November 27, 1933 485 Monday, November 27, 1933 His Excellency the Governor, having fixed the hour at which he proposed to open the Legislature at three o=clock in the afternoon of this Monday, the twenty seventh day of November instant, the Members of the House of Assembly met in the Assembly Rooms at a quarter to three in the afternoon, when Mr. Speaker took the Chair. At three of the clock a message from His Excellency the Governor was delivered by the Gentlemen Usher of the Black Rod, commanding the immediate attendance of Mr. Speaker and the House in the Legislative Council Chamber. Whereupon Mr.

Speaker and the House attended His Excellency in the Council Chamber, and being returned to the Assembly Room, Mr. Speaker informed the House that, when in attendance upon His Excellency the Governor in the Council C hamber, His Excellency had been pleased to make a Gracious Speech to both Branches of the Legislature, a copy of which, for greater accuracy, he had obtained, and then read to the House as follows: Mr. President and the Honourable Members of the Legislative Council: Mr.

Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly: The report of the Royal Commission appointed to examine into the future of Newfoundland was received and published last week, and you have been summoned, on the advice of my Ministers, to give immediate consideration to its recommendations.

With the Report was published an exchange of te legrams with the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, in which it was intimated by the Secretary of State that, if the main recommendations of the Commission should be a ccepted by the Government and Legislature of Newfoundland, His Majesty =s Government in the United Kingdom would for their part be prepared to accept them and to invite the United Kingdom Parliament to pass the legislation necessary to give them effect.

The Secretary of State also gave de tails of the action, which the Government of the United Kingdom, subject to the approval of Parliament, would in that event be prepared to take with a view to ensuring to Newfoundland, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission, a reduction in the present burden of the public debt. I need not enter here into the circumstances in which the Royal Commission was appointed.

It will suffice for me to say that during the last two years, it has become increasingly apparent that the Dominion is unable, from its own resources, to meet the interest charges on the public debt. Urgent action is therefore required if the Island is to be saved from default, a fate which was averted in December 1932 and June 1933 only by the gene rous assistance of the United Kingdom and Canada.

The Royal Commission, after impartial and extensive investigation, have declared that the needs of the Dominion are two-fold, financial and political, and in these circumstances they have recommended that an immediate appeal should be made to His Majesty =s Government in the United Kingdom for their sympathetic cooperation in a joint plan of reconstruction. The telegram received from the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs indicated that such an appeal, if made, would be

November 27, 1933 486 assured of a prompt, favourable, and indeed generous response. It is in the belief that the recommendations of the Royal Commission afford the people of Newfoundland not merely the prospect of relief from immediate financial anxiety but an adequate means of freeing themselves from the unpreceden ted difficulties against which they are now so bravely struggling, that my Ministers will lay before you proposals for giving them immediate effect.

I leave you now to your deliberations with fu ll confidence that they will be inspired by a common desire to seek only the best interests of the country and the welfare of its suffering people. I pray that Divine Providence will guide and bless your work. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the tabl e of the House two copies of the Newfoundland Royal Commission Report, 1933, with two copies of the White Paper indicating the attitude of His Majesty=s Government in relation thereto. It was moved by Mr. Gray, and seconded by Mr .

Whiteley, that an Address of Thanks be presented to His Excellency the Governor in reply to the Gracious Speech with which he had been pleased to open the present Session of the Legislature, and that a Select Committee be appointed to draft such Address in reply. It was ordered accordingly, and that the following gentlemen be such Committee: Mr. Gray, Mr. Whiteley, Mr. Abbott, Dr. Mosdell, Mr. Bradley. Mr. Gray: Mr.

Speaker: I rise for the purpose of moving that a Select Committee be appointed to draft a reply to the gracious speech with which His Excellency has been pleased to open this session of the Legislature, and I ask the permission of this House to make a few observations on the one subject with which we are asked to deal B the immediate consideration of the recommendation of His Majesty=s Royal Commission. I deeply regret the conditions which have brought about this crisis. These you will find in the report of the Royal Co mmission.

That report has been read by all the Members of this House, and by a large number of the citizens. I would [hope] that, if it be possible, it would be read by everyone in the country, so that present and future generations may profit by its findings and by the facts therein, and avoid such errors in the future. The crisis started in 1931, when we found that we were unable to go into the market and borrow money as in previous years. Our credit was gone, and we had evidently reached the limit of borrowing.

The government of that day, finding it impossible to obtain funds, or to obtain a sale of our bonds in the market, succeeded in raising the funds from the Canadian banks in the city, and also from the loan secured by giving a monopoly to the Imperial Oil Company. This money did not cover the deficits, and with a falling revenue our position was very unsatisfactory and very unsafe.

In 1932 when the present Government came into office, we found it impossible to conduct the affairs of the country, the business of the country, without immediately reducing the expenditure of public moneys in all Departments of the Government. We had to reduce the salaries of the civil servants; the votes for education; for war veterans = pensions; public charities; health and hospital grants. With all these drastic economies we found that we were still unable to fulfill our obligations, and we could see no other course than default, and, Mr.

Speaker, I feel sure that the effects of that action on our part would have had terrible effects on our people. It would be the worst disaster that

November 27, 1933 487 could befall us. We decided to ask His Majesty =s Government for a Royal Commission to further investigate our affairs and to make such recommendations as they would consider necessary in the circumstances. Those recommendations, and the suggestions by His Majesty=s commissioners, we are asked to consider. They call for our serious attention, as on them depend the future well-being of our country and our people. The relief of a reduction in the public debt and a reconstruction loan, the assurance of being safe from default, will relieve us of great anxiety.

The matters referred to in the report, and the interest of His Majesty =s Government in the development of our resources, the re- establishment of our finances, all of which are necessary for our future security, are dealt with in that report. Those recommendations, while they contain the proposals for our financial benefit, also require that we agree to certain changes in our constitution. These are made necessary because of the wishes of His Majesty=s Government by their active participation in the affairs of our country.

They are, in fact, to become our partners, and it is only right and proper that their interests should be safeguarded. No person, whether in private or business life is prepared to assume obligations without having a voice in the undertaking. We have, as I said, reached a crisis in our history B the parting of the ways. It will be a red- letter day in Newfoundland. In our deliberation on [the] special subject of legislation, let us be guided by the one thought B our country and our people.

We are sincerely thankful to the Mother Country for the keen interest she has taken in our welfare B for the inspiration and hope she offers us. The fear that has greatly hampered all our undertakings can be removed, and the stability a nd confidence so absolutely necessary to our economic existence is assured. Capt. Whiteley: I do not for a moment underestimate the dignity of a responsible government, that our forefathers have won us. Bu t if we will have lost that boon for a period, perhaps it is through no fault but our own.

I have studied the report, and if there is one thing that stands out clearly, it is the earnest desire on the part of the Commissioners to render assistance to the fisherfolk of this land. As I am the only representative of this house who is a fisherman, actively engaged, I feel I am not speaking for myself, but for the thousands of my fellow shipmates in this Island. I have spoken [to] and had word from many of them, and without exception they are unanimously in favour of the report being speedily adopted. As for the District if St.

Barbe, which I have the honour to represent, I am sure they will endorse what the government is about to do. Unhappily the fishermen of Newfoundland are in a state of distress.

We all know what effect distress produces on people, how it makes even wi se men irritable, credulous, and eager for immediate relief, regardless of remote conse quences, and therefore it is no reflection on the fishermen of this country who are not, and cannot in the nature of things be highly educated, to say that distress inflames their passions, warps their judgment, and makes them prone to believe those who flatter them, and to disbelieve and view with suspicion and distrust, those who endeavour to serve them.

November 27, 1933 488 My first introduction to politics was as a lad in the election of 1898. Since then I have kept a close watch on political events. During the later years the members of the different governments were known to me, several members of the Executive Government were my personal friends. But I have no hesitation in saying that the decline in our administrative personnel followed after that unfortunate episode during which Sir Robert Bond was pushed over the wharf at Western Bay. 149 Following that occasion, the tone of our political life was distinctly lowered.

Men of capacity were not encouraged to take up the public service. Their places were filled by others less capable, nay, incapable of wise administration, the proof of this that we are here to-day. The report has been criticized for its frankness. But for anyone acquainted with the public life of this country for the past twenty years, the facts were well known. But let us not think for a moment that our work is done when the commission is appointed. There will be much to be done, and only we ourselv es can do it.

Let us see to it that community spirit is awakened and fostered by speech and act, and at the end of a few years we will have men suitable to take their places in the public life of their country. I have no fears for Newfoundland, all she wants is a chance to set her house in order, work up the natural resources, and for the burden upon her to be lightened. If at the end of a short period we wish to have Responsible Government back, I feel sure that our young people will have a change for the better.

The question has been asked, AWhy is England so generous to us?@ In reply I would say, the British nation may forget an injury, but they never forget to lend a helping hand in the hour of need. Newfoundland during the war, extended that helping hand to the Mother Country, to what extent can never be fully estimated. I have in mind my next-door neighbour B three sons from one home B who can estimate that family=s sacrifice? That is only one of the hundreds on this Island, and to-day the Motherland remembers. I wish, Mr. Speaker, to offer my congratulations to the Prime Minister.

The ship of state has been labouring in heavy weather since he took charge. But the man at the wheel has been cool and collected, and although at times we have been peril ously near the rocks, he has guided her safely through thus far. As one of the ordinary seamen, I salute him as a wise and capable captain. At the close of the present session, I, with others in the chamber, will pass the Sergeant at Arms for the last time. But I feel we got out with a clean record. We have nothing to conceal, nothing to hide, nothing to cover up. All is straight and above board.

The last paragraph of His Excellency =s speech prays that Divine providence will aid and bless our work. Mr. Speaker, I have a sailor =s horror of cant in any form, but I also have a fisherman=s faith. I believe more things are wrought by earnest prayer than this world dreams of.

I say it is not only the noble Admiral =s prayer we need, but the prayer of every bishop, parson, and priest in this land ought to go up for us, that we may have knowledge, wisdom, and understand, in this hour and as we pass out I can still say and mean every word: AWhen blinding snow-drifts fret thy shore, And wild waves dash thy strand, Through spindrift swirl, and tempest roar 149 This incident occurred during the 1909 general election campaign.

November 27, 1933 489 We love thee Newfoundland As loved our fathers, so we love Where once they stood, we stand This prayer we raise to Heaven Above God guard thee Newfoundland@ So, Mr. Speaker, without further speech, I beg to second the motion by the Hon. Member for Twillingate, that a select committee be named to draft an address in reply to His Excellency=s most gracious speech. [Daily News, November 28, 1933] Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Mr.

Speaker, that this is probably the most solemn occasion upon which this House has been called together within the last one hundred years must be apparent to everybody within the sound of my voice. It is not an occasion when one ought to indulge in eloquence or oratory; it is not an occasion when I, from my position here as Leader of the Opposition, should make any attempt to attack the meticulous inaccuracies which may have characterized some portions of the speeches of the two gentlemen who moved and seconded the Address in Reply.

