their business, their
time and their money to serve the public. I know
many who had to neglect their business to attend
to their public duties, and as a result lost their
business. How often have we heard the sad story
of public men, who after having given a lifetime
to public service, died in near poverty? There
were public men who made money, but they were
men who would have made money anyhow —
they were merchants, like the Hon. Mr. Job and
Mr. Hickman and Mr. Crosbie, but just because
they were politicians, envy said that they were
grafters. Why, the best proof of it is the refusal of
so many ambitious men to enter politics. They
know that if they enter public life they will have
to make too big a sacrifice in time and money,
which they could have been devoting to their own
business. Forget it I say, this talk about this
country meeting the disaster of 1933 because of
bad politicians.
But apart from this altogether, let us remember
that our task is not to deal with the past, but with
the future. We have to look ahead, not behind. So
then let us take stock of where we stand today and
where we may hope to advance in the future. We
have come a long way since 1933. Things have
changed for us in such a way that we need never
fear going back to the depths from which we have
risen. Newfoundlanders today are in an era of
prosperity, and it is much more than an unnatural
post-war boom. It is, on the contrary, an era in
which primary producers of goods have come
into their own. The prosperous countries today
are those countries which have natural resources
1328 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
at their disposal, and have the ability and initiative to develop them. This country
of ours is a
producing country, and if we continue to produce
to the best possible extent, we too can take our
place with the progressive nations of the world.
In our forest industries we see just such a program
of activity working out. Our pulp and paper mills
are being extended, and a similar state of affairs
exists in our fishing industry — newer methods
of catching and marketing are being introduced.
From our industries we are in the happy position
of being able to produce enough dollars to pay
for all necessary imports, and consequently our
standard of living has reached a peak never
known before.
Other countries, including Canada, are unable
to obtain dollars, but with us the position is the
opposite. For this reason we can be regarded as
one of the most fortunate countries in the world.
I have said nothing about our agriculture, or our
tourist possibilities, but these two sources of income are ready for greater development.
It is my
opinion that the day is not far away when we will
be able to produce sufficient to make us independent of foreign markets. As for the
tourist
traffic, we know what this means to countries
such as Canada which have no greater — if as
great — attractions as are to be found in Newfoundland. Under a government of our
people I
see the possibilities of developing all these sources of income. Are we to be so foolish
as to
sacrifice all these things for the doubtful
prospects which may or may not be ours under
any strange form of government, so to speak? If
you had a business, would you be satisfied to
hand it over to some stranger to run for you?
Would you feel that he could run it better than
you could? Do you think he would take a greater
interest in you and your family than you would
yourself? Of course you would not, you would
turn your back in contempt on any such offer. Yet
is that not just what we are being asked to do
today? Are you going to fall for it? I am sure you
are not.
Mr. Chairman, in asking the people to support
the actions of those of us who are seeking self-
government, I do so in the conviction that I am
acting in the best interests of our people. I am a
born Newfoundlander with a stake in this
country. I have a home and a family which it is
my solemn duty to safeguard. Their best interests
are mine. Do you think I would support any form
of government which I thought for a minute
would not be best for them? Why should I support
self-government, except for the reason that I was
convinced it was best? As founder and president
of a large union in Newfoundland, I have many
obligations to contend with. It is my sworn duty
to fight for the interest of every man in that union,
and every working man in this country. Do you
think that I am going to support a cause which I
think is not in the best interests of the families of
these union members? It would be absolutely
senseless. And I say further, that if self-government is best for my union, then it
is best for all
other unions. After all self-government is, I
believe, the very essence of labour organisations.
I think that it was unfortunate that the motion
before the Chair is not so worded as to give me
and other delegates an opportunity of comparing
the benefits of responsible government with
other forms of government. Mr. Chairman, it is
generally recognised these days that Newfoundland is at a crossroads. For good or
ill we
who are living today have the great responsibility
of deciding on what road our country will travel.
I say therefore, that it is the duty of this house and
indeed the duty of every Newfoundlander listening to my voice, to do his part to enlighten
his
fellow men, to assist those who are not fully
informed on the real situation to see the light. We
lost our government in 1933 because the people
were kept in the dark. Let us see that it does not
happen again. We have now a chance to rectify
our past mistakes, but this time there will be no
chance to undo our action. This time it will be for
keeps.
Reviewing this whole matter, there is one
feature which we must not overlook, and it is this:
if in the future it should ever become necessary
for us to unite with any other country (which I
trust will never happen), then is it not necessary
for us to have a free hand to make whatever deal
we wish? For myself, if such a time ever came, I
think it would be most advisable that we be able,
for instance, to discuss matters with the United
States of America. Do we want to shut ourselves
off from such a position?
Mr. Chairman, if the people of our country had
been sufficiently informed on this matter, there
would be no need of me or anybody else making
speeches. But as it is we must, every one of us
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1329
who has the interests of Newfoundland at heart,
leave no stone unturned to show our people, the
people who sent us here and are depending on us,
the light, the truth. I know something of the
common people of this country. I know that you
can come along with a fairy tale and fool them
for a while, but I also know that you can't fool
them long. Soon their keen minds see through the
sham. Soon they see the story behind the story,
and when they do, they act quickly and with
decision. Today Iceland is getting the sum of $13
million under the Marshall Plan — what is Newfoundland getting? Who is there to look
out for
her interests? Will we ever get anything? Will we
ever get back the money shipped to England?
How different things would be if we had had a
government of Newfoundlanders! Yes, Mr. Chairman, I say a labour government would
do no harm.
Mr. Chairman, I could go on in this way,
giving you facts and reasons as to why there is
and can only be the one proper form of government in this country, but I think I have
said
enough to satisfy the mind of every real Newfoundlander. If I have helped to do this
in any
small way, then I think I have done my duty to
my country and the people whose interests I am
here to safeguard.
Mr. Chairman, soon we shall leave this chamber to return to our respective homes, and it is not
likely ever we shall all meet together again. To
you, sir, and all present, I trust that at the end of
life's disappointing road we shall be found ready
and worthy of entering into that holy chamber
where there is no need for divisions and where
the "ayes" have it forever. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman I think at this time, as the chamber is very hot, we should rise. It is ten to six,
so
we will rise till 8 o'clock.
[The Convention adjourned until 8 pm]
Mr. Smallwood Before the debate proceeds, I
rise to ask your direction. In view of the statements made this afternoon by Mr. Bradley,
I
would like to know from you what the position is
under the terms of the National Convention Act
and the rules of the Convention, with regard to
the motion that is on the order paper in my name
should the present motion before the Chair be
adopted. What I mean is this. The present motion
in its present form may or may not be adopted.
Assuming that it is adopted, does that mean that
my motion proposing another form of government be submitted to the United Kingdom
government — recommended to them for submission to the Newfoundland people in the
referendum — will not then be received by the
Chair and debated and voted on, or any other
form of government? Does it mean that all members who vote for it cannot then vote
for, or
propose any other form of government to be
submitted to the people? Or if any of us do not
vote, are we then free to consider any other form?
Does this motion exclude consideration and
recommendation of any other form of government? I would like your ruling on that,
sir.
Mr. Chairman Your point is this: whether or
not the present motion, if adopted, would exclude
discussion on your motion of which I have notice,
or discussion on any other form of government
of which I may receive notice. Does the adoption
of this motion mean the exclusion of discussion
on your motion, is that your point?
Mr. Smallwood Yes, and is Mr. Higgins' motion in its present form
intra vires or
ultra vires
of the National Convention Act? Is it a good
motion?
Mr. Chairman I have not put it yet. It has to be
proposed from the Chair before it is put. I will
have to try to resolve this problem, which is of a
twofold nature under standing orders 24 and 39.
Rule 24 provides, "No member may speak to any
question after it has been put by the Chairman and
the voices have been given in the affirmative or
negative thereon." And in that connection, Sir
Erskine May, pages 418-19: "No member may
speak to any question after the same has been
fully put by the Speaker; and a question is fully
put when he has taken the voices of both the
'ayes' and the 'nos'." Now, if the present motion
or resolution is either carried or negatived, it
precludes thereafter any discussion on Commission government or responsible government.
Once it is disposed of one way or the other, it is
over and done with and that is the end of it.
The next thing, arising out of the remarks of
Mr. Bradley and of Mr. Hollett, is to determine
whether or not the adoption of this motion would
exclude discussion on your motion, or on any
1330 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
other motion covering any other form of government. In that connection, before I come
to deal
with the form of the motion itself, rule 39 says,
"In discharging its duties to make recommendations to His Majesty's Government in
the United
Kingdom as to the possible forms of future government to be put before the people
at a National
Referendum, the Convention shall include in its
report to the Secretary of State for Dominions
Affairs the opinion of each several member of the
Convention as to the form of government which
in his opinion should be put before the people,
together with any preference which he may
choose to express as between one form of government and another." The rule therefore
requires
the Convention to express or record the opinion
of each and every member of the Convention as
to the form or forms of government which in his
opinion should be put before the people; and
secondly, shall also record any preference which
he may choose to express (he does not have to)
as between one form of government and another.
In other words, this rule requires the Convention
to record the opinion of each and every member
of the Convention on the form or forms of
government which he thinks should be included
in the referendum. Now the question is whether
or not the motion in its present form prevents the
very thing that rule 39 requires to be done. That
is to say, could any member or members express
their opinions upon any forms of government
other than the two referred to in the motion? I do
not know how you feel about this, Mr. Higgins,
but I feel the motion quite definitely confines the
Convention to recommending the two forms of
government covered by your motion, and these
two forms only.
