Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

with the United States, they won wider support.

The tariff had been given full credit for the burst of prosperity that followed 1878; now it had to shoulder full responsibility for the depression that marked the early nineties. The younger generation of Canadians to-day can scarcely realize the depth of despondency into which the country was sinking. Farm prices were low, and mortgages high; railway-building was at a standstill; the West remained unopened; free homesteads found few takers; more men abandoned the country every year than sought it; "the trails from Manitoba to the States," according to a Western Conservative newspaper, "were worn bare and brown by the waggon wheels of departing settlers." Edward Blake, in the cryptic message he gave to the people of Canada the day after the election of 1891, summed up the failure

creased dependence on the public chest and on legislative aids, and possessed withal by a boastful jingo spirit far enough removed from true manliness, loudly proclaiming unreal conditions and exaggerated sentiments, while actual facts and genuine opinions are suppressed. It has left us with our hands tied, our future compromised, and in such a plight that, whether we stand or move, we must run some risks which else we might have either declined or encountered with greater promise of success.

The Manitoba school question told against the Government in Ontario. The racial and religious quarrels of the East had found an echo in Manitoba, where the Liberal Greenway-Martin government had in 1890 deprived the Roman Catholic separate schools of official status and public aid. A bitter controversy followed in court and Parliament. The Dominion Government undertook to pass a remedial act com

of the national policy in a powerful pelling the legislature to restore the

passage:

Its real tendency has been, as foretold twelve years ago, towards disintegration and annexation, instead of consolidation and the maintenance of the British connection of which they claim to be the special guardians. It has left us with a scanty population, a scanty immigration, and a North-West empty still; with enormous additions to our public debt and yearly charge, an extravagant system of expenditure, and an unjust and oppressive tariff; with restricted markets for our needs, whether to buy or to sell, and all the host of evils (greatly intensified by our special conditions) thence arising; with trade diverted from its natural into forced and therefore less profitable channels, and with unfriendly relations and frowning tariff walls ever more and more estranging us from the mighty English-speaking nation to the south, our neighbors and relations, with whom we ought to be, as it was promised that we should be, living in generous amity and liberal intercourse. Worse, far worse! It has left us with lowered standards of public virtue and a death-like apathy in public opinion; with racial, religious and provincial animosities inflamed rather than soothed; with a subservient Parliament, an autocratic Executive, debauched constituencies, and corrupted and corrupting classes; with lessened self-reliance and in

rights of which the highest courts held the minority had been deprived. Laurier, agreeing that the minority had been wronged, did not believe in federal coercion as a remedy. Withholding his hand until the moment came for action, he came out boldly in straight opposition to the Government's bill. Dealing with threats of ecclesiastical hostility, he declared in the House:

Not many weeks ago I was told from high quarters in the Church to which I belong, that unless I supported the School Bill which was then being prepared by the government, and which we have now before us, I would incur the hostility of a great and powerful body. Sir, this is too grave a phase of this question for me to pass it by in silence. I have only this to say, that even though I have threats held over me, coming, as I am told, from high dignitaries in the Church to which I belong, no word of bitterness shall ever pass my lips as against that Church. I respect it and I love it. Sir, I am not of that school which has been long dominant in France and other countries of Continental Europe, which refuses ecclesiastics the privilege of having a voice in public affairs. No, I am a liberal of the English school, which has all along claimed that it is the privilege of all subjects, whether high or low, whether

rich or poor, whether ecclesiastic or layman, to participate in the administration of public affairs, to discuss, to influence, to persuade, to convince, but which has always denied, even to the highest, the right to dictate even to the lowest. I am here representing not Roman Catholics alone but Protestants as well, and I must give an account of my stewardship to all classes. Here am I, a Roman Catholic of French extraction, entrusted with the confidence of the men who sit around me, with great and important duties under our constitutional system of government. Am I to be told-I, occupying such a position-that I am to be dictated to as to the course I am to take in this House by reasons that can appeal to the consciences of my fellow-Catholic members, but which do not appeal as well to the consciences of my Protestant colleagues? No! So long as I have a seat in this House, so long as I occupy the position I do now, whenever it shall become my duty to take a stand upon any question whatever, that stand I will take, not from the point of view of Roman Catholicism, not from the point of view of Protestantism, but from a point of view which can appeal to the consciences of all men, irrespective of their particular faith, upon grounds which can be occupied by all men who love justice, freedom, and toleration.