It is not an occasion upon whic h I should attack the Government as to their misdeeds since the Legislature last closed. But it is one upon which the most careful and deliberate and painstaking examination should be given to the proposals foreshadowed in the Speech from the Throne which opened in the Legislature this afternoon. According to the Speech from the Throne, coupled with the Royal Commission=s Report and the White Paper which accompanies it, it is abunda ntly clear that the goal aimed at, among other things, is the deprivation of this country of its right of self-government.

That is something which has never happened in this House before. It is probably the greatest right humanly possible for this or any country to have, that of [the] ordering of its own destinies. If in the opinion of this House and the Legislative Council, the British House of Commons and the House of Lords, these proposals ought to go into effect, then Newfoundlanders are no longer citizens as the word citizen is understood under the British flag. I state this as a fact, and not to arouse any sentiment in anybody this afternoon.

It is for that reason that we should realize the solemnity of the occasion, and the tremendous importance of the decision we have to make.

And I feel confident that every Member of this House realizes now, or will realise before this Session is over, that the burden and responsibility that will be cast upon him is such as was never cast upon legislators or a legislature in the history of Newfoundland since 1832. 150 At times, Sir, at times since I have first read the report of the Royal Commission and the White Paper which accompanies it, I have wished that I did not occupy a seat in this House, because upon my attitude or those of any individual Member of this Assembly may depend the destinies of 280,000 people. 150 Newfoundland received representative government in 1832.

November 27, 1933 490 It is not my intention this afternoon to deal at all with the merits of the Report, or of the proposals based upon it. My only intention is to draw to the attention of every Member of this House and of the public generally, the utter importance of the situation which has arisen, the utter importance of the decision we will have to make, and the tremendous import to the people which their decisions will involve.

I take it that in some form or another resolutions will be introduced by the Honourable Prime Minister on to-morrow, in the official parlance of the House, whenever to- morrow may be; and in this connection I may say that the Prime Minister has been good enough to put me in possession of a copy of these proposals, but I can=t mention them here now. I merely indicate the difficulties that we have to meet. I do not intend to run into a discussion attacking or defending the Report or the White Paper or the proposals forecast therein. I hope due care and consideration has been given to this matter by the Government.

I trust sufficient time for every Member of this House, and in so far as possible every citizen of Newfoundland who has sufficient intelligence to understand them, may be given, to assimilate the contents of this Report, and to weigh the various portions of it and the effect its proposals may have, and to form some sane, sound idea as to the ultimate consequences they may have on our people. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I desire to congratulate my colleagues the Hon. Member for Twillingate and the Hon. Member for Bonne Bay on the very excellent speeches which they have made.

It is not an easy task to speak to the present speech from the Throne. As the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has just said, this is a very sole mn occasion. Every one of us on both sides of the House find our feelings pinched with sadness and responsibility. We have given the question very earnest thought, and I am sure that the honourable gentlemen on the other side of the House will give it the same amount of thought. It is not what we are giving up.

We know what we give up; but when we have to choose between self-government on the one hand, and a release from the financial abyss into which we are plunged on the other, who would for a moment hesitate in his choice? When we have a chance laid open to us to maintain our people in comfort, to release them from the state of semi-starvation which is their lot to-day, would we not give up almost anything? Then again, we are not giving up responsible government for all time.

Indeed, the spirit of the resolution which will be introduced to-morrow is simply asking His Majesty=s Government in Great Britain to take over our system of responsible government for safekeeping until we are better able to take care of it ourselves. It may not be many years, it may only be three years B because this country of ours is a wonderful country for coming back B when we will be self-governing again. It may be five years, or it may be longer.

When speaking to my own party the other night, I said that some of the younger men will be in politics again, and that I hoped that when they did go to the country in a few years time, they will give the same assistance as members then, as they gave me duri ng the time they served under me. I don =t despair for one moment for the future of this country. It is often asked, in fact my colleague asked the question to-day, AWhy is England so generous?@ I have one reason. I remember when I was in Ottawa last year, I was discussing with Mr. Thomas the wonderful sacrifices being made by our people in Newfoundland.

Our people had a cut in the civil service which was tremendous. Pensioners were taking a cut of 45 per cent. I told him of soldiers= widows sending in, out of their meagre pensions, one dollar per month. I told him of cases

November 27, 1933 491 where Customs officials had to be pensioned, in which cases we had told them that we couldn =t afford to keep their offices open, and that we ha d to pension them. But they wrote back and said, ANever mind, we=ll work for the pension.@ I was talking in the same strain with Mr. Baldwin, and he said, AMy God, your people are heroic.@ That is one reason why England is so generous to us. Now, it may seem to some that our willingne ss to give up responsible government is a confession of failure.

I don=t say it is that, but I am afraid we are self-confessed as being unable to govern ourselves soundly and economically, and I think that if we had a holiday for a few years B time to get above the welter of party politics for a few years B when we get back responsible government in a few years, I believe we will act ve ry differently in the future. I am not going to delay the House further. We will take this up in detail to-morrow. I will depend on the Hon. Leader of the O pposition to give the matter proper care and impartial consideration.

He is well able to do so, for at the last Session of the House he demonstrated his ability, and before this Session is over, I am going to move a vote of thanks to him for his assistance. I appeal to him to assist in the pr esent Session in the consideration of this weighty question. During this Session we will deliberate on the proposals alone. No other legislation will be introduced beyond that which is connected with the Report of the Royal Commission and the White Paper which accompanies it.

I do not want to becloud the issue, and I feel that as all here present are Newfoundlanders by birth or adoption, all will be animated with the one idea of arriving at a conclusion best for Newfoundland in the years to come. Hon. the Prime Minister gave notice that he would on to-morrow move that a humble Address be presented to His Majesty the King in reference to the constitutional and financial condition of the country at the present time and proposed measures to deal with the same.

Hon. the Prime Minister gave notice that he would on to-morrow move the House into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain Resolutions to provide for the issue of certain securities on the credit of the Dominion, for the postponement of certain securities of the Dominion and for the giving of priority to certain other securities thereof. Mr.

Speaker presented and read the followi ng correspondence from His Excellency the Governor: The Governor has the honour to communicate to the Honourable House of Assembly the appointment of the Commissioners of Internal Economy of the Legislature in accordance with the provisions of

Section 4, Cap. 7, Consolidated St atutes (Third Series) as set forth in the accompanying certified copy of a Minute of the Honourable Executive Council approved on the 22nd November, 1933. 151 (Sgd.) D. Murray Anderson, Admiral, Governor. 151 The committee members were the President of the Legislative Council, F. McNamara, the Speaker and Sir John Bennett.

November 27, 1933 492 Government House, 24 November, 1933. On the motion that when the House rises it adjourn until to-morrow, Tuesday, afternoon at three of the clock, Mr. Bradley moved and Mr. Starkes seconded, in amendment, that adjournment be taken until Monday next, December 4th. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, as I said before this afternoon, this country has had responsible government for 100 years, and during that time many questions concerning the welfare of the people have come before this Assembly.

The question [that] is now before us transcends them all in importance as to the welfare of the people. It is a tremendous question. It is an awe-inspiring question. It is oppressive and almost crushing in its proportions. It does not concern merely the future of the country, but the very future of the people. The life of the people depends on our deliberations during this Session. It is a questi on which demands the most careful, painstaking, deliberately exhaustive examination and analysis before coming to any decision, and before casting any die.

All the activities of the people are involved, and their many and varied interests are entitled to the most careful and deliberate considerati on. The constitutional life, the economic life, the educational life, the social and sociological, even the religious life of the people are basically involved. This is a Report of countless facts and statis tics, elaborate reasoning and argument, and a number of theories and alternate proposals are c ontained in its 280 pages. This should not cause surprise, because it is the work of many months.

The Commission did not investigate one phase of any industry and activity of a people [but] an en tire country, a country dissimilar to any other country in the world from the standpoint of history and social and economic problems. The ultimate conclusions of thoughtful men may coincide with the views of the Commission. It is impossible to foretell now. It seems to me that close study and mature thought must be given to these conclusions and revolutionary proposals, before the soundest thinker can form an opinion of any value.

There may be revealed flaws not apparent in the first flush of enthusiasm on the publication of the Report. The proposals are before us, and the next step is ours. Whether we accept them or reject them, or look for modification, our decision is irrevocable and binds a whole people. I have said that the Report contains countless facts and statistics, and the information gathered shows an immense capacity for intense wo rk.

The very fact of strangers coming in here making an investigation, made it impossible for them to feel to any degree any true intimacy with the breathing background of the country, or the normal mentalities of the people. It was quite impossible for them to get inside the skins of the great mass of the individuals, and I seriously doubt that they penetrated the company manners of witnesses. They could not look through the keyhole and see what was going on behind the door. They had to depend on the reactions of a man who was, in the popular parlance, Aon his toes. @ Here is the great weakness of the Report itself.

They could not become thoroughly familiar with the human element, and that is the essence of the whole problem. If this were a problem in mathematics or logic, this objection would not arise. This is a problem in humanity, and there is nothing in the Report to show anything of the possible reaction to changed conditions, and in the last analysis its success hangs on that question. These are the considerations which the Commission did not appreciate, and in the course of their short stay their opportunities

November 27, 1933 493 greatly lessened. These are the considerations which we cannot ignore. We are the representatives of a people, and it is the effects on that people that we have to consider first. There have been many questions decided on the floors of this House, and none have passed without ample opportunity for discussion, and I think that ample opportunity s hould be given by the Prime Minister and his associates on this occasion.

But it must be remembered that the more important of the matters which have been debated and decided here in the past were not decided be fore we had in some form or another a mandate from the people of this country. And this particular question with which we are faced this afternoon is positively and undoubtedly and unquestionably the most important question that has ever come before the House.

Not to my knowledge have th ere ever been any proposals placed before this Legislature involving such terrific reaction in this country and its people as the proposals which we are asked to consider at this Session of the House, and we have no mandate from the people. Now this country is the people=s yet, and they have under our constitution and under natural law, a right to a say in their own destiny. We are what is co mmonly called a sovereign people, and, Sir, their sovereign rights have not as yet passed from them.

These rights are still as yesterday, as twenty years ago, and we, in this House, in the common hackneyed phrase, are but the trustees of the people. Each Member of this House was sent here with a definite mandate. He appeared before his constituents at an election and he took a certain platform for his political guide, and it was upon the basis of that, that he was sent to this House.

The mandate received by us at the last general election did not include [omission]; it did not even envisage the a doption of proposals such as these B the adoption of a proposal that their right to withhold or to give a mandate should be taken from them, without their consent. If there is no time offered the people; if this matter is carried through this Assembly and the Legislative Council this week, to-morrow, there are thousands of people who will know that this matter has been finally decided, before they knew what the matter is. It is not the sort of thing, Sir, that anybody in any of our outports or in St.