Mr. Chairman Frankly, I am not too sure on
that point, because if it did, it would be
ultra vires
to rule 39 — if you confined discussion to these
two forms of government only.
Mr. Higgins It has not done so, so far. It certainly has not confined discussion on the motion
that
will come up.
Mr. Chairman The question I am concerned
with is whether or not the adoption of this motion
would preclude discussion on the next motion.
Mr. Chairman If the motion does, I do not think
I can accept it. I must accept the motion on
Commission of Government and responsible
government. I must do that. But I will not accept
it to the exclusion of any other form of government, in view of rule 39 which says
"the opinion
of each member on
any form" — as I see it, it may
be union with Soviet Russia or anything else —
if he chooses to express his opinions, then it is the
duty of the Convention to record his opinion
together with any preference he might have as
against other forms of government, and the form
or forms recommended by him.
Mr. Hollett Could I point out that rule 39 is a
mere rule of procedure adopted when we started
business in this House, it has nothing to do with
section 3.
Mr. Chairman It has everything to do with it.
Section 3 lays upon us the duty of section 4,
which says we "shall make rules and by-laws
governing our own procedure and they shall not
be altered except by two-thirds majority of the
members of the National Convention."
Mr. Crosbie Well, if two-thirds agree that confederation with Canada be discussed besides
Commission and responsible government, why
waste time arguing about it? Another thing, when
I first came in here I understood we had a political
economist — where is Professor Wheare?
Mr. Crosbie Neither do I. He is supposed to be
here to guide us on forms of government, and
since he is not here I think it is up to us to make
up our own minds what to do. I would not be a
party to any motion to preclude discussion on any
other form of government in this Convention. We
are wasting valuable time.
Mr. Bradley Not only is the point which you
have taken, one which is well taken — I want to
point out to this Convention again what perhaps
I did not succeed in explaining very clearly this
afternoon — but this resolution of Mr. Higgins is
one which definitely asks the people of Newfoundland to choose one of two forms of
government, no other is mentioned. Now, if that
resolution is adopted, obviously the question
which is to be put to the people of Newfoundland
is, "Which of these two do you choose?" That is
the question. That is the recommendation which
will go to the Dominions Office, and if the
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1331
Dominions Office is to implement that resolution
which we pass in that form, then they must put
that question to the people of Newfoundland:
"Which of these two forms do you choose?"
Now, having voted by a majority to ask the
British government to ask the people of Newfoundland that question, how can we in
common
sense introduce a third? If we were to adopt
another resolution to bring in a third form of
government, then we destroy the original motion
which has been carried. It is a complete negation
of the motion which we carried first. How can we
ask them to choose between two and then place
a third on the ballot paper? It is completely senseless. Not only is that so, but
the effect of the
passage of such a resolution would be in fact to
confine the decision of this Convention to two
forms, and we could not add another without first
rescinding the first resolution. Here we have a
resolution adopted by this Convention to place
two forms of government as alternatives before
the people of the country. How can you add a
third, without rescinding a prior resolution? It is
a complete negation of the prior resolution. In
order for Mr. Smallwood's motion to be in order,
we would have to rescind Mr. Higgins' resolution
if we adopted it. I made the second point in
connection with our duty under the Convention
Act to recommend (and if I misquote will someone please correct me) to the Dominions
Office
or the British government forms of government
to be submitted to the people of Newfoundland.
Am I correct there?
Mr. Chairman Possible forms of future government to be put before the people at a national
referendum.
Mr. Bradley It gives no right to the Convention
that we shall submit thus and such forms of
government to put before the people of Newfoundland; it gives us authority to recommend
certain forms to be submitted, it gives no
authority to say thus and such shall
not be submitted to the people of Newfoundland, and the
effect of this resolution is clearly to exclude the
laying of any other form of government before
the people. It is wholly within the province of the
British government itself to say what shall not be
set before the people of Newfoundland at the
referendum. They have authority to throw out any
recommendation that we may make. We have no
authority whatsoever to make a negative recom
mendation, none. There can be found no such
power in the Convention Act. There are the plain
words: "to recommend forms of government to
be submitted", not to recommend that any particular forms they dislike shall not be
submitted.
That is a matter for the British government, not
for us.
Mr. Crosbie I agree with Mr. Bradley, but being
a layman and not a lawyer, whatI want to know
is why we discussed this resolution for four or
five days, and at this point this question arises?
Mr. Bradley I can give Mr. Crosbie some light
on that. Possibly I am at fault. As you know, for
the last two months I have not been in the pink of
condition. When Mr. Higgins made his first
resolution, or gave notice of motion before the
Christmas vacation, I had read the resolution and
was frankly of the opinion that it was entirely
outside our province and should not be received.
When I returned, some eight or ten days late, after
the Christmas vacation, I was informed that Mr.
Higgins had withdrawn his motion and substituted another one which was, in effect,
to place
Commission government and responsible
government upon the ballot. With that resolution,
in substance, I was in complete accord. I did not
bother my head any further about it. I did not even
bother to read the resolution. Yesterday afternoon I was sitting here at my desk and
the order
paper was here, and quite by accident I picked it
up and read it. As soon as I read it I saw where,
in my opinion, it was completely outside our
jurisdiction to receive any such resolution or vote
on it. I drew it to the attention of this house at the
earliest possible date.
Mr. Crosbie I agree with Mr. Bradley's explanation. From my point of view, we are 45 men
here, and I do not think any one of us wants to
railroad anything through. If there is, I do not
want to be a party to it. I know that one or two
members are sick, but the members present can
settle this thing between ourselves. I do not think
anyone here is trying to block any form of
government. After all, as I said, we had a political
economist — he was over there where Mr. House
is now sitting — he stayed here a week or ten days
and we have not seen him since. I am not a
lawyer, but to me it is just plain ordinary sense
for us to settle this discussion. I think we can
settle the question and go on.
1332 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
Mr. Chairman I will make my position clear.
What I do tonight and what I do the week after
next are two entirely different things, but certain
it is I am not going to run the risk of excluding
discussion on any form of government which
may be desired by any member of this Convention. It has been suggested to me here
in effect
that these rules are relatively unimportant. I say
they are of the utmost importance for this reason:
they were made pursuant to section 4 of the Act.
The Act says, "No rules shall be amended, altered
or repealed except by two-thirds vote of the members of the Convention." Therefore
I will have to
enforce it. Every man shall be free to express his
own opinion on forms of government. I am sure
it never occurred to me that this motion was
designed to cut off discussion of the other form
of government of which I have notice on the order
paper. I am going to take the only position I can.
That is, the motion will have to be amended. But
I want to resolve any doubt, and there appears to
be grave doubt, and if it is correct that this motion
if carried would preclude discussion on Mr.
Smallwood's motion, I think that ambiguity and
doubt has to be resolved. I will accept the motion
covering responsible government and Commission government, but not to the exclusion
of the
form of government next on the order paper, of
which I have notice.
Mr. Higgins Do I understand you to say, with
any other form added it would be accepted by
you?
Mr. Higgins You said if another form was
added to it, you would accept it.
Mr. Chairman I suggested you would include
another form of government. Now it is said you
included that form to the exclusion of the other
one on the order paper, which is something which
never occurred to me until three o'clock this
afternoon. It was you, Mr. Hollett and Mr. Bradley, who called my attention to it.
Mr. Bradley
contends this is designed to exclude the discussion on the form of government on the
next order
paper. That being so, I am in a very dangerous
position here.
Mr. Higgins As the mover of the motion, in
spite of the fact there was intimation this after
noon of a cloven hoof of partisanship in the
motion, I say there was no intention at any time
by me of excluding any other form being discussed. I myself am not and was not prepared
to
put any other form of government I did not approve of in that motion. But to exclude
any other
form of government from future debate is not and
was not intended by me.
Mr. Bradley If you will permit me, sir, I think
the whole matter can be simply resolved. Personally, I think the whole procedure,
while not
exactly wrong, was not as neat as it might have
been. My own view is, the proper way to deal
with each of these forms is to take them singly;
after all, our duty is to decide as to what forms
might be suitable to the people of Newfoundland.
Mr. Higgins The Chairman would not take them
singly; it was not acceptable in that form.
Mr. Chairman I could rule out your motion,
Mr. Higgins, for six reasons — every recital in
that motion was something over which the House
has no jurisdiction. Your motion in its original
form was to put one form of government on to the
exclusion of all others....
Mr. Higgins I endeavoured to meet the objection by putting two forms on.
Mr. Bradley I think each form could have been
taken separately and dealt with in a manner that
would not have been in any way exclusive. If we
had a resolution for instance that Commission of
Government be placed on the ballot paper, that
would have been adopted and that would not
exclude anything else. It would be dealing with
one form — we would say, "Yes, that is one form
which ought to be submitted to the people, we
will put that on." Then we take responsible
government, we discuss that and we come to the
conclusion, "Yes, that is also a form which shall
be submitted to the people." We are then finished
with that. Then we take any other form we want
to consider and discuss that, we may decide to put
it on or not as the case may be — each should
have been taken separately. That was not done.
What was done in the first instance was this
resolution was introduced to place one form on
the ballot paper, and reading that resolution according to the concepts of the English
language,
it was to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Bradley That you properly rejected. We
have now a resolution with two forms to the
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1333
exclusion of all others. There is no difference in
principle.