While giving strength in Ontario, it was felt that this defiance would mean annihilation in Quebec, since the hierarchy was backing the Government heart and soul. Bishop and priest denounced Laurier, but, as the event proved, they denounced him in vain. The habitant respected his priest; he had come to reverence the brilliant statesman of his own kith and kin who stood so near supreme power, and preferred to make his compatriot prime minister than to give his clergy the law they demanded.

Laurier's own efforts had contributed greatly to victory. Tours through the West and through the Maritime Provinces had widened his outlook and his prestige. Even in Tory Toronto he had aroused a glowing welcome. The prejudices of his foes and the fears of his friends had vanished with the proof of his moderation and of his courage.

One campaign asset was lacking. The Liberals had no large campaign fund. When a newspaper politician, veering toward their support, offered to con

tribute twenty-five thousand dollars to their Quebec fund as soon as their other contributions reached that sum, he was informed that their whole dominion funds were under that amount; with his pocket-book intact, he went away sorrowing over such impracticable politicians. Unfortunately, never until twenty years had passed was the Liberal party again so poor in purse.

The election of 1896 gave the Liberals a majority of five in Ontario and of thirty-three in Quebec, where they outnumbered their opponents, hierarchical influence and all, three to one. The rest of the country was very evenly divided, with a slight Conservative lead. The old régime had ended, and at last Laurier and his followers were given their chance to show their constructive capacity. In the general election of 1900 the majority was still further increased, and again in 1904, receding only slightly in 1908.

The cabinet which Wilfrid Laurier gathered about him in 1896 was the strongest in Canada's annals. He took no department himself, reserving his strength for general policy. The strongest men in four of the provincial administrations were summoned to aid him. Sir Oliver Mowat, premier of Ontario, became minister of justice for a brief space, long enough to reassure the Scotch Presbyterians of Ontario as to the complete soundness and respectability of the new ministry. William S. Fielding, premier of Nova Scotia, became minister of finance, and for fifteen years proved a strong and skilful administrator. Andrew G. Blair, premier of New Brunswick, proved in a few years to have more force than faith. From Manitoba came Clifford Sifton, a power in the Laurier cabinet for ter years and behind other cabinets thereafter. The other ministers were drawn from the dominion ranks. From Quebec, Sydney Fisher began a long service as a progressive leader of agricultural development, while Israel Tarte's portfolio of public works was the recognition of the organizing ability and dynamic force of the man who had fought Laurier in his early days and was to fight him again in his last years. Henry Joly de Lothinière and C. A. Geoffrion were of the

one.

older Rouge generation; in Charles Fitzpatrick the ministry included a member more profoundly devout than any Bleu had dreamed of claiming to be and as subtle as the serpents of the field. The Ontario contingent was a strong Besides Mowat, Sir Richard Cartwright again held a portfolio, though not the post of minister of finance which he had wished and manufacturers had feared; William Mulock's vigor and directness shook up the dry bones of Ottawa departments; William Paterson contributed his kindly shrewdness to counsel and his stentorian voice to debate; Richard W. Scott became secretary of state. Louis Davies, from Prince . Edward Island, in the Marine Department, and Frederick Borden of Nova Scotia, as minister of militia, completed a strong muster-roll.

Fifteen years brought many changes in the personnel of the cabinet, though Fielding, Fisher, Cartwright, F. W. Borden, as well as Laurier himself, served through the whole period and gave steadiness and continuity to policy. The Ontario contingent underwent many changes: the more notable accessions were Sir Allen Aylesworth, an eminent jurist, who was at the same time a strong party man; George P. Graham, a former leader of the Liberal opposition in Ontario, who became minister of railways and the director of party organization; Charles Murphy, a shrewd and witty counselor; and Mackenzie King, who entered the ministry from the civil service and represented the new interest in social questions. In Quebec there was an almost equally complete transformation: Rodolphe Lemieux, Laurier's most eloquent lieutenant, entered the ministry in 1904; and the same year added Louis P. Brodeur, whose sound and balanced judgment later found scope in the work of the Supreme Court; Jacques Bureau's vigor and Henri Béland's suavity strengthened the ministry in its later years. In the West the chief development was the substitution of Frank Oliver, a hard-hitting old-timer, for Clifford Sifton. From the East came Henry Emmerson and William Pugsley.