John=s can form any opinion of value upon from the mere telegraphic message which they have received through the public messages. So far as the newspapers are concerned, comparatively few go outside the City of St. John=s. I have in mind one outport at the present time with a population of over 3,000 people, and I don =t want to exaggerate, but I am quite sure that in that 3,000 people we won=t find 50 papers hardly, particularly under existing economic conditions when the $6 a year which, I understand, is the subscription to our two most important dailies, is utterly beyond the reach of most of our people.

Therefore, Sir, I say, and I say with complete lack of fear of successful contradiction, that the majority of people in Newfoundland at this hour of this day have no real conception whatever of what is involved in these proposals. Yet we know to some extent, at any rate, the import and the nature of what is proposed we should do here. We know that it involves the life and interests of every man, woman, and child in Newfoundland. We know that it involves the giving up of that right of citizenship which is prized by no other race under the sun so much as it is by the British race.

We know that it is proposed that the status of citizen should be taken from these people. They never dreamed that we intended to do anything of this kind, never dreamed of it when they sent us here as their servants to do their work, and we propose now to take their rights from them without their consent because B I assume this, Sir, in fairness B because a majority of us think it ought to be done. What right have we to set out our few opinions in this Assembly up against the opinions of the great

November 27, 1933 494 body of the citizens of this country, when what we propose to do concerns their rights? They have a right to them. They have a right to consider them. They have a right to communicate with us, they have a right to say themselves whether they do or do not want this thing, and the position to-day is, as I say, very few of them know anything about it, much less have they formed an opinion as to whether it ought to be done or not. Now, I have here a number of documents. I do not propose to read them. I have here a resolution from a very important organization.

They have not given me permission to use their name, and I shall not do so. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: That is unfortunate. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Yes, but I want to be fair, a nd I want to say that the executive body, the Grand Lodge, if you like of that organization has received messages from numbers of its branches - messages for which they asked, messages in answer to a request for an opinion, and in the majority of cases the reply is favourable to the introduction of this system of commission government. Indeed, one comes from my own Dist rict.

That is the view of some who have apparently got some information about it, but I doubt very much, in fact, I am morally certain, that very few of the men who agreed to the various resolutions in the different branches supporting this idea of commission government have yet any real conception of what is meant by it. On the other hand B let me say, Mr. Speaker, that none of these messages were solicited by me, I had no idea they were coming B on the other hand, I have a message from what at least might be regarded as a patriotic body, and that is the Newfoundland Association of Toronto.

This message was sent me as Leader of the Opposition and it reads as follows: AThe Newfoundland Association of Toronto protest as arbitrary a suspension ... without the approval of the electors, won with great effort ... in the Great War. Their suspension would reduce her status in the Empire and humiliate her people everywhere. The appointment of a Commission should be with the consent of the electors; otherwise it will permanently deprive them of any voice in her public affairs. Signed: Executive Committee of the Newfoundland Association of Toronto S. A. Brett Secretary.@ That message came yesterday morning.

This afternoon, while I was sitting in this House, the following message was handed me from the same body: APlease advise editors NEWS and TELEGRAM contents our night letter of 25th.” That is also signed by the Newfoundland Association of Toronto, S. A. Brett, Secretary. I don=t know Mr. Brett; I am not in a position to say that I know a single member of the Newfoundland Association of Toronto, but I say that this, that that may be taken as some index of

November 27, 1933 495 the manner in which these proposals are viewed by Newfoundlanders who are some distance from their native land, and who perhaps can form a more sound view of the situation because they see it in better perspective. You can =t see a forest by getting up close to the trees, and if this Royal Commission Report is not a forest of facts, a forest of proposals, I do not know what it is. These are men who have the interest of their country at heart. I believe that there is no reason why they should send me a message of this kind unless they were interested on behalf of Newfoundland.

They do not live in Newfoundland to-day. They are under the Canadian flag, [and] there is no suggestion that the Dominion of Canada is about to be reduced from her Dominion status, there is no suggestion that her people are to be deprived of any voice in her affairs.

But as patriotic Newfoundlanders now living under the flag of the Dominion of Canada with all the rights of British citizens there, these men are sufficiently interested in the land of their birth as to send a message of this character, pointing out that this involves the life of the people; that the people are a sovereign people; that they have a right to a voice in their own destiny, and that this should be referred to the electorate. Now, any undue haste in forcing this measure through this House would be a dereliction of duty on our part.

It may as well be that this is th e last duty that we shall perform as legislators towards those whom we represent.

Let us at least do that, let us at least give some opportunity for consideration so that unfair, Sir, haste, un-British haste, unprecedented haste, fantastic ... if I thought that the request which I am about to make, or the amendment which I am about to propose were unreasonable and improper, I would not make it, but I am convinced as I stand here this afternoon, not only as a Member of this House but as a Newfoundlander, I am convinced that further time will be given for the consideration of this matter be fore we railroad the thing through the House of Assembly.

Some people have been kind enough to credit me with a fairly alert mind. Well, I admit quite frankly that I have not yet been able in the short space of time at my disposal to examine into this document and to picture the condition which the adoption of the proposals will bring about in this country, whether it is for one year, two years, or five years hence.

It is for that reason that I offer a most reasonable amendment, namely, that the motion, presumably of the Prime Minister, that we adjourn until to-morrow, November 28th, be amended by substituting therefor the words December 4th, within which time to consider this matter before we debate it upon the floors of this House; and not only that we might have more time, but that the people of Newfoundland, who are more important than we are, be given time to consider the proposals and, at least be given the opportunity of communicating their views to us. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: Mr.

Speaker, if I felt that any good would be gained by an extended postponement or adjournment of this House, I would be only too glad to accede to it. Has the Hon. Member any suggestion to offer that would tend to maintain our integrity, and bring prosperity to all the people of Newfoundland, and whereby we woul d still be able to hold up our heads as an independent unit of the Empire? Or has he anything to offer to keep us solvent? I am afraid he has not, and for that reason I cannot accept his amendment. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Mr.

Speaker, I do not quite know what is meant by asking me if I have any suggestion to offer which might maintain the integrity of this Dominion, and yet avoid the necessity of putting those proposals through. I might say I have certain suggestions to offer, and

November 27, 1933 496 suggestions of an important character to make, when we come to the proposals. That I cannot deal with now. But I feel that in connection with that particular point, it is of secondary importance at the moment. There is no real necessity to proceed to-morrow upon the proposals as they are, and perhaps I shall have to go a little further and explain what I mean. Anyone who has read the proposals carefully is aware that the British Government lays down as a condition that we should agree in the main with the proposals.

Knowi ng the British Government as we do, knowing their willingness to see the other fellow=s side of the question, and knowing that they are always prepared to consider the views of the other side, I am of the opinion that that particular financial

section of the proposals can be interpreted in this way: that provided that necessary financial safeguards are implemented B and these will include also political safeguards B the British Government will consider a recession from the absolute terms as they appear in the White Paper. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have certain suggestions I want to propose and I want a little time to consider them, and I want the people of this country to know more than they do now about the proposals.

Thus far I have seen in the proposals certain sections that can be ame nded, and that the British Government, the British House of Lords and the British House of Commons will assent to and be glad to amend B because they are British. It is for that reason that I ma ke the amendment this afternoon. I know that these resolutions are going through this House in this or some form, and I have no political axe to grind. It is humanly probable that I, in common with the smaller despised class, will have our axes taken from us shortly.

Consequently, I am not actuated by any political motives in my utterances here to- day. All I want is British fair play in justice to the people whom I belong to, whom I have the privilege to represent in this House and whom I speak for this afternoon. Whereupon the House divided and there appeared in favour of the amendment: Mr. Bradley; Mr. Starkes. And against it: Hon. F. C. Alderdice; Hon. L. E. Emerson; Hon. J. C. Puddester; Hon. W. Winsor; Hon. John Stone; Hon. Harold Mitchell; Hon. W. J. Browne; Hon. S. J. Foote; Hon. W. J. Walsh; Hon. K. M. Brown; Hon. M. A. Shea; Mr. Harold Earle; Mr. H. W. Quinton; Mr.

P. J. Lewis; Mr. E. Gear; Mr. Norman Gray; Mr. Chas Furey; Mr. Jos. Moore; Mr. W. H. Abbott; Mr. Geo. Whiteley; Dr. Mosdell. So it passed in the negative. The original motion to adjourn until to-morro w was then put and there appeared in its favour: Hon. F. C. Alderdice; Hon. L. E. Emerson; Hon. J. C. Puddester; Hon. W. Winsor; Hon. John Stone; Hon. Harold Mitchell; Hon. W. J. Browne; Hon. S. J. Foote; Hon. W. J. Walsh; Hon. K. M. Brown; Hon. M. A. Shea; Mr. Harold Earle; Mr. H. W. Quinton; Mr. P. J. Lewis; Mr. E. Gear; Mr. Norman Gray; Mr. Chas Furey; Mr. Jos. Moor e; Mr. W. H. Abbott; Mr. Geo. Whiteley; Dr.

Mosdell. And against it: Mr. Bradley; Mr. Starkes. So it passed in the affirmative and was ordered accordingly.

November 27, 1933 497 On motion the House then adjourned until to-morrow afternoon, Tuesday, the twenty-eighth of November instant, at three of the clock

November 28, 1933 498 Tuesday, November 28, 1933 The House met at three of the clock in the afternoon, pursuant to adjournment. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister to move that a humble Address be presented to His Majesty the King in reference to the constitutional and financial condition of this country. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. In my experience in this House it has been usual for Resolutions to be introduced through Committee. That was the procedure followed in connection with the resolution for an Address to His Majesty in connection with Dominion Status two years ago.

Proceedings in Committee usually give more latitude in debate, and in a case of this kind we should have the utmost latitude permissible. The resolution is [omission] and refers to a document alleged to be annexed thereto. In the copy which I have there are no documents annexed.

Surely this document should be discussed freely and in some detail, in view of the variety of recommendations c ontained therein, and in view of the fact that this is clearly contemplated in the White Paper itself containing these proposals, that there is no intimation by the British Government that the proposals should be accepted in toto. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: I think the honourable gentleman is wrong there. If he will read the White Paper, he will see that he is in error. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: I am not in error.

In the explanatory memoranda to His Excellency the Governor, received on the 19th of November 1933, this statement is made: (reads). That clearly indicates that His Majesty=s Government in Great Britain does not intend to force these proposals upon the people of Newfoundland without at least some discussion. I don=t propose to elaborate this point here and now. I would not be prepared to do so. I might indicate to this House how absurd our position will be if we accept in toto these proposals. The British people and the civilized world will laugh at us.

Proceedings of this kind should be thrown into Committee for discussion, and the reason behind that rule is that discussion in Committee is much freer, and more latitude is offered to the members of this House, and when did this House ever require more latitude, more freedom of debate than it does upon the question which the Prime Minister lays before us? I ask your ruling on this point, and I pray that you consider my position. Hon. the Speaker: The question which the Hon.