Mr. Bradley My suggestion is that if Mr. Higgins has no intention of excluding discussion on
other forms...
Mr. Bradley Whether it was designed intentionally or not, I cannot say. I can not see into Mr.
Higgins' mind any more than into his digestion.
Mr. Bradley My suggestion to Mr. Higgins is
this, that he alter it to read "That Commission
government and responsible government be submitted to the people at the referendum."
That
would cover the whole thing and it would leave
the field free for any other forms.
Mr. Chairman In view of that fact, can we not
get out of this difficult situation?
Mr. Vardy As seconder of Mr. Higgins' motion, I do not see, frankly, there is anything there
from which we should withdraw. I have been
looking at it from all angles. I would like to ask,
what would be the position if Mr. Higgins' motion recommended responsible government
and
confederation with Canada, and left out Commission of Government?
Mr. Bradley Same thing. It would be equally
objectionable.
Mr. Vardy I wonder would you have taken the
same objection?
Mr. Chairman Frankly, I was worried. Mr.
Bradley brought it to my attention first and then
he was followed by Mr. Hollett. In view of the
circumstances, it appears now that if I accepted
the motion it would be cutting off any discussion
on the next motion, I would have to rule under
order 34 that you could not deal with Mr.
Smallwood's motion. I do not want to be put in
that position. I am not going to be put in that
position.
Mr. Higgins Do I take it that if I change this
resolution to "The following forms of government (responsible government and Commission
of Government) be placed before the people in
the national referendum" we can still carry on the
debate? Still vote on it tonight? Still save the
people $1,000 a day?
Mr. Cashin If I might interject a word. We met
in private session and decided all this. I do not
think there was any intention in Mr. Higgins'
motion to preclude any other form of government
whatever. As a matter of fact, we decided at the
private meeting we were going to end this tonight
and the other one was going to start right away.
You cannot say that there was any scheming or
any skulduggery intended. I am quite behind the
idea that we should discuss other forms, and I
suppose I am probably the most ardent one-form-
government man in here.
Mr. Chairman I must say, frankly, that it never
occurred to me.
Mr. Hollett I want it to be clearly understood,
as far as this motion is concerned, I never
bothered about the form until last night when I
got inquiring into it, and I came to the conclusion
that if it was passed as such, the introduction of
any motion on any other form would be
ultra
vires. I tried to explain that to the best of my
ability. I do not want anyone to insinuate that I or
anyone else was trying to keep this, that and the
other form off the ballot paper.
Mr. Chairman On the contrary, you went out of
your way to bring it to my attention. Frankly you
did me a very great service. As a result of what
was decided last Friday, it did not occur to me
that there was anything wrong. I was not bothering with it at all until Mr. Bradley
first drew it to
my attention and he was followed by you. Since
that time I have been thinking about it.
Mr. Higgins The motion now is, "Be it resolved
that the National Convention desires to recommend to the United Kingdom government
that the
following forms of government be placed before
the people at the proposed referendum, namely:
1. Responsible government as it existed
prior to 1934;
2. Commission of Government."
Mr. Chairman No. It is not an amendment, it is
a substitution.
Mr. Bradley It is a substitution with the assent
of the whole House.
Mr. Chairman Members who have already
spoken on this motion (with the exception of Mr.
Higgins who has the right to reply) have no
further right to speak on the motion.
Mr. Bailey In voting on this, do we vote on all
1334 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
three or do we take them singly?
Mr. Chairman You vote on Mr. Higgins' motion; that is to say, you will vote for or against the
motion that covers both forms of government —
after that, then if any member has a preference
for responsible government as against Commission government, or vice versa, he has
a right to
state that view and he can have it recorded. He
does not have to — he can if he likes.
Mr. Bradley This does not affect me at all, but
I would like to point out that there are possibly
some members of the Convention who would like
to vote for one form in preference to the other. If
a member votes in this motion for one of these
forms in preference to the other, it puts him in a
rather funny position.
Mr. Bailey In this I have to vote for something
I am not in touch with. I know I am not touching
confederation with a fork.
Mr. Chairman That has nothing to do with this
motion now before the Chair.
Mr. Fowler Mr. Chairman, at long last we find
ourselves approaching the end, and soon our
deliberations here will conclude to await the verdict of history. I support the resolution
moved by
my learned friend, Mr. Higgins, and in doing so
will briefly comment on the two forms of government embodied in that resolution.
First of all, I believe in responsible government, I know it must be right in principle,
and I
believe it can be made to work in practice. It is
now, and always has been the goal of civilised
humanity. All down through the ages, men have
struggled to achieve and maintain their independence. Twice in our time we have seen
the
freedom-loving nations of the world wage internecine war in defence of the very principles
embodied in responsible government, and it is not
necessary for me to remind you that Newfoundland acquitted herself nobly and well
on
both occasions. Therefore, gentlemen, the innate
desire for self-government finds its roots in the
natural aspirations of the human mind toward
independence. The Burmese have it. The Hindus
and Moslems of India have it. The largely illiterate coloured folk of Jamaica have
it. Surely
it must also lurk in the souls of the people of
Newfoundland, who first won autonomy when
the population was less than 100,000 and the
annual revenue around $500,000, as Mr. Higgins
reminded us on Monday. Gentlemen, in my
opinion responsible government is the proper
course for an independent people to take. That
does not mean cutting ourselves adrift from the
world, as some of you would have us believe. 0n
the contrary, it affords us greater opportunity, it
gives us a free hand to conclude arrangements
with any country, should the opportunity present
itself. And to those who desire a closer relationship with the United States, it must
be evident that
responsible government is the only means of
attaining that end.
Mr. Chairman, thousands of young Newfoundlanders, on whom will shortly be placed the
responsibility of determining our future form of
government, like myself have no personal recollection of responsible government in
this
country. For I will remind you that nobody in this
country under 35 years of age ever had the
privilege of marking a ballot to determine the
conduct of the affairs of their country. And that
is why so many are inclined to accept as true the
hearsay that corrupt and incompetent governments caused the financial debacle of the
early
thirties. They do not realise that it was mainly due
to the condition of the time brought about by
external circumstances over which our government had no control. The entire world
was
plunged into the direst depression it had ever
known, Britain herself went through the gravest
financial crisis in her history, and millions went
on the unemployment rolls in Canada and the
United States. Confusion reigned everywhere,
people lost faith in everything and governments
became the principal scapegoats, and thus were
sown the seeds that today bear fruit in the unjust
condemnation of responsible government. Let
me remind the apostles of Commission of
Government that when it assumed power on that
bleak February day in 1934, with all its ingenuity
and skill in the art of tax extraction, it could find
nothing better for our people than six cents a day
dole for five long years, and an annual deficit —
which, by the way, they did not have to worry
about. This should prove beyond reasonable
doubt that there was more wrong at that time than
the form of government. It is evident that the
change to Commission did nothing to improve
our condition until the beginning of the war,
when demand for our products coupled with our
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1335
strategic importance gave the country revenues
undreamed of before, and are we going to thank
Commission of Government for this? Surely, no
right thinking person would.
Mr. Fowler I contend, gentlemen, that if we had
had responsible government during this boom
period we would be in a far better position than
we are today. Any body of Newfoundlanders
would have had the interests of this country more
at heart, and would have made the most of the
many opportunities which offered to further the
interests of their native land. But what happened?
This dictatorial Commission played Santa Claus
to all and sundry with utter disregard for the
people's future welfare. They have collected undreamed of revenues, and in the last
two or three
years in particular they have gone to great pains
to spend every last cent and if possible to create
a deficit. In my opinion, any government with the
interests of the country at heart should have curtailed expenditures at this time
and built up a
greater surplus, in order to adequately tide us over
the recession period through which the world is
bound to pass during the transition from a war to
peace economy.
Mr. Chairman, there is but one sane course
open to the people of this country, and that is to
become masters in their own house by returning
to responsible government. Then, and not till
then, will they be free to give expression to their
beliefs without fear of outside interference. We
all know that governments in the past were not
perfect. No government is, but gentlemen,
democracy reveals the virtues of the people as
well as their vices, and it is because their virtues
are greater than their vices that democracy has
become the form of government to which the
most progressive nations of the world adhere.
Surely, we can do nothing but honour the
memory of those great Newfoundlanders who
nearly a century ago won for this country the right
of self-determination. They realised and appreciated the freedom of democracy; will
not we,
in this our hour of trial, prove that we too are
equal to the task and will sustain them in their
historic decision to be free? We know the errors
of the past, and would undoubtedly profit by
them, and I contend that under a responsible
government set up along the lines suggested by
Mr. Hickman in his masterly address, we could
have nothing to fear. We have the men, let us give
them a chance to prove their worth.
These, Mr. Chairman, are briefly my views on
the matter of forms of government, or at least on
the forms within the compass of this resolution.
They have been my views for a long time, sir,
long before I heard of this Convention, and as this
Convention draws to its inevitable end, I feel a
sense of satisfaction in the fact that during our
deliberations I have found nothing to cause me to
change my views, but on the contrary, I have
found much to confirm and substantiate them.
Among many things which tended to strengthen
my belief were the findings of the several committees, the statements of the many
prominent
men I had the privilege of meeting and the hopeful and optimistic attitude of the
majority of my
fellow delegates.