The later administrations included many able men, but the ministry as a

whole did not possess in 1911 the vigor of 1896. Fifteen years in office brought experience and facility, it is true, but they brought also a tendency to compromise, a belief that all was well with the world, an ease in Zion. Social gaiety or corporation contact weakened the fiber of some who began well, and power attracted the unscrupulous. So far as the rank and file were concerned, particularly in Ontario, there was a falling off in numbers and quality. The prosperity which came to Canada with the Laurier régime opened many doors to ambition and lessened the attractiveness of public life, while power, and the compromises that followed power, dulled the keen edge which Liberalism had possessed in the stern days of opposition. Yet with all qualifications, the Laurier administrations could safely challenge comparison with any that had gone before or any that came after, for that matter in ability, in integrity, in constructive vision, in steady purpose, and internal unity.

Even after nine years of party leadership, there were men who doubted whether Wilfrid Laurier would be more than the titular head of his administration. They did not think it possible that a man so courteous could show himself hard when hardness was called for. Could a leader who had made his fame by his oratory develop the qualities needed to control a ministry and guide a divided country through difficult days? The doubts soon vanished. Long before Laurier's years of office were ended, the criticism of his opponents was no longer that he was a weakling, but that he was too masterful and self-willed.

The Laurier ministries contained many men of strong wills, but there never was any question from the first day to the last that he was "the master of the administration." When, after half a dozen years of office, Israel Tarte developed the illusion that he could play that part himself, the question was not long left in doubt. Not that Laurier was arbitrary, or that he insisted upon intervening in the details of the administration of other ministers. He believed in giving every colleague wide latitude and large responsibility. A Whig by conviction, he was not eager

to govern overmuch, and this theoretical leaning was strengthened by his personal temperament. He had little of Blake's devouring and constructive interest in details. Unfailingly and scrupulously honorable in his own dealings with men and women, he was tolerant of other men's failings where they did not directly affect the state. "I'm a lazy dog," he was accustomed to say to his friends in his later years. The saying did not do justice to the years of unrelenting effort he had given to party and country, but it was true that he was not deeply and vitally interested in more than a few questions, and that in this indifference there was rooted a certain indolence and easy-going trust. He would often defer dealing with a state question or disciplining a colleague, whose public policy or private conduct necessitated a check, until a crisis forced action.

Nor was Laurier hasty or arbitrary in framing policy. In cabinet councils he never dictated. Each minister in turn

would state his point of view on this side and that, while Laurier sat silent or with only a word of inquiry until, when every opinion had been set out, he would sum up the discussion and give his conclusions as to the course to follow. Men criticized him for opportunism, and it is true that he was an opportunist as to means; on principles he would not compromise an inch. Perhaps no more significant judgment has been passed upon his methods than the words uttered in scornful criticism by a Nationalist leader who always refused half-loaves: "He will ask this minister and that his view, and then he gives his own, he never asks what is ideally best, but merely what is the best that will work." But once his opinion was formed, it was not easily shaken. He never came rashly to conclusions, but neither, once decided, would he allow his firmness of action to be hampered by doubts and reconsiderings. Perhaps not more than two or three times in his whole official career did he turn aside from a policy once determined.

The ministry forms only the top layer, more or less thin, of the executive. It is usually the permanent officials who rule. A cabinet may determine broad

lines of policy, or an aggressive minister shake up men and methods in his department; but the easy-going minister comes to restrict his duties to signing what is placed before him, and the hardworking minister is limited by the capacity and willingness of his officials.