Member rais es is an important one, and one to which I have, I may say, been giving considerable consideration since notice was given by the Prime Minister yesterday. It is quite true, as the H on. Leader of the Opposition has stated, that the resolutions for the Address in connection with the Statute of Westminster were considered by this House in Committee. Whether or not that is the proper procedure, I am not at the present time prepared to state.

It is true also that in the proceeding just referred to, which took [place] in this House, the question was not raised as to whether it was proper to have the discussion in Committee. The Notice is to move that an Address be presented to His Majesty. In that Address, I don=t

November 28, 1933 499 see any difference from any other Address to His Majesty, such as an Address in Reply; the only analogy we have [comes] from common experience in this House. I cannot find anything laid down formerly to say that an Address to the King must be introduced in the form of proposals to be laid before the Committee of the Whole. I agree with the Hon.

Leader of the Opposition that in this matter an opportunity should be given for the freest and the most unrestricted discussion by every Member of this House, and that time should be afforded for discussion; but I don=t agree with him that the proper procedure is to go into a Committee of the Whole House on an Address of this kind. Hon. Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, it has just occurred to me in the course of Your Honour=s remarks that we have another precedent of an Address to His Excellency the Governor, proposed in 1932 by the Hon. Prime Minister of the day.

We did not then go into Committee; that Address was seconded by my honourable and learned friend, the Leader of the Opposition. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, may I again interject. While I appreciate the cogency of Your Honour=s reasoning, I have to point out a distinction between this particular Address, and the one which the Hon. the Minister of Justice has brought forward as a precedent in support of his argument. This particular Resolution is of much more importance, and is one of only two in my recollection which were ever addressed directly to the King. The one which the Hon.

Minister of Justice refers to was addressed to His Excellency the Governor. Whether it is a constitutional right under Parliamentary procedure to demand it, is not to the point. There is no question as to the difficulty of the matter which is has been raised for decision. This question as to the proprieties, in view of the importance of the subject here for c onsideration, and as to the rules of Parliamentary procedure, ought not to bear so much weight. I think it proper that the House should consider the matter in Committee and for that reason I appeal to the Prime Minister.

This is the last occasion probably on which we will have the honour B I will call it that because it is, although many don =t seem to consider it so to-day B of representing the people. Therefore let us have a full discussion of anything about to take away our Parliamentary rights. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I am th e very last person in the world to attempt to muzzle or silence debate, or the free criticism of this House. But after all, there is a limit to the time at our disposal.

If the honourable gentlemen could give me some undertaking that he won=t unnecessarily delay the proceedings, I am quite prepared to accept that. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, I am but one man and my colleague is another, and we have physical human limitations. It is utterly im possible for us to impede the progress of this Bill. While I do consider that any effort on the part of the Government to close this matter without due discussion is improper, yet at the same time I will give the Prime Minister an assurance from my own personal physical limitations that I will not unduly obstruct its passage.

I am not able to do it. Probably if this matter goes into Committee it will not take twenty minutes longer than if the Resolutions go before the House, but I want every freedom of debate while the matter is before the

November 28, 1933 500 House. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that you will give the honourable gentlemen every consideration, that you will not be too strict in applying the Rules, and that Your Honour will give him every opportunity to debate the subject. But there is a limit to this. We can=t keep on this matter for all time, and I know that when it goes into Committee it will not be unduly prolonged. I am not as well versed in Parliamentary procedure as my honourable friend, and I put myself in the hands of the Speaker as to the proper procedure to take.

The primary intention was to have it before the House, but now it is intended to m ove the House into a Committee of the Whole to consider it. Hon. the Speaker: That can be done at any time. If a motion is made to place the Resolutions before the House, and an amendment is made to go into Committee of the Whole and the House accepts such amendment, it can go into Committee of the Whole on the amendment being adopted. It would be a great pity if these things should be undertaken with any spirit of animosity over questions of procedure.

I cannot find any precedent for the procedure adopted two years ago for the Statute of Westminster. If it is the wish of the House to go into Committee on this matter, it can be done. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, that would be going against your own ruling and I ask that we carry on as we first intended, and that Your Honour give the Hon. Leader of the Opposition every latitude, every opportunity for debate. Hon. the Speaker: I take it that in that case, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition would be allowed to speak only once. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I would be allowed to speak only once and to make only one motion. It is not my intention to occupy the time of the House more than twenty minutes more at the outside if we go into Committee, than if we proceed as it is now urged. The House may at any time suspend any Rule and take any course it wishes to adopt. We did it a thousand times a day last Session. It is a standing Rule of this House that a measure must not be introduced without notice being given of it and it cannot be introduced until the next day; then it is read the second time and it cannot be read the third time until the next day.

It cannot be read the third time until the next day. We have put Bills into effect in this House of Assembly within ten minutes from the time on which they were first mentioned by the Prime Minister. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition understands my position. Time does not wait for any man, not even for us, and if the Hon. Leader of the Opposition will give us an undertaking we can put this through this evening, I shall be quite satisfied. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker I don=t think there is any doubt about it as far as we are concerned.

I can=t answer for men on the other side of the House.

November 28, 1933 501 Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering its Address to His Majesty. Pursuant to notice, with unanimous consent, and on motion of Hon. the Prime Minister, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain Resolutions respecting the Presentation of a Humble Address to His Majest y the King in reference to the constitutional and financial condition of this country at the present time, and proposed measures to deal with the same. Mr. Speaker left the Chair. Mr.

Shea took the Chair of Committee. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: I beg to move that an Humble Address be presented to his Majesty the King. I would ask the clerk to read the Address. (Clerk reads Resolutions) Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: Mr. Chairman: In the course of the various addresses made in this House yesterday, more than one Honourable Member point ed out that this was one of the momentous periods in the history of this House. 152 With that opinion I agree. In fact I would go further and say that it is perhaps the most momentous occasion in the long history of the country.

Yesterday when I was listening to the excellent addresses of Honourab le Members, I went back in mind to the year 1855 and visualized the Members of this Hous e of that day sitting in the Chamber, and congratulating themselves upon having at last attained the privilege of responsible government, and I wondered if they had only had an opportunity of reading the Report of the Royal Commission, what their feelings would be, and if they would have been as gratified at the result to the country of 78 years of responsible government.

It seems to me th at if we had been in their place we would not consider that we had any cause to congratulate ourselves on having obtained the privilege of self- government, and if they were here to-day they would, I think, concur in the view that what we need now is a political holiday, and a breathing space in which this country will once more have an opportunity of working out its destiny. However, these are vagaries of the imagination and it is imperative that we can get back to the consideration of the problem at hand.

I am quite sure that we all intend to consider this matter dispassionately and disinterestedly. In this connection I should like to say that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is, I believe, conscientious in the view which he holds. He would not be a true citizen of Newfoundland if he were not. But he has added nothing whatever to the value of our discussions. In saying this I would like to point out that since this Government came into power we have received the utmost courtesy, consideration and cooperation from the Leader of the Opposition.

He has shown a sincere desire to assist us in enacting the wisest possible laws for the country. 152 The transcript contains two versions of this speech. One is the verbatim transcript; the other is an edited version. This text generally follows th e verbatim transcript, but the edited version has been used in some places for greater clarity.

November 28, 1933 502 When considering this B and we have been considering it, some of us, for a long time, because after all, this is nothing new to us, this choice that we knew we must make sooner or later, because we knew that sooner or later we should be on the financial rocks B we now have to weigh both sides of the balance against each other. Are we prepared to accept the offer so generously put to us by the United Kingdom Government, or are we to turn that down to await the inevitable result, so far as I can see, default? And default, to my mind, Mr. Chairman and Hon.

Members of this House, would be unthinkable. We have committed many sins , God knows, in the last twenty years, of omission and commission in this House B I am speaking of men who are at present Members of this House and others who are outside this House B but I think the last straw would be if we condemn this country to default. That would be the last st raw. It would cap the climax of fourteen years at least of the worst possible government to which any country could ever have been treated. The Report itself, Mr.

Chairman, I believe you will have to agree with me that though the word pictures are very dark, they are by no means encouraging as to the past, but we must confess their truthfulness. 153 It seems to me almost uncanny how those three Commissioners, particularly Lord Amulree, appear to be able to enter into the minds of our people and give us such a true picture of our affairs, which we must, if we are going to be truthful to ourselves, which we must admit is only too true.

Lord Amulree and his colleagues we nt in and out through the country; they went wherever it was possible for them to reach, and met all classes and conditions of men. They held their investigations in camera. There was no possibility of any man being silenced in what he was going to say because he was afraid. He felt that he could open his heart and mind to those three Royal Commissioners, because he knew that though whatever he might say might be used, he would never be identified with what he had said.

During their travels through the country, Lord Amulree formed a wonderful attachment for the people of this country. When he came back from Canada, I remember he said to me, AWell, it is like getting home to get back to St. John =s.@ And he told me once, ADo you know, Mr. Prime Minister, that your people are the most lovable I have ever met.@ If the Report has criticized us, we may be sure that it was not done through any animosity. It was not done through any harsh spirit, but rather a desire that we should take advantage of the past.

We should have our picture as it appears to others painted in its true light, so that we might use it as a guiding post for the future. We are given a certain choice and while the way may appear hard, it is really the only way out of our difficulties. Mr. Chairman, it makes me very proud that ev ery one of my colleagues are in favour of giving up office. Some of them, I know, because they have the ability and inclination, are cherishing political ambitions. We have three years to run, we are willing to give that up, my colleagues are B I am getting near, as I said, I am past the meridian, so that I don =t count.

When I see my young colleagues willing to give up their political opportunities of the next three years, to make a name for themselves and to help the country in the way we could do with responsible government, but nothing like what can be done under government by commission, I say it makes me very proud to say that my colleagues are willing to give up their cherished ambitions for the sake of this country of ours, 153 AThe Report itself gives the Commission=s idea of the low state of political morality in this country during the last quarter of a century.

The picture which they paint is a dark one but we must at least do them the justice to admit its truthfulness.@ (Edited version)

November 28, 1933 503 and to show that we are real stock of the glorious British Empire. The Report has been commended all over the country. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition quoted some telegrams B he quoted the Great War Veterans= Association. Every branch of the Great War Veterans, every branch has telegraphed to Headquarters they are behind the Report of the Royal Commission and its recommendations, and surely if any men or any group of men are to be listened to, it is the men who went across the sea and fought for us.

When they see our interests will be safe in the hands of government by commission, surely it gives us all cause for thought. They can see, they should know, they have gone over and made sacrifices. They should know what it means when we hand over a large extent of our destinies to the Mother Land. Another telegram was quoted by the hon. gentle man, which I think he probably received Sunday morning from Toronto, because I received the very same telegram Sunday morning, signed by Mr. S. A. Brett. I don=t know if the Leader of the Opposition replied to that message. I did, and I shall read my reply. It was to Mr. S.

A. Brett, Secretary, Executive Committee, Newfoundland Association of Toronto: ATelegram received. Respect sincerity of your opinion, but public sentiment in Newfoundland as expressed spontaneously thr ough meeting of Board of Trade and Great War Veterans= Association in City and outports a nd pronouncements of clergymen and other representative citizens indicate wholehearted acquiescence in acceptance report and resolution for temporary suspension present system of Govern ment.