Mr. Chairman, I want to draw the attention of
this Convention to the fact that the cost of living
has been increasing in all North American
countries at a very high rate. Newfoundland has
not been exempt in this respect. However, I want
to draw to your attention the fact that recently the
members of the Civil Service Association have
been negotiating with the Commission of
Government with regard to obtaining an increase
in their salaries to cope with this advance in the
high cost of living. Their request has been practically ignored by the Commission.
Do you think,
Mr. Chairman, that such an action can be termed
fair or honest, particularly in view of the fact that
less than two years ago the Newfoundland members of the Commission had their own salaries
increased by $2,000 per year, or an increase of
25%, whilst at the same time the salary of the
Chairman of the Commission has been increased
by nearly 40%? Another point in respect to this
matter is the fact that the British members of the
Commission receive a sustenance allowance of
around $4,000 a year annually, and other British
civil servants receive preferential treatment with
regard to subsistence allowances. Mr. Chairman,
I consider such treatment of our own Newfoundland officials nothing short of scandalous,
and whilst I appreciate that many of the civil
servants receive substantial salaries, I also know
that the great majority of them are receiving
hardly sufficient to keep body and soul together.
I said, sir, that I had fixed ideas of the matter
of governments prior to my coming to this Con
1336 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
vention, and on that score, gentlemen, I may be
accused of not possessing that doubtful asset, an
open mind. Be that as it may. I am content in the
knowledge that I had the courage of my convictions and publicly made known my views
well in
advance of the Convention election. Every person in my district who did me the honour
of
voting for me, did so with the full knowledge of
my intentions and desires. I therefore feel that my
decision in this matter is not wholly personal,
selfish or unsupported.
Mr. Starkes Mr. Chairman, I am not going to
make a long speech on the two forms of government now under fire in this House. First
because
we are not here to make any decisions, and
secondly because the decision that is to be made
will be made, so we are told in the National
Convention Act, by the electorate of this country
at a national referendum. I am supporting the
motion now before the Chair...
I am not voting to try and force any one form
of government on the people. I personally realise
my responsibility. What can we do, Mr. Chairman? The National Convention Act tells
us that
we have to make recommendations to the British
government. We have to recommend what forms
of government will be submitted to our people for
the referendum. This motion is now doing just
that. I am in favour of supporting this resolution
as it is now, so that the people may have a chance
to decide the form of government they think best,
and I am happy to leave the choice of our future
government in the hands of our people. I am glad
that we, as a National Convention, are not asked
to make the final decision on such an important
question. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be
misunderstood in this thing. I will be voting to
recommend that these two forms of government
should be submitted to our people for their
choice. I am not now called upon to vote for any
one form of government, but when the referendum is held, and I have to cast my vote
like all
the rest of the people, I will certainly give it some
deep thought before I vote for either responsible
or Commission government. Both myself and the
people have seen quite a lot of both kinds of
government, and I would certainly never vote for
either of them if I had a chance to vote for
something better. There is one thing I am sure
about, and it is this, that our people certainly want
something better than we have had under respon
sible government and in fact under Commission
government as well. Our people have long
memories, they remember what things were like
under the dying days of responsible government,
and also under Commission of Government for
the first six or seven years until the war started,
and our prosperity improved considerably,
through the war. They still remember, and what
they want now is some form of government that
would give them a better chance to live than any
we have yet had. We have been told a lot about
the Amulree royal commission and about Letters
Patent, and all that sort of thing. Mr. Chairman,
our people do not worry their heads about such
things. All that is now past, and our people are
not worried about legal documents made years
and years ago. They have more important and
personal matters to worry about. Their hope is
that they will be able to get three square meals a
day for themselves and their families, and a dollar
in their pockets when they want it. What our
people are worried about is how they are going
to get a form of government that will give them
a better chance to live. They are worried about
what is going to happen when world depression
comes back again. They are worried what is
going to happen to them should the price of fish
take another fall in price.
I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that every member
has made up his mind by now what form of
government he likes, and what form of government he thinks would be best for the people
of
this country, and so have I, but that has nothing
to do with the motion before us today. We are
asked to say what form of government we favour.
The motion does not say that no other form of
government cannot or should not be submitted to
the people, but that these two forms of government should be submitted to the people.
Some of
the people who will be called upon to make their
decision at the national referendum will be the
sons and daughters of fathers and mothers who
had to exist, through no fault of their own, on dole
through the dying days of responsible government, and for six or seven years after
the present
form of government was borne into the country.
Some of the people who will be called upon to
vote are men now who were boys then, and were
at that time suffering under the burden of poverty
through no fault of their own in most cases, and
who were compelled to live in some cases with
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1337
nothing on their backs but an oat sack, with their
head up through the bottom and their arms out
through the sides. There will be mothers who will
be asked to make their decision, who will remember that under responsible government
and Commission of Government for some years, there was
nothing but the one garment on their backs, and
that, sir, was made out of flour sacks. They are
not unmindful of the fact, sir, that under the forms
of government they have had, they have suffered
untold agony and poverty. Some who will be
given the privilege to vote will be the sons and
daughters of fathers and mothers who have
passed out of this life through poverty and want
— mothers who had nothing on their backs but a
daughter's apron for a singlet and a boat sail for
an eiderdown. Men and women today who were
boys and girls a few years ago, will remember and
can picture their mothers mixing flour with water
only, and crusting it on the top of a stove without
fat, and sitting down to eat it with nothing but
warm water, that to keep body and soul together.
One thing we are certain of, sir, and that is that a
great majority of the 80,000 sons and daughters,
mothers and fathers, who were compelled
through no fault of their own to live on $21.60
per year per person, $1.80 per month or six cents
per day per person, they, sir, are some of the men
and women who will decide at the national
referendum what form of government they think
best suited for their country and ourselves.
Mr. Chairman, I can well remember the time
that the members elected under responsible
government were given a permit to carry a revolver to protect their lives right here
in St.
John's. I can still picture the gang on Duckworth
Street with a 40-foot pole trying to break into a
public building. I can still picture this very building that we are in tonight with
the windows
broken out, and the only exit for the men to get
out of the chamber was to go down those winding
stairs in the comer and pass out through the
broken window — in some cases, sir, disguised,
so that they would not be recognised by the gang
outside. The sons and daughters of that generation will still remember the famous
parade from
the Majestic Theatre to the doors of this chamber.
[1] Let us hope, sir, that when they are given
the privilege of expressing their views by voting
for the form of government they think best, that
they will be given every chance to choose something better than we have had for some
years in
the past.
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. Spencer Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak
on the motion of Mr. Higgins now before the
Chair, let me say at the outset that I intend to
support the motion, but it does not necessarily
follow that I think either of the forms of government now before the House the best
form for this
country.
I do not think responsible government, as it
existed prior to 1934, would be the best form for
this country. First, because I do not see how
320,000 people scattered over 150,000 square
miles of territory can be expected to raise revenue
enough to give them the public and social services they need and will demand, and
still allow
them enough to attain the standard of living enjoyed by the peoples of the North American
continent. And secondly, if we return to self-
government, we shall still have to raise the bulk
of our revenue by the system of indirect taxation,
which to me is unsound and unfair. Thirdly, with
our small population, I fail to see how we can
expect to have any large internal industries. Let
me explain what I mean. When I worked on the
Agriculture Committee of this Convention, we
took up with the departmental heads concerned
the question of fertilisers. We inquired if it was
possible to manufacture fertilisers in this country
cheaper than we could import them; we were
informed that most of the ingredients would have
to be imported, but that the real drawback to their
manufacture in this country was the fact that the
amount of fertilisers consumed in this country
was not large enough to warrant their manufacture on such a scale as would make it
profitable.
Also the Mining Committee advises us that we
have on the west coast all the ingredients that go
into the making of cement in close proximity to
each other, and the only reason I can see why we
do not have a cement manufacturing plant is
because the comparatively small amount of cement that would be consumed in the country
yearly would not be great enough to allow it to
be worked profitably, Neither do I consider the
1338 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
present form of government the best for this
country, because it means taxation without representation. I will say that the present
form of
government, since it came into power, has done
much to build up the public and social services.
They have greatly increased public health services, new roads, schools and an improved
marketing system for our fishery products, but I
also remember that they have during the past six
or seven years been helped greatly by the highest
revenues in our history, which were due almost
wholly to the effects of the war and to the high
cost of imported goods. How long these conditions will continue is anybody's guess.
You may ask why, if I do not consider either
of these forms the best for us, do I support the
motion that they be placed before the people for
their choice, and my answer is that we were sent
here to recommend suitable forms and not to
decide them. I know that there are many people
who do think that one of these forms would be
best, and I think it is our duty to see, as far as it
lies in our power, that they are given the chance
to vote for the government of their choice.
Mr. Watton Mr. Chairman, we have here a
resolution introduced by Mr. Higgins, covering
two forms of government to be submitted to the
people of this country in the forthcoming referendum. It will be the duty of all of
us tonight to
register our vote as to whether we are in favour
of it or not. I want to say that I am in favour of it
and that I shall vote for it, because I feel that it is
the only logical thing for me to do. The chief
reason why I vote for it is that for the past 16
months this Convention has been studying the
financial and economic position of this country,
and has come to the conclusion that we are again
self-supporting. The reason why we are self-supporting has been stated over and over
again, and
the conclusions of all the reports presented to this
Convention have pointed to that fact. In view of
all the circumstances, and because I believe in the
resolution, I feel duty bound to support it.
As for the forms of government dealt with in
this resolution, I will make my comments as brief
as possible. The ground has been very ably
covered by previous speakers. Personally, Mr.