When the Liberals took office in 1896, they found a civil service which had long been stagnating and was politically hostile. There were few dismissals, and those only for aggressively open partizanship; but in making new appointments, party patronage continued to be the rule. It was considered by practical politicians that in no other way could the zeal of party workers be kept glowing. If no custom-house job for the man who got out the vote in his district, then no ministry of customs for the man higher up; and what better test of practical executive capacity than success in party organization? Whatever could be said for it, the practice involved endless bombardment of ministers by office-seekers, ceaseless efforts to secure a word from the friend of a friend of the premier, bitter disappointment for the nine who were turned away. Patronage took more time and thought than national policy. Eager job-hunters who had first demanded a seat in the cabinet, and then expressed their willingness to compromise on a senatorship, would come back for a country post-office or a post as clerk of works. Perhaps the touch of good-humored cynicism which marked Laurier's later days came from long contact with office-seekers. It was a Quebec follower who wrote him shortly after the elections of 1896, "If any one had told me when I was fighting the battles of Liberalism in my county, striving without fear of attack or hope of favor to advance the cause of the people, determined that no designing cleric and no corrupt politician would be allowed to shackle our noble country-if any one had told me that six months after you took office, I would still be without a job, I would not have believed him." It was an Ontario seeker who wrote, "To think that after naming my only son William Lyon Mackenzie, I am still denied any post by a government that calls itself Liberal!"

After ten years' experience of the

patronage system, the Laurier government introduced a wide measure of civilservice reform. In 1907 the control of appointments and promotions in the inside, or Ottawa service, was given to an independent commission. The step was not taken without opposition alike from those who urged the need of patronage to oil the party machine and those who feared that competitive examinations would bring in men more qualified for absorbing information than for filling administrative posts. While experience made it plain that there had been good points in the old system, the results on the whole amply justified the change, and led to the extension of the competitive system to the outside service by the Government which followed. On leaving office, the Laurier administration could pride itself upon a service distinctly superior in capacity and initiative to the service it had found on entering.

The outstanding development of the Laurier régime was the reversal of the industrial depression and the spirit of pessimism which had prevailed in the middle nineties. The whole country woke to a new energy and a new prosperity. For the first time it attracted the world's attention, and men and money poured into the new land of promise. Canadians became self-confident and self-reliant to a degree unheard of. Laurier's phrase, worn thin by many quotings, "The nineteenth century was the century of the United States; the twentieth will be the century of Canada," expressed very well the sudden access of heady confidence that marked his countrymen in these years.

It is the way of governments to take credit for all prosperity and to throw the blame for adversity on Providence. The upholders of the Laurier government had to admit that even in this prosperity Providence had collaborated. The world over, with the drift of population cityward and the flooding of new gold, prices of farm and forest products began to rise. The approaching exhaustion of the fertile free lands of the United States gave new value to Canada's acres. Yet these factors alone would not have sufficed. Low prices in earlier years had not prevented a swarm

ing of European immigration to the farms of the United States, while Canada's called in vain; it was to the farms, not to the cities, of the United States that half the Canadians of the exodus had gone in seeking to better their fortunes. Other new lands-Australia, the Argentine, Siberia, the redeemed semi-arid Western plains of the United States had room for millions of settlers. Without vigorous state action, the current of immigrants and capital would not for years have been turned Canadaward.

The first need was for settlers to fill

the vacant spaces. The new Government looked upon themselves primarily as fishers of men. None of their policies was so distinctive and so successful as their immigration policy. Under the vigorous and precedent-scorning direction of Clifford Sifton, himself a Westerner, the opportunities the Canadian West held forth to the enterprising and the disinherited were pressed home in every possible source of settlement.

First the Government tapped the reservoirs of central Europe: Doukhobors or Spirit-Wrestlers fleeing from military service in Russia, Ruthenians or Galicians fleeing from poverty in eastern Austria, came to Canada in thousands. They were not wholly a net asset; settling in solid blocks, held apart from the people about them by their clannishness and deep-rooted customs or religious fervor, and, it is only fair to add, by the careless scorn of the majority of the Canadians among whom they found themselves, they were not easily fitted into Canadian ways. Yet they had their own distinct contribution to make, and from the beginning it was to the farm and not to the city they turned.

Of vastly greater importance in itself and for its indirect effects was the inpouring of settlers from the United States which began soon afterward. American farmers, with experience, enterprise, ready capital, were what the West called for, and with the filling up of their own West and, the rise of land values to a height which made the establishment of a family more difficult than in the old days, they were ready to listen. Advertisements in thousands of

« AnkstesnisTęsti »