Under these circumstances consider it unnecessary incur enormous expense which holding of referendum would involve.@ According to the Leader of the Opposition, the further one is away from the scene of action the better one is able to judge the merits or demerits of any case. I suppose if this Association had been in Vancouver they would have been still better able to form an opinion, to use the simile that when one is too far into the woods, one cannot see the forest for the trees .

Therefore, Toronto being well away from the woods is able to see the Newfoundland forest and can form a better opinion as to whether we should accept or reject the Royal Commission=s Report or not. In other words we should consult with those outside the country as to what action we should take. While we are on this subject, I happened to ta ke up a paper last night, one of the largest papers in Canada, which being far from the scene of action should be able, if we adopt the view of the Leader of the Opposition, to form an impartia l view of the local situation.

I think it has the second largest circulation, and I cut this out from the editorial.

AIt is unnecessary to go into the circumstances that led up to Newfoundland=s present sorry plight, save to point out that it is the culminating climax to a period of fourteen years of exploitation of the Island by politicians to serve their own ends; fourteen years of attempts to live upon borrowed money, and the direct outcome of the combination of such conditions and three years of depression exaggerated in Newfoundland =s case by three successive seasons B prior to the current year B of disastrous poverty to the fishing industry.

U nder the proposed form of commission government Britain will have direct and close supervision and control of the Island=s finances, and the whole cost of parliamentary government will be saved. The possibility of further graft will be eliminated; the strictest economy will be the order of the day and the people will be enabled to carry on until they are able to support themselves and a government on ce more.

It may take a few years; it may take several, but eventually the Island will be brought to a state of prosperity and its credit restored, and her bonds once more a preferred security in the world=s money markets. She will be entrusted again

November 28, 1933 504 with the management of her own affairs. Newfoundlanders are a good, hardy, thrifty, courageous and long-suffering people. They have had enough of politicians. They know now how they have been exploited and to what it has led them, and it will be nothing short of a miracle if they do not profit by the stern and painful lesson they have been taught.

In this time of their distress they are assured of the very deep and practical sympathy of Canadians who will be a unit in wishing them a speedy period of rehabilitation to prosperity and restored prestige within the Empire and before the world.@ I think that is very pertinent, Mr. Chairman. One might say that we have been to a large extent at the mercy of politicians. It has been going on for a number of years, and I know my honourable friend on the other side will acquit me of attempting to fasten any of that iniquity upon himself.

Believe me, many of us have given a good many hours, a good many hours of the night too, in trying to solve this problem and see if there was a way out, but we could not. I had hoped during the first part of the Leader of the Opposition =s speech that he had some alternative suggestion to make, but I have been disappointed. I am afraid there is nothing but for us to take it or leave it. The terms that have been offered are so very generous, it seems to me it would be ungracious, ungenerous of us to say, AMake those terms better; make them more liberal.@ These proposals have come to us unasked and unsought.

I don=t see how we could ask the United Kingdom Government to do what they offer to do for us, and expect them not to have some restrictions, some supervision of our expenditure in this country. No amount of economy B and I am sure most people of this country will admit that we have practiced economy almost beyond the point of efficiency B I say no amount of economy, no amount of prosperity, not even the most prosperous of years will help us to carry the present burden of debt interest. For the sake of clearness I will quote some figures which I have made up in a concise form.

At the present time, we are liable for an annual payment of $5.2 million including exchange. The Public Services cost us annually $4.8 million. Relief and Contingencies account for $12 million, making a total of $11 2 million as the lowest possible figure at which the country can be run. In making up these figures I have greatly underestimated the actual requirements. When I say that it costs $4.8 million annually, I should al so explain that we cannot keep it at that figure. There will have to be some increases. The members of the civil service are underpaid.

In many cases they are not living but are merely existing. On the other hand we must remember that only once in the history of the country did we have a revenue that could balance that expenditure of $112 million. That was during the good times when fish was selling for $14.00 per quintal, and the prices of other products were proportionately high. And even in that year the government of that day borrowed money in spite of having the largest revenue in the history of the country. Now let us contemplate the other side of the picture.

If we were to refuse the generous offer of the United Kingdom Government, we would inevita bly be faced with default. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition realizes what default would mean, and how long would any of us be in the House of Assembly if we refused to accept this offer of the Homeland? If that happened, I would not undertake to insure our lives for three months, and I would not be surprised but that the result would show itself before that.

We owe to the banks a floating loan of $62 million, against which, under the terms of the agreement, our Customs revenue is hypothecated, which means theoretically that the banks can go down and seize that revenue. Supposing this House refused the proffered help from the

November 28, 1933 505 United Kingdom, and we passed legislation annulling the legislation under the agreement made with the banks in January 1932, what would happen? Would not the banks withdraw from Newfoundland immediately and leave us bankrupt? Not only would we be bankrupt, but we would be outlawed in the eyes of the whole civilized commercial world. I do not care to dwell upon the consequences of such an action. Frankly I believe our very lives would be in danger from the enraged people of the country.

Further, I would be willing to wager that, if we defaulted and refused to accept the terms, the generous terms laid down, before the middle of February next one-third of the people of Newfoundland would be starving. That seems a hard and strong statement to make, but it is true. We owe the shopkeepers of this country over $500,000 and at the end of December we will have $600,000 in the banks with which to maintain the public service, pay for the dole, and run the country generally. If we default now, does anyone think these shopkeepers will continue to give us any more credit? Certainly not.

If we throw out this generous offer of the Home Government, they will treat us as we deserve to be treated, and the walls around us here should be decorated because we would be traitorous to our country and to the Empire. We may be narrow-minded and self-centred here in Newfoundland and there is a larger view of things. We are members of a glorious Empire, the finest and freest since the world began. We are part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and it is one of the proud boasts that no part of the Empire has gone back on its pledged word. Are we to be the first?

What will it profit us if we retain responsible government and lose our own political souls, our honour, in the end? I was rather surprised yesterday when listening to the Leader of the Opposition. He seemed to infer that our present financial troubles came all of a sudden. Surely he must have known of them for as many years as I have, and has had more opportunity of knowing of the desperate condition we were in. He will remember early in December, 1931, when the Prime Minister of the government of that day sent an S.O.S. call to the United Kingdom asking for financial help. It was turned down.

Then three gentlemen were sent to Montreal and made arrangements to get sufficient money to pay the interest on the loan falling due on Janua ry 1, 1932. That money was advanced on the understanding that a certain arrangement would be signed by the then Prime Minister and the then Leader of the Opposition, and it was to be subject to control by the government financial controller. That gave a temporary respite, but we were alwa ys piling up debt.

We had not then started to economize, and it seemed shameful and cowardly to me that we should keep on wasting and squandering money at the expense of our children and our children=s children. It was scandalous, I thought, and I have always raised my voice against it. Then we came to June, 1932, when the future was mortgaged again. A monopoly was created on oil and petroleum products. That meant extra heavy duty on the fishermen and it meant someth ing like $300,000 had to be paid directly or indirectly to somebody. To satisfy the bondholders we had to borrow to pay the interest at the 30th of June of that year.

Now we come to the time when the present Government appeared on the scene of action. I referred the entire situation to the Dominions O ffice, and when I had done that I felt I had done sufficient. They came back in December and said, AYou must not default. The repercussions not only in Newfoundland, but throughout the British Empire, will be tremendous. If you will accept a Royal Commission to enquire into your financial condition the United Kingdom and Canada are prepared

November 28, 1933 506 to stave off default.@ We could not refuse to accept that offer. We would be ungrateful and un-British if we had refused. Then we came to January 1933, when Lord Amulree asked me if I was worrying about the payment of the bonded interest. I said that I was, as we owed so many millions. He stated that the British Government were coming forward with the money for us again, and added that it would be a great mistake to default, and that if it was humanly possible the British Government were not going to allow us to default.

Then we had the publication of the Royal Commission Report on November 21st last. I was sitting with my colleagues in the Executive Council Chamber when the Report was released. I believe the generosity of the terms nearly took our breaths away. It seemed to me almost impossible to believe. It spite of the extravagance, misrule, and mismanagement of the past, the British Government said to us, in effect, AWe are not going to disown you. You are a splendid people and worth looking after.

For three years we are going to see to it that your debt interest is met and we guarantee to meet the bond interest until these bonds mature. @ All we are asked to give in return is to pass this Address. What good has the franchise done for us? Has it not degenerated 154 the great bulk of our people? If the men of 1855, when they sought responsible government, had known what the result would be in 1933, we would have had representa tive government and no more.

So I feel that responsible government is only a theoretical boon and not what it is cracked up to be.155 If we accept the proposals of the Home Government, not one man in 500 will know the difference except he will see prosperity in the country. He will see capital coming to the country and he will see Bell Island moving more ore. We will have a larger fishery, and, perhaps, fishermen will get a great deal more for their products; and every Dominion of the Empire will have their doors open to give us a chance to sell our fishery products.

Capital will come in because it will feel assured that it is in safe keeping and will not be gambled away, because, let me tell you, nothing is more timid than capital, so that when capital the world over knows that the Britis h Government is guaranteeing principal and interest of our debt, they are ta king no chances. A man told me this morning that since this issue came up in the House there was renewed c onfidence in the Civic Loan in St. John =s and that $150,000 worth of bonds had been subscribed to.

That shows that whenever a country has stability and sound backing behind it, people are not afraid to invest their money. I disagree with the letter of Sir William Coaker who says that if we accept, our position will be lowered to that of a Crown Colony and we will be accorded the same type of government as is given to niggers. He is wrong, and I hope innocently wrong. Our status will be better than that of a Crown Colony. A Crown Colony is run by a Governor and the House is subservient to him. He is practically a dictator and he is responsible only to the Colonial Office.

We will have six commissioners, three Newfoundlanders and thr ee from the United Kingdom. They will govern through the Governor and he must take their advice and can only refuse on the same grounds as he can the present Executive Council. He will have no more authority than at present. We will be betwixt and between a Crown Colony and a Dominion. We shall still be under the jurisdiction of the Dominions Office. We will have no dealings with the Colonial Office.

As far as the affairs of the 154 In the edited version, Aimpoverished.@ 155 In the edited version, A... and in our case has proved a curse instead of a blessing.@

November 28, 1933 507 country are concerned, estimates and the like will be broadcast through the country for the people to examine. A budget will be issued and I hope there will be no suppression of any figures or anything of that kind. We shall have Athe truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.@ When the figures show that we are on a solid basis again we can appeal to the United Kingdom, and if our affairs are found to be on a solid enough basis we will get responsible government again.

In this connection I wish to read [a] copy of [a] dispatch which I have received from the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. AHis Majesty =s Government in Great Britain doe s not contemplate continuance of commission form of Government for longer than is essential and you can certainly give assurance that it would be open to outside body to make representation either to the United Kingdom Government or to the Newfoundland Commission Gove rnment in due course when it is felt that conditions necessary for restoration of self-government had been fulfilled.@ Now that is good enough for any of us.