Chairman, I believe in the restoration of responsible government. I believe that the
greatest good
for the greatest number can be achieved by the
immediate restoration of that form of govern
ment. Our principal industries are today in a
better condition than they ever were in our history. Our fisheries, which are and
always will be
the backbone of our economy, have made enormous strides in the last few years. They
have
become more diversified, more modern in some
respects; we have a better system of marketing,
and we are producing a better product as a result
of proper inspection. Indications point to the fact
that the future for our fisheries can and will be,
under the proper administration, put on a sounder
basis than it ever was before. What I mean by
"proper administration" is that if we can only get
the chance to use the great bargaining power that
is ours. Our forest industries have grown to a
considerable degree and are still growing. Millions of dollars are now being spent
on the expansion of existing paper mills, and it is not
improbable that in the near future another such
industry will be started meaning more employment for our people. Our mining industry
is in a
flourishing condition with every prospect for it to
continue so in the future, with the possibility of
future mineral development. Agriculture shows
great promise. We are, Mr. Chairman, in a more
favourable position than we ever were in our
history; and our position can be made much better
by taking advantage of the tremendous bargaining power that is ours, due to our strategic
position which has been stressed so often inside this
Convention and out. We can only reap the full
advantage of this by an immediate return to self-
government. It has been ours for the asking for a
long time now, and nothing has been done about
it, and nothing will ever be done about it until the
people take over the management of their own
affairs. We should take advantage of it by starting
negotiations with our good friend the United
States of America, and by getting closer to that
country economically, especially with regard to
our fishery products. So much has already been
said about this matter that it is unnecessary for
me to elaborate. The same applies to the potential
mineral and forest wealth of Labrador. Here we
have something which can be of tremendous
benefit to us if handled properly, and it has not
been handled properly up to the present. I think
the Mining Committee, of which I was a member,
pointed out that fact. It is my opinion that we will
never reap the full benefits until we get our own
government. The quicker we can get that govern
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1339
ment the better, if we are to get anything
worthwhile out of the great wealth of Labrador.
In view of all the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, all that is necessary now is for us
to take
over the management of our own affairs, and I
feel sure that we have the men capable of doing
the job and doing it well. The argument that if we
get responsible government back it would mean
an almost immediate recession to where we were
in 1933, and that we would again be on our knees
to the mother country in a few years, is one to
which I cannot subscribe in view of our present
position, and how that position can be improved
under the proper administration. It is the argument of a defeatist and does not smack
of the true
blood and guts of the Newfoundlander. We have
the resources, we have the bargaining power, and
above all, we have the men — men of vision and
courage, capable of taking this country through
whatever the future may hold in store for us. All
we need are courage and faith in ourselves, and I
think our people have them in abundance.
As far as Commission of Government is concerned, I do not think it can do for us what
we can
do for ourselves. It was never meant for any
freedom-loving people, and it will always remain
a black chapter in our history. Admittedly it has
done a lot of good for this country — I will not
deny that, but in my opinion its sins of omission
are very great, too great to be allowed to continue,
because they are still continuing. Sufficiently
good reasons have been put forward why the
present form of administration should not be
continued, and it will be only labouring the point
if I deal with it any further.
What I have stated with regard to the two
forms of government dealt with in this resolution
are strictly my own views, and are perhaps not
likely to be shared by many people. Therefore, in
fairness to them, I am going to vote for these two
forms of government to be submitted to the
people, and for them to make their own decision.
I feel sure that we shall be leaving the decision in
safe hands. It gives me much pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to support the resolution.
Mr. Kennedy Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in
rising to offer my support to the motion now
before the Chair, may I at the same time register
my regret that its straightforward implication
could not have been adopted some 20 months
ago. However, this Convention, despite its
shortcomings, has served to enlighten many, and
particularly us of the younger generation, whose
privilege as so-called free people has been to
fight, but never to vote.
It is not shame that I as one of this younger
generation feel when reviewing the institution of
Commission of Government, but a sense of mild
impatience mingled perhaps with disgust, that
our leaders at that time were unable to find a
solution that preserved independence, as did
practically all other world governments who
were under no less burden or stress. As one of the
thousands who in those dark days was privileged
in being only a child, I still ask, was default at that
time, under similar circumstances, merely the
privilege of the great? We paid with the loss of
our independence for a type of honour that our
illustrious neighbours did not hesitate in foregoing. Experience is something which
cannot be
bought with dollars, nor at all times with honour;
but must be paid for in suffering, either mental,
physical or spiritual.
Looking back over the past 20 months with a
mind unwarped as far as personal politics and
egotistical greed are concerned, I think I can
safely say that this Newfoundland in her short
parliamentary history of, all told, less than a
century has suffered no more bitterly from mistakes and pitfalls than most countries
have done.
We have been, and in spite of drastic improvements still are a pioneering people and
country,
who unlike older nations are able truly to say that
our resources are only now being tapped. Let any
government we may elect benefit from the history and mistakes of her predecessors,
and not
lurch into the future with a sense of frustration
and inferiority on account of what has gone
before. We have been told directly by the past
Commissioner for Finance, the Hon. Mr. Wild,
that we are a self-supporting country. I will accept that statement from an expert,
and will
wrangle with no rough estimates or so-called
guess budgets of amateurs.
Fish, paper and iron ore — these are commodities for which the whole world is hungry,
but
unfortunately at present only dollar areas are in a
position to purchase to our advantage. Facing fact
again, Canada does not need our fish. America
does. We need commodities which are obtainable
in either of these countries. Is it common sense to
pay in precious dollars to Canada for what our
1340 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
own natural products can purchase in the USA?
We can and must reach some trade agreement
with the United States, whose economy may well
merge with our own, and to my mind the only
satisfactory channel through which this may be
done is by a representative Newfoundland
government, as free to negotiate for Newfoundland and her people as the United States
government is for hers. Let us meet on equal
terms and not as paupers or poor neighbours. It is
up to us as a people to choose our market for our
coveted iron ore and paper, and not to beg it as
someone else's.
Since the suspension of responsible government, Newfoundland, from being an island
on the
edge of the world, has become a station in the
centre of the world. In peace time this strategic
position is an enviable circumstance and in war
time it will be likely to involve an inevitable peril,
and hence it is imperative to the interest of North
America that all military bases now here shall
remain a permanent feature. Here may I mention
that the disgusting lower rates of pay for Newfoundlanders working on their own leased
soil,
are as revolting to me as the colour bar is elsewhere. If and when Newfoundland is
returned to
its own administration, I am certain this state of
affairs will be rectified. Finally, may I here express the belief that a vigourous
opposition in the
government of any country is essential to true
democracy. Without the impetus afforded by
such opposition, not only do leaders lapse into a
state of dictatorial lethargy, but the voice of the
minority, and hence the people, fails to be heard.
No, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the easiest
road is not always the best and the shortest in the
long run. Throughout the past 20 months I have
borne in mind this quotation:
Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice,
Take each man's censure, but reserve thy
judgement!
The time has arrived to pronounce that judgement
and I have done so. We are offered, even as was
Bunyan's Pilgrim, a road with many turnings and
flanked on either side with deep chasms. With the
same faith in God, and with zeal and courage on
our own part, let us not travel backward on
crutches, nor remain stagnant, but forward on our
own two feet.
Mr. Banfield Mr. Chairman, this resolution is
one that asks us to recommend two forms of
government to be submitted to our people in the
forthcoming referendum. The two forms are
responsible government and Commission of
Government. It makes no difference to us here
what form of government we favour ourselves,
or what form we prefer. That has nothing to do
with this resolution. We can favour either one of
these two forms of government, and still vote for
this motion to place the two of them before the
people. Or we can favour neither the one nor the
other, and still be in favour of submitting both of
them to the people for their decision. I do not see,
Mr. Chairman, how we can vote against the motion. It is not as though we were called
upon to
express our own personal wishes, or our own
personal likes and dislikes in the matter. We are
only called upon to vote in favour of submitting
these two forms of government to the people, and
I suppose the motion will receive the unanimous
support of the whole Convention.
We tried responsible government before. In
fact we had it for 80 years, and where did it land
us? Our people know where it landed them — it
landed them on the dole, it landed them on six
cents a day. All I can say about responsible
government, Mr. Chairman, is "once bitten,
twice shy". Responsible government, sir, landed
our people on six cents a day, and Commission
of Government kept them on six cents a day. We
must not forget that fact... We had the six cent
dole for three years before Commission of
Government came, but we also had it long after
Commission came. In fact, we had the six cents
dole for six years after the Commission of
Government came. We must not forget, sir, that
six years after Commission came, we still had
40-50,000 of our unfortunate people on the dole.
They were still on the dole right up to the outbreak of the war, and in fact for some
time after
the war broke out. It was not until the war was on
for almost two whole years that the dole began to
disappear, when Canadian and American money
began to pour in here to build the bases.
People who do not like the thought of responsible government often tell us that we
had the
dole under responsible government. It is true we
did, but it is just as true that we had it under
Commission as well. With my own eyes, sir, I
have seen the Commission government refuse
dole to a whole settlement because their time was
not quite up — they still had a few days to go
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1341
before the next month's ration came due. The
Commission government made them wait, and
with my own eyes I saw hungry men, women and
children go off over the hills picking blueberries
to make a few cents to keep themselves alive.
That was under Commission government. I have
seen the Commission government send our
police force out with baton in one hand and a gun
in the other, against hungry men. Those are unpleasant memories that our people will
not soon
forget. Oh no, it was not only under responsible
government that we had the six cents dole.
I am going to vote in favour of placing these
two forms of government before our people, but
that does not say that I am going to vote myself
for either one of them when the referendum is
held. So far as I am concerned, I want something
better for our country. I want a form of government that will give our people a break.
I want a
form of government that will give our people
something better than dole when the long-expected world depression hits us again.
I am not
allowed to say in this present debate what form
of government I do want, but I will get that
chance a little later.
Mr. McCarthy I do not want to make a speech.
I stand to support the motion made by Mr. Higgins that both Commission of Government
and
responsible government be submitted to the
people in the referendum.
Mr. Ballam While we have been debating this
resolution this last three or four days, I think
everything has been said that could be said. We
are getting on to the end of the debate, and I do
not want to tire people with tedious repetition.
I am sure all the people in the country know
by this time all about the responsible government
that we had previous to Commission of Government. They also know now that under this
form
of government we have to find money to the tune
of $40 million, and that from 80,000 working
people, 10,000 of whom are on the dole already.
Major Cashin, in his plea for responsible government, figures he can run the country
on $25
million. I do not know where he is going to lop
off $15 million. Somebody will have to want.
Instead of lopping off $15 million, by the looks
of things now, he will have to add a little something to the $40 million we will have
to find in
order to keep the people alive. All that has been
gone over time and time again. Whatever we may
prefer ourselves when it comes to forms of
government, we have no alternative but to recommend that these two forms be placed
before the
people in the referendum. I refer to the two forms
mentioned in the motion proposed by Mr. Higgins — responsible government and Commission
of Government. This is particularly true of responsible government, and I will tell
you why.
Whatever else may be or may not be submitted
to the people, responsible government has to be
submitted, for it is part of the bond, so to speak,
that was made years ago.
Mr. Ballam We all know that the United
Kingdom government made the statement 13 or
14 years ago, that once Newfoundland became
self-supporting again they would restore responsible government, if our people requested
it. That
is a big "if". I have never had any doubt that the
British government would honour their pledge.
Some people have made out that they had some
doubts on this point, or they pretended to have
doubts. But there has never been any doubt
whatever that the mother country would honour
her pledge to us. In fact, that is one of the reasons
why Britain is holding the referendum. We
should remember, Mr. Chairman, that it is not this
Convention or even the Commission of Government that is holding the referendum, but
the
British government. One of the reasons why
Britain is holding the referendum is to give our
people the chance to vote for it if they want to. I
do not think the people will vote for responsible
government — they have had plenty of it before
and they know what to expect. But the point is
that they can if they wish to, and the referendum
is the method that has been arranged to enable
them to do it. My belief is that even if this
Convention did not recommend responsible
government the British government would put it
on the ballot. They made us a promise ... and as
Britain always keeps her promises, I am convinced that responsible government will
be on the
ballot, even if this Convention votes against putting it on.
I am strongly in favour of putting Commission
of Government on the ballot also. I am not saying
that I am strongly in favour of Commission, but
only that it should be put on the ballot. I am trying
to be fair and reasonable to our people, Mr.
Chairman. It is not because I am opposed to
1352 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
responsible government and Commission of
Government that I should try to keep them from
the people, or try to keep them off the ballot. Even
if I intend to vote against those two forms of
government in the referendum, I consider it to be
my duty to vote in favour of putting them both
before the people for their decision. I am sure the
people will be the deciding factor.
I know that in this present debate I am not
allowed to discuss confederation, and I am not
going to discuss it. If I were allowed to discuss it,
I would say that I strongly advocate putting confederation on the ballot as well.
Mr. Ballam Excuse me, sir. We will have a
crack at that later, and I will get a chance to
advocate it in another debate. I am in favour of
submitting both these forms to the people, not
because I favour them but because I know that it
is my duty to place both of them before the people
for their decision. The other will come later.
Mr. Burry I rise to support the motion before
you. I am heartily behind putting these two forms
on the ballot paper to form part of the choice in
the coming referendum. In doing so I want to say
I am not able to support either one of these
choices from my own point of view. I do not feel
that I could support a return to responsible
government, and I do not feel that Commission
of Government should continue any longer in this
country than it already has. There are many,
many reasons I could give to back those statements up, but the time is short and the
arguments
against responsible government have been
repeated here so often, I do not want to go over
them again. They have been very impressive,
some of them; they impressed me and I am sure
they impressed the people of this country. I may
also say that some of the arguments in favour of
the return of responsible government have been
impressive. That is, theoretically they are correct
and they impress us, but they fall down when they
are tested. I do not think they could be practically
applied to this small country with our system of
taxation, and for the reasons which have been
gone over so often in this Convention. I am
wholeheartedly in favour of having political
freedom for our people. I would not think of
voting for anything in the referendum if it did not
involve political freedom. I am all for it.
I would like to take a few minutes to say how
I feel about the return to responsible government.
The very thought of it puts fear into my bones, to
think of this country going back to responsible
government again... These are no idle words. I
have a reason to fear the consequences of responsible government coming back, for
whether
rightly or wrongly, I have associated the political
set-up of this country with the economic conditions we have had. I know that the one
may not
be wholly responsible for the other, but there has
been very close connection between the two. It is
generally agreed that for the majority of our
people life has been a terrific struggle all down
through the years, and I was caught up in that
struggle myself in my youth. My father was one
of the primary producers and he suffered tremendously as one of them. I had a struggle
in my early
days, my earliest recollections are those of
hardship and privation. It is a long story and one
which I am not going to trouble you with. I do
recall the early struggles and also the struggles to
get an education... I know the struggle my
parents had to find a school for me to go to. After
I grew up, through my chosen profession I
worked and came in close contact with men and
women, families, who were having the same kind
of struggle to get along. Then for the past 15
years, as you know, I worked in our northern
dependency and I was up against the same struggle among the people of that country.
Apart from
a few places such as Northwest River and
Cartwright, the struggle was terrific and I shared
it with them intimately. Mr. Harrington a few
days ago told of us of the days he worked as a
civil servant in the Department of Public Health
and Welfare. He told us that day after day he sat
before his desk reading letters from different
parts of the country telling tragic stories of privation and struggle. During those
years I was in the
field, and I was actually in the homes from which
those letters came. Knowing Mr. Harrington as I
do, he must have been moved with compassion
as he read those letters. I am sure that Mr. Harrington will agree that it is one
thing to sit before
a desk in a nice comfortable room, having had
one square meal or two square meals, and to read
these letters; it is another thing to be in the field,
making contacts, going into the homes of these
people and seeing their bare cupboards and hearing the cries of children, cries of
hunger, cries that
never leave you once you have heard them. They
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1343
are different from any other cries of children. And
having gone through that experience, having had
contact with it, I make the statement that I fear
the return of responsible government, fear it
might bring back those conditions again. I said it
is no idle expression of mine when I say that.
People will say to me, "It does not have to happen
again", "It may never happen again." Well, all I
have to say is that it may happen again and I do
not want to take a chance on it. We have no
guarantee that it will not happen again. It probably will, and I do not want to make
the blunder of
having responsible government by my giving any
support to it. It is happening already, and 13,000
people are on the dole in this country and in
Labrador.... I have no doubt but the long and
hungry month of March will add other thousands
to the long list on the dole. There are indications
of hard times coming to this country. As I sit in
this Convention within these sheltered walls, surrounded by the conveniences and comforts
of city
life which I have enjoyed for the past 16 months,
I find I am not as keenly sensitive of what is going
on in this country and in Labrador, I am not as
sensitive as perhaps I might be. But the doors of
this Convention will not close very long before I
will be smack up against that kind of thing again.
And, sir, if it has to come; if I have to face it again
and go through it, in my work, I do not want to
have to say to myself that I should not have given
support to the kind of government under which
this kind of thing exists. Let us try something else.
There is another way out, to my mind. I feel I
cannot conscientiously support return of responsible government to this country.
As far as Commission of Government is concerned, I am not going to vote for it. I
am not
going to support it unless there is no other alternative given to me. If the Convention
leaves me
and the people with no alternative, I think it will
have failed miserably. I do not think it will... I
notice that our government at the present time has
been receiving a very severe thrashing during the
past 16 months, beginning from the very early
days. It has been a left to the jaw and a right to
the jaw and some of the punches have been under
the belt. I want to go on record again as saying I
am not going to be a part of all the punches given
to Commission of Government and the
Dominions Office that have been given in this
Convention, unfairly I think. We have a right to
criticise, many reasons to criticise them, but we
have no reason to go to the extremes we have
gone, and whoever has done it, I am not going to
be a part of it. I think the darkest peak of this
National Convention has not been the verbal
battles we have had, or the small talk we have
engaged in, but the charges of dishonesty, and the
attacks upon the British government and Commission of Government and the Dominions
Office that have been made — shameful changes, I
think. That is going to be perhaps the only condemnation that is going to be brought
down in
history upon us and our work in this Convention.
Commission of Government has been
described as a caretaker government. It has been
that, and the time has come when we can take care
of ourselves. The time has come for the Commission of Government to go and when it
goes, it will
go with my blessing. I would like to pay tribute
to the Commission for what it has done. I am not
unmindful of the blunders it has made.