That sets forth the position in clear and unmistakable terms and I am quite sure that we can accept it in absolute good faith as an honourable undertaking on the part of His Majesty=s Government in the United Kingdom. One point I would like to emphasize, and that is that we are now at the beginning of a new era in our history. This is only the beginning, this is only the starting point. We have been relieved of the nightmare of default, but we have all got to work hard. I agree with the remark of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition when he sa id that it is the duty of us all to cooperate.

We can save our country by cooperation. We have got to forget political animosity, we have got to get together and work hard for the good of the country. I can see a splendid spirit [of] cooperation spreading all over the Island, and I hope that we shall be doing our best, all of us. I would ask the cooperation of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the efforts that will be made to lift the country out of its present di fficulties. The people are at present in a desperate plight, many of them have very little food and practically no clothing.

A large proportion of our people have been in a state of despondency for the past three or four years. How must that situation be faced? If a man asks you for bread are you prepared to say, AI cannot give you bread, but I will give you a vote instead@? No, Mr. Chairman, the cry of the people is for assistance. Every indication points to the fact that in all sections of the Island the Report and its recommendations, as well as the proposals of H.M. Government in the United Kingdom, are hailed as the first glint of sunlight after years of storm and stress, overhung with the black clouds of depression.

Therefore it is that after calm and careful deliberation my colleagues and I have come to the conclusion that it is our duty to accept the Report and its recommendations in their entirety, as well as the proposals of the United Kingdom Government. 156 And in moving the adoption of this Address to His Gracious Majesty I believe implicitly that I speak for the fishermen of the country who have been crushed into hopeless poverty through successive years of unremunerative toil, whose welfare will now be ensured; I speak in the name of the loggers whom the operation of economic laws in these times of depression have reduced almost to conditions of slavery; 156 The final

section of this speech appears only in the edited version and in newspaper reports.

November 28, 1933 508 I speak on behalf of the miners, formerly employed at Bell Island, who have been deprived of their livelihood by the practical shut down of the mines, which has impoverished nearly the whole of Conception Bay; I speak on behalf of workers of all classes who have been thrown out of employment, and to whom the developments foreshadowed in the Report will bring the prospect of profitable labour; I speak in the name of thousands of wome n and children who are suffering the pangs of hunger and cold, who have tasted the lowest depths of degradation during the past few years, and whose lot the new regime will do much to alleviate; I speak in the name of the clergymen, the businessmen and the war veterans of the country, who have already publicly endorsed the Report; I speak in the name of the civil servants and the school teachers, to whom is held out the hope of a return to a decent st andard of living; and in the name of the schoolchildren whose opportunity of acquiring a decent education will no longer be retarded; And finally I speak on behalf of all Newfoundlanders when I say that we thank His Majesty=s Government in the United Kingdom for the generous offer they have made to us in our extremity; we are grateful for the promised development of our resources, we trust implicitly in their honourable intentions, feeling confident that a full measure of responsible government will be restored to the Island when we have again b een placed upon a self-supporting basis, and that we fully, frankly, and freely accept the Report and the conditions laid down in the White Paper, and subscribe to the Address, which I now have the honour to move.

Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Chairman, I would like at the outset to express my thanks to the Prime Minister for the kindly terms in which he has referred to myself, and I can only say that whatever form of government we may have, whether it is responsible government or commission government, that government, even though I may disa gree with it, shall always have my hearty support and cooperation in the interests of this country.

The Prime Minister and I disagreed on many occasions, and there were many others on which we agreed, but I don =t think there was ever an occasion when he could accuse me, since I was Leader of the Opposition in this House, of playing party politics. Rather, I think he would say that I always looked to the good of the country. It is certain that we are going to have commission government, and commission government under the terms laid down in the resolutions and the accompanying annex.

As that is to be the situation in this country, for how many years I do not know, I trust that every man and woman will do their utmost to assist in all activities which tend to the welfare of the country. My views are to some extent opposed to those of the gentleman opposite. I am convinced that on the main question of limiting powers of expenditure we are in total agreement, and with that phase of the situation I will deal with later. This, Mr. Chairman, is my last speech in this House.

This House in recent years, particularly in the last three or four, has been regarded w ith disfavour and yet it has been the scene of many notable debates and much eloquence. The names of Little, Shea, Thorburn, Whiteway, and Bond 157 157 All (except Shea) premiers (the title prime minister was introduced after 1909) of Newfoundland. P. F. Little, Liberal, 1855-1858; R. Thorburn, Reform Party, 1885-1889; W. V. Whiteway, Conservative and Liberal, 1878-1885, 1889-1894, 1895-1897; Robert Bond, Liberal, 1900-1909.

Ambrose Shea was a prominent and influential politician from the 1840s to the late 1880s, but never premier.

November 28, 1933 509 will recall to the minds of many de bates of a character to which those of to-day can hardly be compared. These were outstanding men, and their names are written on the pages of the history of this House in letters which will not be effaced by time. Even during the ten years that I have been here, I have known men, patriotic men, whose only thought was to serve the land of their birth, in spite of the fact that they were on many occasi ons accused of self-seeking at the expense of the people.

I can carry my mind back some 30 years to the famous Bond administration, certainly to the days of 1909, when to accept a fair remuneration from the state was to be branded as a grafter by his opponents. Why, even the great Bond was so stig matized, and even when a man received no remuneration, only grudgingly and with intense regret was he regarded as a man whom they had nothing against This is the closing session of this House =s activities. The lights will soon dim and we will pass out.

Then the lights will flare up on a new scen e of a very different form of administration, which may hold much of good or evil for the country. I can hardly be blamed for feeling some sense of drama, and some urge to indulge eloquence, but that is not my intention and even if it were, I am no Edmund Burke or Abraham Lincoln. I propose to offer a straightforward statement of honest views, and I think it can be seen my remarks are not made with any thought of seeking votes. One of the daily newspapers to-day published an attack of a political nature on me.

I did not talk politics here yesterday, and it is not my inte ntion to do so to-day. I made no attack on the Government, there was no reference made to their good deeds or bad deeds, and I made no personal attack of any sort. I deliberately refrained from anything of that type, and I did so because of the seriousness of the occasion and the momentousness of the decision which we have to make. This morning I was accused if having an axe to grind by a hired scribbler of the Tory press, whose tongue utters pious platitudes while he is stabbing a man from behind.

I know him, and he is not free from political graft and probably hopes for more. I would like to go back some 25 years, and re-read for the good of his soul some of the slanderous utte rances he made regarding Sir Robert Bond. They would give him some food for thought. I shall doubtless be treated to another such attack to-morrow by this libel on humanity, but let him do his worst. The only reason I refer to this matter is because I have to address the House this afternoon; otherwise his utterances would be beneath contempt.

I am not seeking votes and I have no illusions as regards the effect of my remarks on the government ranks. The approbation of the Government, the Royal Commission, the British Government or the public of this country cannot weigh with me to-day. I am looking for nothing, and I have a right to utter them. They may be regarded as valuable or invaluable, but if you remain within the sound of my voice you are going to hear them.

I have a keen desire that my remarks should be regarded as honest, and even if I were accused of playing politics or self-seeking, I submit that with the inevitability of this scheme going through, that such a charge would be beyond all peradventure ridiculous. The attitude I take is the natural conclusion to be drawn from the type of politicians we have had for the past number of years, If there were any plums going, Bradley was going to have them. He was a pariah. Even that makes no difference to me now.

We have had this Report and the White Paper before us for about a week, and as I said yesterday, very few people have had the opportunity to read them. Quite a number of people got their reactions through the public dispatches, others read them through the newspapers. Some of the

November 28, 1933 510 members of the House have read the Report from end to end. I submit, however, that this Report should be read both carefully and laboriously in order to arrive at an intelligent conclusion and appreciation. As far as the people are concerned, they can have no conception of the highly technical and in other instances involved financial clauses, without some explanation. Most of their ideas are derived from the newspapers and they are politically partisan. There is no doubt about this having been made a party measure.

His Excellency =s speech announced it as a party measure, and it was quite apparent yesterday afternoon when the vote was taken on my amendment on the motion to adjourn. The government party is solidly behind this measure and the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister so intimated this afternoon. Yesterday afternoon this resolution was tabl ed.

I had no knowledge of it until the Prime Minister sent it to me about half past one yesterday; neither had my colleague until he heard it here yesterday afternoon; neither had the country, and I am asked within 24 hours to come to a decision upon a proposal which involves more for the people of this country than any other proposal which ever came before this House in its history. Now, if it had been regarded by the Government as more or less a national matter, surely they would have called us of this side of the House into consultation before.

They have been in possession at least of the main features of this scheme for months, but it appears to have been carefully kept from us. We had no information; nobody offered us any information except such as got upon the street, and which emanated from Government circles in the nature of mere surmises, so we were told, but strangely enough all these surmises emanating from Government circles coincided exactly. Now, coincidences, of course, frequently happen and it may be that a number of the gentlemen who sit on the other side of the House did guess exactly the same thing and were right. Rt. Hon.

Prime Minister: You said that we knew the contents of the Report. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: I did not say that. I said you had some knowledge of the contents of the Report. Hon. Secretary of State: As far as I am concerned, that is not so. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: I am not accusing any particular gentleman. I am simply stating that a number of gentlemen on the other side of the House could tell some citizens in this town two months ago substantially what we have here to-day. It was not official, of course, and it might be a coincidence, but they all guessed the same thing.

They may be good guessers, but the fact remains that it was regarded as a party matter and not a national matter, and within 24 hours I am asked to make a decision upon these proposals, because I had no knowledge of what the Government was going to propose before the notice came before the House at all. I too might guess, with my limited abilities, in that direction. I may say that up to a week ago, I had no knowledge whatever as to what these proposals were going to be. I too had made a guess, but, Mr.

Chairman, I was many miles from the truth, and this scheme which is laid before us now I have to decide upon within six days, seven days, from the time when I first got any knowledge of it at all, and 24 hours from the time when the proposal is laid before me in concrete form. Now, my examination of it can only be superficial in its

November 28, 1933 511 character, and the examination of every other man who had no knowledge of it previously can only be of the same type. I have listened to the picture painted by the Hon. Prime Minister here this afternoon. I credit him with sufficient honesty to say that I think he believes in what he says, but I am not satisfied that the rosy picture which he as depicted for us this afternoon, will turn out to have any foundation in reality, and that rosy picture, to a substantial ex tent, is in the minds of many who have had some opportunity to give some superficial examination to these documents.

I fear B and I am sorry to have to say this B I fear that they are fated to have many of their castles in the air tumble about their ears. Some will know that those who are owed substa ntial sums of money by our Government will unquestionably be paid. Possibly, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, civil servants and others, teachers, will receive addition to their remunerati on, but when?