Thousands and thousands of dollars it has spent
perhaps, to no avail to this country. I am not
unmindful to its drawbacks. But I am not unmindful of what it has done for the Eskimos
in the
Labrador trading project. They had a big problem
on their hands. About 1,000 Eskimos were scattered among the islands, no means of
making a
living; lots of fish, but they had no means of
catching it. Now after a few years of Commission
of Government, many of these Eskimos have the
means whereby they can make an honest living,
and when the time comes to adopt a form of
government to take over control, will have a great
foundation to work upon, especially in northern
Labrador. A great future is in store for them under
a proper form of government. I shudder to think
what would have happened if it had not been for
the interference of Commission government on
behalf of these primitive races of Labrador.
The time has come when we must dispense
with this Commission of Government and make
our choice. They go with my blessing, and I am
pleased to be able to support the motion before
the Chair to give the people of this country of ours
these two forms of government as a part of their
choice in the coming referendum.
Mr. Ashbourne I had prepared some remarks to
follow out this line of argument on the motion,
but after we came back this evening Mr. Higgins
altered his motion. Personally, I would not want
1344 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
anything to be included in a motion which might
preclude the possibility of placing other forms of
government on the ballot, because while I am
perfectly in favour of placing the matter of
responsible government on the ballot, I believe
— in fact, I know — there are people who want
the opportunity of voting on another form. I do
not want to take up the time of this House — there
may be others who want to speak, and I know Mr.
Higgins will wind up the debate.
I would, however, like to speak about a few
matters. I could discuss the quality of responsible
government. I could relate the fate of some of the
people who gave their time and energy and
thought to the government of the country. And
here I would like to say it is the noblest thing a
man can do, to offer his services to his country
and to work in the country's interest and in the
interest of the people. It may be a thankless job,
people may have to face many unpleasant circumstances, and such has been the history
of
people who have taken upon themselves these
responsibilities. Nevertheless, they have accepted these duties and no doubt they
have the
recompense and reward that comes from duties
well performed. "Responsible government
would be restored at the request...." I have
wondered many times just how the British
government would ascertain the voice of the
people of Newfoundland and just how it was
proposed that the people of Newfoundland
should make their request known to the British
government. Evidently, sir, the setting up of this
National Convention, and its recommendations,
will give the people an opportunity to vote on the
forms of government submitted to them.
In building wisely there is one thing which is
most essential and indispensible, and that is that
a start be made on a solid foundation. To my
mind, responsible government as it existed
before 1934 did not make itself indispensible. I
do not intend to discuss the merits or demerits of
the present or past governments. It is not my
intention at this late hour to praise, criticise or
defend governments.... "By their fruits, ye shall
know them."
Mr. Chairman If any member wishes to speak
on the motion and has not done so, he had better
do so now, or forever hold his peace. Mr. Higgins
is about to deliver his coup de grace.
Mr. Higgins I would like to say at the outset, in
case there may be a contrary opinion ... with
respect to the motion, that the form I had originally on the order paper was for the
purpose of
conforming as closely as possible to the wording
of the legislation under which we relinquished
our former government in 1933. That was the
only purpose behind it I want to make that quite
clear beyond any doubt, beyond any suggestion
such as was made here this afternoon, when it was
stated that the verbiage of the motion showed the
cloven hoof of partisanship. As far as I am concerned, anybody who wants to believe
that the
motion was rigged in such a way as to prevent
members of this Convention from recommending
other forms, any person who wishes to believe that
can go to the residence usually associated with
the gentleman of the cloven hoof. I say that in
deference to myself, because as you are aware, at
our private session on Friday last, it was placed
beyond doubt that both these motions would be
debated — the one under my name on the order
paper, and the one under Mr. Smallwood's name.
Time was allotted and agreed to, and there can be
no doubt in anybody's mind who was present at
the meeting that that is so.
Mr. Chairman Which is why I did not worry
about the form of the motion.
Mr. Higgins Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in
my opinion, whatever forms of government this
Convention recommends to the United Kingdom
to be placed on the ballot paper at the forthcoming referendum, the United Kingdom
government will place only two forms on the ballot and
these are the two forms envisaged in the motion
you have before you tonight. I say that because
of my respect for British jurisprudence and
British justice. And British justice demands that
the United Kingdom government carry out its
pledge that appears throughout the legislation,
and throughout the report on which that legislation was based back in 1933. Because
of that, I
say that no matter what forms of government this
Convention recommends, that with that well-
known justice of Britain, and the British people,
the United Kingdom government will be compelled to put before the people of this country
only two forms of government and these are the
two forms you will vote on tonight.
You have had a very scholarly presentation
this afternoon from Mr. Hollett on the various
pieces of legislation leading up to the formation
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1345
of this Convention. And the other day Mr. Harrington gave a similar presentation to
you. I am
quite certain you are all fully aware that there is
a pledge, spoken on behalf of the British government by the Secretary of State for
Dominions
Affairs at that time, Mr. Emrys-Evans, who in
words retailed to you by Mr. Hollett (and I have
not the form in front of me) to the best of my
knowledge said, "The whole policy of the British
government is centered around that pledge." And
in my opinion "the machinery" mentioned by Mr.
Emrys-Evans must have been and could only
have been this National Convention — the
machinery which the British government was
going to set up to enable the people of this country
to make their choice if they wanted responsible
government returned or not. There can be no
doubt whatsoever, Mr. Chairman, in your mind,
as a lawyer, or in my learned friend Mr. Bradley's
mind, as a lawyer, and in your gentlemen's
minds, who by this time are practically sea
lawyers, that this is correct. That legislation,
thank God, is our magna carta. Had that statement
not been made, had that legislation not been in
the form it was in, then truly we might have been
in a tough spot in Newfoundland. That is our
charter of liberty, that when we are self-supporting we can demand back again our
own free
government.
I do not intend at this late hour to go over again
all the reasons so very carefully detailed by members of this Convention. I congratulate
the members of this Convention for the very fine
presentations that have given us in the past few
days of the reasons why they were going to
recommend that these forms of government be
put on the ballot paper. At the same time, while
it appears to be apparent that this motion is going
to pass unanimously, it would appear the only
member who spoke against it, as far as I could
ascertain, was my learned friend Mr. Bradley,
and with the substitution of the new motion I take
it that that meets with his approval. His basic
objection appeared to be the form of the motion.
I cannot help drawing the Convention's attention to the inconsistency of some members
here
who stated they are going to vote for this motion
recommending two forms of government —
responsible government and Commission of
Government— and who at the same time, whilst
making the recommendation, state they do not
believe in either form. It is rather an extraordinary
thing that, gentlemen, to have 16 or 18 members
making up their minds how they are going to
advise their fellow-countrymen to do something
they themselves would not do. Truly, "inconsistency, thou art a jewel."
Now as I said, it appears that a great majority
are going to support this motion and it would also
appear that on the preference vote a great
majority are going to state their preference for
responsible government. To those others of you,
those who whilst voting for the motion are not
particularly inclined to express their preference
— to those I particularly address myself, to convince you why you must support this
motion and
express your preference for responsible government. I say that because the second
last speaker,
Rev. Mr. Burry, in giving his reasons against
responsible government, talked about the fear
that was in his bones, and I want to take the fear
out of Rev. Burry's bones, and out of all the bones
of all the members who have any hesitancy about
expressing preference for the only form of
government we should recommend. The best
way I can do that is to quote to you the words of
the high prophet himself, Mr. Smallwood. These
words are entirely Mr. Smallwood's and I hope
he will understand that in quoting him I have
every reason to congratulate him on the excellent
verbiage, and the complete way he put the case
for those who are backing responsible government. I want to play back the record.
The voice
is that of Mr. Higgins, the words are those of J.
R. Smallwood:
We have the resources. God was good to
us when He made Newfoundland. Our coastal waters are literally alive with fish of
all
kinds; why, if all the fish teeming in our
waters were to swim at one time into our
greatest bay — Placentia Bay — they would
fill the great indraught until there was not a
single drop of water left in it. A new mathematics would have to be invented to count
them. We have the greatest seal herds in the
world. Our salmon are the best in the world.
We have as yet barely scratched the surface
of our fish resources. Our water powers, both
in Newfoundland and Labrador, have already
developed vast hydro-electric power for industrial and commercial purposes, and are
capable of many times their present yield. We
1346 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
have great timber reserves on our Labrador
territory and in Newfoundland — enough to
supply two or three more great newsprint
paper-mills, or artificial silk or cellulose
mills. As for minerals, it is not even half the
story to say that we have, at Bell Island, the
world's largest iron-ore reserves, which will
become increasingly valuable as the Lake
Superior reserves shrink in volume; that we
have, at Buchans, the world's richest lead-
zinc-copper-gold mine. Our whole island is
known to be valuably mineralised, and even
as this is written a small army of trained
geologists from various universities of the
United States are scouring the island in an
organised beginning at measurement and
survey. Expert opinion inclines strongly to
the belief that it is the mineral resources of
Labrador, rather than its forest wealth, that
will make our vast dependency, so much
bigger than ourselves, a source of great
wealth in the years to come.
We have the resources to make us one of
the greatest small nations of the earth.
Sportsmen and seekers of the quaint and unusual in countries have begun to discover
Newfoundland in the past half dozen years.
Jealously they keep their knowledge to themselves, lest others too learn their secret
and
come. Capitalists will discover our vast
heritage of natural wealth, and their capital
will pour in upon Newfoundland and
Labrador to exploit these resources, make
great profits for themselves, and bring enduring prosperity to Newfoundlanders. We
were
on the trembling edge of a breath-taking
mineral boom just as the world depression
plunged capitalists into the depths of pessimism and passivity. We depended a little
too much upon the enterprise and "push" of
pioneering capitalists of the outside world to
develop our mineral resources. Now we have
set ourselves, by the help of these groups of
officially directed geological survey parties,
to the task of learning what we used formerly
to leave it to the others to learn; the actual
facts about our mineral wealth. Soon we shall
be in a position to tell the outside world in
exact terms just what we have got in the
mineral line.