Surely, before these salaries are advanced appreciably, Newfoundland=s finances will have to be a little better than they are to-day, because as the situation now stands, it seems to me that Britain will in all probability have to find anywhere from three million to five million a year to pay our deficit anyway. Britain=s offer is generous, there is no doubt about that. No one can suggest for a moment that there is any duty cast upon the British taxpayer to pay our bills, and very few governments would be so generous with a dependency as Britain is prepared to be with us.

And then dealing particularly with the Report, we find that various industries are labelled as needing rehabilitation, but it must be remembered that substantial additional expenditures will be necessary before anything can be done along those lines, and we cannot expect the British Government to take British taxpayers= money to rehabilitate industry in Newfoundland under existing conditions; that they will do their best is unquestionable. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: May I say a word? Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Yes. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: It will be good business for England to do that.

The quicker she gets us on our feet the better. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: I would like to put it on a higher plane than that myself. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: It is the economic view. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: In spite of the fact that I am prepared to agree right here and now, that within two months after the passage of this measure you will see a different face on things right here in St. John=s, I am prepared to admit that on the whol e, within the next two months or three years, you are going to find that there will be di sillusionment, disappointment, and reaction.

It is inevitable; why, the very altitude of the faith of those who now be lieve will be the cause of that reaction. Now I want, if I can, Mr. Chairman, to finish before six, because it is not my intention to delay this matter. I have no object in standing here for the sake of standing. It is not obstruction, and I know I can=t defeat the measure. If I happen to stand in the breach in a losing fight, I can only do

November 28, 1933 512 my best and take my licking. There is, Sir, an outstanding objection to these proposals, and it is an outstanding objection which, in my opinion, is not regarded as vital by the British Government. No serious consideration is given to it at all. Has any sober thought been given either by the Government or anyone else as to the possible danger of suppressing entirely the voice of a people such as ours? Has any serious thought been given to that? Have the members of the Government done so? Has the press?

I thought I saw a glimmer of thought in one of our local dailies a few days ago, when they said something about AThe voice of people being the voice of God,@ but the subsequent utterances of that journal indicate that this was merely phraseology, or the people that were intended to be referred to in that particular remark were a select few.

Now, I don=t intend to give you any academic dissertation about the values of representative government this afternoon, but I am going to confine myself to a repetition of the bold dictum of a man named Abraham Lincoln, of whom you have all heard, and who, I think all will admit, was not only a patriot, but a very capable president of the United States of America, and his words were, AGood government is not a substitute for self-government.@ What may be useful, however, in our consideration of this plan, is that I should attempt to demonstrate the practical application of the princi ple of its destruction.

It will not be denied, it cannot be denied that all forms or manifestations of popular control are completely swept away by these proposals, though perhaps it may be said pedantically that this House being the representatives of the people and having passed the measure, that th erefore it is the will of the people. That is a theoretical argument, but one thing is certain, once that is done it ends. Anything that transpires, or any action that the new government takes, is certainly not the will of the people. When once we pass under this form of government, the commissioners are supreme.

They make all laws; they impose all taxes; they spend all moneys without reference to anything the people may have to say. True, they are not without responsibility to somebody B they are responsible to the British Government, and the British Government is 2,000 miles away. The British Government will know very little about the views of the people of this country, and can only check up [on] their trustees from a distance. But we of this country have no voice to check that cond ition.

We are not even left with a representative assembly that might be regarded in the nature of a high-class debating club to air our grievances. We have nothing to express the will and desire of the people. Yes we have a press, but we haven=t a free press. The press of this country is subsidized by private interests, and it can hardly be expected that a press in that position is likely to express unbiased ly the views and aspirations and wishes of the people, when they may be in opposition to the views and interests of their subsidizers. It is true there are some other avenues of expression.

There are various organizations such as the Board of Trade, the Importers= Association and the Manufacturers= Associations. But these are all bodies organized purely for private and special interests, and how can they be regarded as in any way expressing the wishes and the interests of the great mass of the people, as against the interests for which they are specifically designed? In point of actual fact, the voice of the people is stilled, muted, gagged, and rendered inarticulate, and that brings us to the position that we have no legal or constitutional means of making the will of the people known.

What is left for them? How can they make their influence felt? Since they have no legal or constitutional means of doing so, they are left to illegal ones. Or worse still, the people may degenerate into well-fed be ings whose only desires are full bellies, and who

November 28, 1933 513 have no thought whatever of the high duties of citizenship. Or will they leave their native shores, and go to countries where they are at least assure d of being free men? For they are no longer free men here, not as we understand it, as a free man is a man who has some voice in the destinies of his country. He may not have the power to enforce his will, but he has a means of expressing his views, and that is denied to the Newfoundlander under this scheme.

Now, reference was made a few days ago, and again this afternoon by the Prime Minister, to the effect that our new status will be something between a Dominion and a Crown Colony. I have to take issue with that statement. I care not who the commissioners are, or to whom they have to report their doings. It is true there may be some type s of Crown Colony who have no right to any [say] whatever in their affairs, but there are many w ho have, and who have representative assemblies.

Some of them have power of veto, or refusing money; but certainly they are not in the position which it is proposed to put the people of this country in, where they have no voice in anything whatever. Newfoundlanders will be simply a governed people. Rather would I say the position of this country will be between a Crown Colony and nothing; nay, more than that, actually nothing. Reference has been made in the newspapers by some writers to the fact that we will be in a worse position than the blacks and untouchables of India.

From the standpoint of constitutional rights that is true, because there are blacks and untouchables within the Empire who have more rights to a voice in their own governments than the people of Newfoundland will have after the passing of this measure. We have read of the untouchables, who are a long distance away. Let us pause for a moment and see what that word means. The natives of India are divided into many castes. There are the Brahmins [omission]. At the bottom of the castes stand the untouchables, who are looked upon as outcasts.

An untouchable is such a pariah amongst his own race, that if his very shadow happens to fall upon the body of one in a caste above him, that body is polluted and his clothing must be burned, he must thoroughly bathe himself and go through religious ceremonies in the temples before that pollution is removed. Still, these untouchables are given the right to vote. Why, they even have to provide special booths for the untouchables, because the other tribesmen will not go into the booths where they are; and yet they will have more say in their own destinies than the people of Newfoundland will have in years to come.

Despite the Prime Minister=s statement that this new form of government is going to be for a short period, I predict that it is going to be ma ny years before Newfoundland is going to be self- supporting again. To that position frankly the Liberal Party cannot and will not assent. If that scheme of government is brought in, the Liberal Party will assist. We are not the party to make trouble in this country. Whatever the kind of government will be, as long as it is in the interests of the country we are supporting it. We must accept the system as it is, but we are not prepared to vote for it.

We realise as well as anyone the necessity of some form of control in this country to-day. We realize that this country has gone to the devil in expenditure, and we realise the responsibilities of the politicians for that, as well as by ourselves. We realize that if Britain is paying our bills, that it would be insane for Britain to allow us to carry on the same old merry dance.

Since the days of the late Robert Bond I for one B and I think I speak for the Liberal Party B am not averse to the system of financial control, nay, we invited that, and even the politician who is reasonably honest B because, after all, honesty is difficult to find in mankind B will welcome that, because it will avoid a lot of trouble for himself, if for no other reason, and in this regard I speak from ten years = experience. Yes, Sir, we stand for

November 28, 1933 514 control. We believe that control must come, but we do want some means left to the people of this country of expressing their voice. Should there be an election to-morrow, I do not believe that any body of men in this country would dare go to the polls and advocate a complete rejection of the British Government=s offer.

Certainly we would not. [But] judging the matter from a constitutional standpoint, and in view of the fact that these sweeping resolutions are destroying for many years all the rights of the people, I think it is reasonabl e that the people should have some voice in the administration of the affairs of their country. Even the Royal Commission =s Report itself in one

section dealing with Confederation, distinctly lays down the principle as axiomatic that no deal of that kind should go through without an appeal to the electorate. Well, under Confederation at least we should have some rights. We would get more votes than we have now, because we would have a vote for the Dominion Parliament and one for the provincial legislature as well. But here not only is it proposed to take away the vote of the people, but these proposals are going to do so without any reference being made to the people, to whom the right belongs.

If it is axiomatic, if it is constitutional that Confederation should be referred to the people, then surely this matter which is contained in these resolutions ought to be referred to them for their expression of their views on the s ubject, and that is much more the case when we recollect the following incident which happened in 1932. Shortly after the dissolution of the House of Assembly, there appeared in one of the newspapers of this country a letter by Sir William Coaker.

Sir William, to my knowledge, had for at least two years before that been advocating the adoption of some form of commission government, and this letter reiterated his position in that connection.

It promptly evoked [a] response from the present Prime Minister in the public press, in which he made the pronouncement that if his party were returned to power, he would appoint a committee or commission to investigate into the possibility and desirability of the introduction of a commission in this country, and further that if the committee reported favourably on that scheme of government, then he would submit the question of introducing a commission form of government to the people for their election. That statement was made in reply to Sir William Coaker.

The Prime Minister subsequently incorporated it in his manifesto, and it became part of his pledge, part of his undertaking to this country, part of the agreement made with the electors of this country, part of his share of the bargain. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: What bargain? Hon. Leader of the Opposition: The bargain that if they would elect you, you would do this for them. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: I will answer when you have finished. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: You may answer now, Sir, if you wish. That bargain was carried out up to a point. There was a [Royal] Commissi on appointed.

That Commission has reported in favour of commission government and a particular type of commission government not dreamed of by a single man in Newfoundland, not even by the Pr ime Minister himself when he made that promise, that is now to be foisted upon the peopl e of this country without their being given an

November 28, 1933 515 opportunity to say a single word about it. There are several courses, two at least, open to the Prime Minister by which he might keep his word. True it is that he may say that conditions have changed, but his promise has not changed. He cannot say that he did not know the conditions of the country at that time as well as anybody else, because he had all the figures before him. He could not have anticipated that his return to power would be followed by a general uplift of trade, and that there would be work for everybody when he ascended to power; that was impossible.

He made a promise, and that promise is as yet unfulfilled. I say to him now that in my opinion, and I don=t care who disagrees with me, he should either invite His Excellency the Governor to dissolve the Legislature and appeal to the electorate, or submit the matter to the people in the form of a plebiscite. Now I am well ahead of the limit I placed upon myself, and I promised at the beginning that I would not delay the proceedings of the House. I am well aware of the fact that nothing that I can say will make any difference.

Many will doubtless regard me as a visionary and a false prophet, and probably some will still regard me as a self-seeking politician attempting to grind my axe. The only direction in which I can be safely accused of attempting to grind any axe, is that I believe my justification will come with time. And Sir, in view of this position, I am going to give the Government the opportunity to pass upon several ideas I have in my mind, some of which I have already indicated and some of which I shall indicate in a few minutes.