Newfoundland is in the happy position of
being able to say that the starting of two or
three sizable new industries, employing eight
or ten thousand men would, at one blow, end
unemployment in the island; circulate
enough wages to make the people self-supporting; end all need for dole or relief;
enable
the government to balance its budget; give
the Newfoundland Railway, which has just
declared its first operating surplus, a fat
operating profit indeed.
Two or three new industries! It sounds
easy, and it ought to be easy. We have the
resources: the existence of the great Harmsworth newsprint paper mill at Grand Falls
and of the even greater International Power
and Paper Company newsprint paper mill on
the Humber prove that papermaking in
Newfoundland is not only possible, but
capable of more economical production than
elsewhere this side of the Atlantic Ocean.
The existence of the two great mines operating at Bell Island and Buchans proves that
mining can be successfully and profitably
conducted in Newfoundland.
In a book which I wrote in 1932 I ventured
to make several prophecies about Newfoundland. One of these had to do with air
travel to and from the colony. That particular
prophecy is at this moment so near to fulfilment (I refer, of course, to the great
Imperial
Airways transatlantic airline now being arranged, with Cobb's Camp, Newfoundland,
as the great connecting link) that I make this
further prophecy with greater assurance than
that with which those others were made —
namely, Newfoundland, within the next half-
dozen years, will have blossomed forth as a
mining country whose importance will challenge the attention of the world. We shall
be
the third largest producer of newsprint paper
in the world. We shall not have an unemployed man, but will need new immigrants.
Our fisheries will have been completely
transformed and made vastly more important
and profitable by the introduction of considerable sums of new capital.
In other words, our country's onward
march to industrial importance and prosperity, interrupted by the economic deluge
which settled upon us and the world in 1929
and 1930, will be resumed with increased
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1347
tempo and brightened by more knowledge
than ever.
I am not one of those who consider that
the particular form of government at any
given time makes much difference of a fundamental nature in the process I have here
sought to indicate. Newfoundland has known
many forms of government. We were ruled
by ignorant, illiterate "fishing admirals"
from the decks of visiting fishing schooners;
by itinerant governors who were sent here for
a few months each summer; by a much abler
class of naval governors who used to remain
throughout the year; by a form of representative government; then by a form of
government which was a formless amalgamation of representative and responsible
government; by full responsible government.
Now it is government by Commission.
Governments come and governments go,
but the people live on forever, their experience becoming ever more enriched by
vicissitudes, failures and successes. The
natural resources remain. Governments are
artificial and superficial things at best. It is
the genius of a people that counts. What will
make Newfoundland great and prosperous is
not this or that government, this or that form
of government; but rather than unconquerable, invincible, dogged courage and
spirit so eloquently typified by Basil Gotto's
bronze statue in Bowring Park of "The Fight
ing Newfoundlander."
This government or that may indeed, by
its policies and work, help or hinder the slow,
upward march of the people whom it has
been set to govern. That is about the limit of
its power. Its function at best is that of accoucheur. It is the people who count;
they and
their inherent qualities of mind and heart.
The last concluding paragraph is very interesting:
Governments come and go; depressions
come and go. The Newfoundlander possesses more than his needed share of fighting
spirit; his country possesses a more than generous share of God—given wealth. The
combination is irresistible. Greatness Newfoundland
deserves; greatness she shall have.
[1]
Mr. Bradley I do not think that was Mr.
Smallwood - I think that was "The Barrelman".
Mr. Higgins That was Mr. Smallwood in the
Book of Newfoundland in 1937 — Mr. Small-
wood when he had no axe to grind and he was
telling us what he believed.
I do not know that I can close on a better note
that the quotation I gave you from Mr.
Smallwood. But I will say this, I cannot resist
saying it — Mr. Smallwood has referred to me as
a weather-vane; now it would seem that not only
is Mr. Smallwood a weather-vane, but he
provides the wind to blow it himself.
I am not going to go on further, I thank the
members for listening and I trust we will be able
to proceed with the matter of voting.
Mr. Chairman The motion before the Chair is:
Be it resolved the following forms of government
he placed before the people of Newfoundland in
the forthcoming referendum, namely (1)
responsible government as it existed prior to
1934, (2) Commission of Government.
Voting in favour of the motion:
Messrs. Goodridge, Watton, Banfield, Hollett, MacDonald, Starkes, Jones, Kennedy,
Harmon, Spencer, Fudge, Ballam, Northcott,
Penney, Roddy, Vincent, Bradley,
Smallwood, Dawe, Crummey, Burry, Miller,
Ryan, McCarthy, Fowler, Roberts, Keough,
Fogwill, Butt, Higgins, Hickman, Cashin,
Crosbie, Harrington, Cranford, Vardy,
Bailey, Ashbourne.
Messrs. Brown and McConnack — recorded.
[The motion carried unanimously]
Mr. Higgins Could we vote on preference and
dispose of that?
Mr. Bradley I think the preference vote should
come after both resolutions. It would be just as
well to record all the preferences at one time. If,
for instance, Mr. Smallwood's motion passes, it
may change the voice of some members.
Mr. Higgins I would like to have the preference
recorded now.
Mr. Smallwood The logical and practical thing
to do is to Wait until all the forms are disposed of.
My preference may be a form of government we
have not yet discussed.
Mr. Smallwood When will I get the chance?
Mr. Chairman Whatever fate the next motion
receives, you and all the members will be given
the opportunity to express your preference and it
1348 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
will be recorded.
Mr. Bradley Is this a personal preference or a
corporate preference?
Mr. Chairman It is a personal preference, it
refers to each several member.
Mr. Hollett Surely as we all voted unanimously
that this motion pass, we should be given the
opportunity to say which of the two we prefer,
one or the other of the two. I see no reason why
we cannot.
Mr. Hollett Are you addressing the Chair?
Mr. Higgins Last night this matter was discussed, and following the passage of the
motion
with respect to members not being present, it was
understood then, because I asked you, sir, that I
should convey to Mr. Brown the message that in
addition to his vote on the motion he should
include also his preference; and it was definitely
decided that we could express our preference if
we cared to today.
Mr. Smallwood Is there not notice of motion
from Mr. Higgins covering the vote of absent
members?
Mr. Chairman Ihave to record the voice of Mr.
K.M.Brown and that of Mr. McCormack on the
motion is accordance with the motion adopted
here last night.
Mr. Smallwood If we want to, we can make a
motion. I say we do not want to express our
preference Incidentally, we are supposed to adjourn.
Mr. Higgins I rise to a point of order. We made
a decision to decide this tonight.
Mr. Chairman The actual position is this: certain members here, in addressing themselves to
the business before the Chair, intimated to me
they had a distinct preference for one of the two
forms of government contained in the motion.
That was definite. But before they were prepared
to support the motion, they wanted an assurance
from me that they should have the opportunity of
recording their preference. I assured them it was
my duty to do that. Surely, if I do it twice I cannot
be criticised. If I postpone doing it now, and some
members do not get the opportunity of expressing
their preference, I might be open to fair criticism
for not doing it now. If your preference is for the
form contained in the motion not yet before the
Chair, you refrain from expressing your
preference. I am going to do it now.
Mr. Smallwood Point of order. Next order of
business is order no. 2, not the business we are
discussing. Order no. 1 is disposed of; next is
order no. 2.
Mr. Vardy Order no. 1 is not disposed of. There
is far too much dictation going on in this Convention. I have every respect and sympathy
for you,
sir. I am not going to be dictated to. We should
decide on order no. I first and then tackle order
no. 2.
Mr. Bradley I do not know what all this fuss is
about. There is no reason for it. If a member wants
to record his preference he can do so now, according to the Chairman. He has the right
if he so
wishes. If the Chairman wants to give the members the opportunity of recording their
preference, I do not see any reason why it cannot
be done.
Mr. Vardy You or Mr. Smallwood have no right
to interfere.
Mr. Bradley You do not know what you are
talking about.
Mr. Chairman I want to rule now on your point
of order. I do not think in the light of standing
order 39 thatI have disposed of the motion which
has just been adopted. I am to accord any member
the right of stating his preference as between
these two. If members want to do it now or
tomorrow morning, it is a matter of indifference
to me.
Will all members who prefer responsible
government as against Commission of Government, please to rise.
Members voting for responsible government
(preference):
Messrs. Goodridge, Watton, Hollett, Jones,
Kennedy, Banfield, MacDonald, Starkes,
Harmon, Spencer, Ballam, Vincent, Bradley,
Smallwood, Burry, McCarthy, Roberts,
Keough, Ashboume, Fudge, Northcott, Penney, Reddy, Dawe, Crummey, Miller, Ryan,
Fowler, Fogwill, Butt, Higgins, Hickman,
Cashin, Crosbie, Harrington, Cranford,
Vardy, Bailey.
Messrs. Brown and McCormack — recorded.
(27)
Mr. Chairman Will all members who prefer
Commission government as against responsible
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1349
government, please to rise.
[No preference recorded]
Mr. Chairman When we come to the next mo
tion, any member who wishes to express his
preference will have an opportunity to do so.
[The Convention adjourned]