I propose the following amendment: 158 ... that the Prime Minister should appeal to His Excellency the Governor for a dissolution of parliament and appeal to the country on the new form of government suggested. [ Daily News, November 29, 1933] Hon. Leader of the Opposition: On the evidence as indicated there will be no dissolution of this House by appeal to the electorate. There is going to be a dissolution in another way. ... that the will of the people should be ta ken in the form of a plebiscite. [ Daily News, November 29, 1933] Hon. Minister of Justice: Mr.

Speaker, I think that the proposal now made by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is one which reiterates the views expressed by him this afternoon in connection with this question, and with reference to one or two poi nts in association with this question, and with reference to one or two points in connection with what he said this afternoon and yesterday, some reply should be made.

The Prime Minister this afternoon, in the c ourse of his introduction of the resolutions, pointed out the fact that time is an important factor in connection with the move now contemplated, and indicated that the Leader of the Opposition should make his remarks dispassionately and as 158 Mr. Bradley moved eight amendments, all of which were defeated by straight party votes. They are not fully reported in the surviving transcript, and do not appear in the Journal.

November 28, 1933 516 shortly as possible, and allow the matter to be carried through as early as possible. It is obvious from what he said yesterday and this afternoon, that it is his purpose to deal with a number of suggestions put forward as amendments and suggested to the Committee in the course of the debate, but the major one is the one now proposed.

He has made it an issue that acceptance of the proposals of the British Government in regard to the financial and constitutional position should be the subject of a plebiscite, to the people, to ask them whether they will accept the change of government and the control of finances, and the assistance so generously offered.

He has described the position in which Newfoundland will be under the new proposed form of government as being lower than that of Crown Colony government, as being lower than that of the untouchables in India, as depriving us of all our rights, as taking away from us all voice in government and practically making us serfs. Where he gets these ideas from it is difficult to imagine.

I remember some years ago meeting the honourable and learned gentlemen when he was a supporter of the very much-condemned Tory party led by Prime Minister Monroe, and he told me at that time that the condition of the country was perfectly appalling. I agreed with him. I agreed with him as to the difficulties with which the government of which he was a supporter, and of which I was an opponent, was faced; and he told me that these difficulties were such, and that the responsibilities he had to bear were so great, that they interfered with his sleep at nights. I think the Hon.

Leader of the Opposition has conjured up his descriptions of Newfoundland =s position as a result of these nightmares. I would like to point out that there is almost entirely absent from his remarks any reference to the generosity of the Royal Commission and the British Government. The whole idea of his remarks both yesterday and to-day was to depress the minds of his hearers. Has he suggested one single benefit that Newfoundland will get as a result of these proposals? Has he suggested how this financial assistance will help our country get back on its feet? Hon.

Leader of the Opposition: You may not have heard it, but I did. Hon. Minister of Justice: Well, it must have been at very short length. I was in the House during all of his speech except for ten minutes [when] I wa s called outside. When I left he had made no mention of it, and when I returned he was still in the doldrums. Now Sir, what is the position as regards pl acing this question before the people as a referendum? I would like to point out that we have heard a lot of talk on the streets of a mandate, and I want to point out that we have no mandate.

The question of a mandate is one which is capable of very great elasticity. I intend to show how much it has been stretched both rightly and wrongly, and I propose to give

chapter and verse. It is usual for a political party going to the country to lay down a policy which it intends to pursue, and generally they pursue that course. In some circumstances this policy has to be abandoned. This happens both as regards major issues and minor issues. Take the history of any country in the world, and look up in the manifestoes of its statesmen and see what they carried out. See how much of their manifestoes they were forced through circumstances to abandon.

Look at any of the great countries of the world B far larger and wealthier than ourselves, whose destinies are guided by the world=s leading statesmen. Look at them, and see if they are carrying out the suggestions in their manifestoes. You will find that the finest men in the

November 28, 1933 517 world had to change their views as circumstances compelled. The question of a mandate is governed by the prevailing circumstances of the time. Look at the history of any la rge country and look at some of the large policies that are put through without any suggestion of a mandate, and you will see how absurd this attitude is. I will mention a few instances that occurred locally. Take the instance of Sir James Winter in 1898 when he introduced what is known as the =98 Contract. Did he have a mandate? Of course he did. Was it a good contract? Some say it was and some say it wasn=t.

I say it was, but I realise that there are many people who take the contrary view. Would my honourable and learned friend say that he had made a mistake? The Hon. Leader of the Opposition bows down in admiration of Sir Robert Bond. Did he have a mandate when he made the contract of =01? Which was such a terrible blunder, and which was one of the causes of our insolvency to-day. We cannot blame Sir Robert Bond. He had every good intention and he had a mandate fr om the people. Did Sir Edward Morris have a mandate from the people in 1909 when they decided to build the branch lines?

Of course he did, he had an overwhelming majority. At that time the hi story of our railway justified it. There was no thought in the minds of our people of war, or the competition that was to come following the development of motor cars. There was no thought that the scheme was going to be such a complete failure. Let us look at the other side of the picture. Was there any mandate for the fish regulations of 1920, introduced by the government led by Sir Ri chard Squires and sponsored by Sir William Coaker?

I am not questioning the integrity of th eir purpose, they thought they would work but instead they were a terrible failure, and they were done without a mandate. Was there any mandate to introduce the Adole@ regulations, and they have been a failure? They were introduced without a mandate, but there is no suggestion that the gove rnment of the time was actuated by any but the highest motives. Was there any mandate for taking over the Railway and paying the Reids $2,000,000? None, whatever. Was it contemplated that it would be a big fa ctor in running the country into debt, by paying its deficits year after year?

Was there a mandate for responsible government? Was there a mandate to the British Government for responsible government? Yes, and the people clamoured for it. Was it a success? If we could place ourselves in the position of those who clamoured for this mandate and look into the future up to 1933, do you imagine that these men who had that mandate would inflict it on us? If they know the vicious principles, the waste, dishonesty, extravagance and political debauchery that would engulf their country, do you think they would inflict responsible government on the country? Yet they had a mandate.

Looking down over the list it doesn =t matter very much whether there was a mandate or not, one side pretty much balances the other. We are all human. We have all to learn by our mistakes. Was there a mandate in England to declare war on Germany? Was there a mandate for us to join in and spend millions of dollars, not to mention [to] scatter the flower of that generation over the fields of France? Yet we were right. Was there a mandate in England for the formation of a National Government in the crisis of a couple of years ago?

It was only because they were over the crisis that they went to the country, but there is another aspect to this question of mandate which my honourable and learned friend has completely overlooked. When it comes to the point of asking the people of a country to vote upon a particular matter, there must be an alternative. Just to take the simple case that we all have in mind, we had a

November 28, 1933 518 referendum in this country in 1916 on the questi on of Prohibition. Now, what was before the electorate then? It was one question: Shall we have Prohibition or shall we continue as we are? We had an alternative, Prohibition or a continuation of our present existence. What have we got here? What is the alternative that you offer the electorate? It is here that my honourable and learned friend has completely failed to lay anything before the Committee. What is the alternative that you offer to the people of this country when you put the referendum before them B to continue as we are?

We offer the people to continue as we are when on the 31st December we owe $2,000,000 in interest and the Treasury is empty. That is the alternative. Why offer that to the people? The only thing is either accept all this or starve. As the Prime Minister said this afternoon, by February one-third of the population will be starving. Then why have a refe rendum? The thing is self-evident, and I am surprised that my honourable and learned friend, who had such a great opportunity of joining with the Government party in supporting this matter, did not grasp it with both hands. Mr.

Chairman, I intervened in the debate just to deal with these two points. I do not know whether my learned friend will undertake a reply. I shall listen to it with the greatest of interest if he does. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: I have no desire to delay the House. What I have said, I have said. Hon. Minister of Justice: Quod scripsi, scripsi. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: If I have to undertake to answer all the questions that might be urged by the Government party, I have got some job. Hon. Minister of Justice: The Hon.

Prime Minister in the course of his remarks pointed to the exceptional keenness that was displayed by the Commissioners in this Report. He pointed out to the Committee that it meant a considerable amount of work, that it meant the application of great intelligence, and that they have produced a document which is unique in the history of this country. In some respects I think it can fairly be said about the Report, that they were somewhat too severe.

There are passages to which exception might be taken, but I am satisfied that even in that respect there was an object in the minds of the Commissioners when they used the language they did, and bearing in mind that it is the report of indepe ndent men, men who had no interest in the matter before us, no desire to deprive us of what we know as our constitutional liberties, men who came here with one object in view, and one only, and that was to offer us the best solution that their independent and great minds could consider.

Bearing that in mind, I suggest to all readers of this Report that it should be put into simple language. It should be digested, made shorter, and made a textbook in our schools so that the generation th at grows up will know something of the political history of this country, its good points and its bad points from the time when we first had representative government 101 years ago.

Consequently, when a few years hence the opportunity will be given to them to vote for a new parliament here, they will be able to vote with a knowledge of the political history of this country that w ill save them from the errors which have been unfortunately so frequent in the past.

November 28, 1933 519 ... that the three representatives from Ne wfoundland on the commission be elected by the people.159 [Daily News, November 29, 1933] Hon. Leader of the Opposition: I beg to move the following amendment: AAs the commission to be appointed by Her Majesty will be for the passing of legislation, including legislation dealing with the taxation of Newfoundland people, that Newfoundland should be represented in the British House of Commons.@ Now, I hear the titters of amusement and levity from the gentlemen in the other side of the House. I have not made that amendment without a reason.

Taxation without representation to-day is unknown in the British Empire, practically. The peopl e who have to pay the bills surely ought to have something to say in the expenditure. Admitting, admitting the sins and shortcomings of ourselves as Members of this House of Assembly, and casting the same slur upon preceding Houses as we have thrown upon ourselves, the principle s till stands, that the man who has to pay the bill ought to have something to say. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: England, fortunately, is going to pay the bill. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Part of it.

We have already admitted here in this House this afternoon that as Britain is going to pay the deficits, she certainly should have something to say in the government of this country, but as we are to provide the funds then we should have some say also. Hon. Minister of Justice: In the governing of Great Britain? Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Just a minute now, don=t hurry yourself at all. I am going to take my time whether you do or not.

The fact that Newfoundland might have one, two, three, four, or a dozen representatives in the British House of Commons during the period of commission government is not likely to sway the destinies of the Empire greatly, in view of the fact that there are some 615 members in the House of Commons. The point that I am trying to make is this, that as we have to pay the bills, that as these bills are imposed by a commission which is responsible to the British Government and not to us, that there is the only avenue through which Newfoundland can make her wishes heard to-day under this new scheme.

I do not desire that we should send men to the British House of Commons for the purpose of influencing British policy, it is hardly within the range of possibility that they would do so, but we [shoul d] have someone there to plead the case of the people. Remember that a commission government is in the nature of an autocratic government. No matter how honest they may be, power in the hands of a few is a dangerous thing. We have reason to know that in this country, and the principle of representation, as I say, is almost universal throughout the British Empire.

It is one of the basic principles of the Empire, and it was the failure to recognise that principle which in 1776 lost Britain the greatest jewel in her crown. They