Conservatives; and yet, on no other theory will this taunt, or whatever else it may be called, bear a moment's examination. That something of the kind was attempted at Truro, at the Reform pic-nic, is evident. from the 'vociferous and thundering No!' of which the Opposition journals exultingly speak. That, however, may be a piece of characteristic party exaggeration at the expense of the party's good name; if they did not approve of the Premier's policy the recalcitrants should have stayed at home or preserved silence. The pic-nic was a party, not a public, demonstration. growing disgust for party squabbles has extended to the people on the sea-board. They have discovered, and are beginning to complain, as the people of Ontario do, that their material interests are made the shuttlecock of party, and, if they are not neglected altogether, serve only to amuse our public men, when they are not abusing one another, and heaping scandal upon scandal. On the whole it appears to us that the supineness of the Lower Province people is no proof of Mr. Mackenzie's unpopularity; but simply seasonable, and an evidence of their good sense. It is said that Sir John Macdonald and Dr. Tupper would have met with a different reception. It may be so, though we doubt it; and it must not be forgotten that Dr. Tupper is upon his native heath' there, and Sir John's popularity might get him a crowd, if he visited the chief cities and ventured to breathe the stifling and sudorificatmosphere of closely-packed halls. Both he and the Premier were far too wise to make that experiment in the middle of August. After August. The game of politics is not worth so great a sacrifice at their hands, when they need rest and recuperation. But it is further alleged that both in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia these meetings were a failure. People are so used to the party colouring given to matters of this sort by both sides, that this might be uncredited if it merely rested on the ex parte statements of the Opposition press. But there is further evidence which, although of a negative character, is certainly corroborative: we refer to the very cursory references to Mr. Mackenzie's excursion in the Government papers. After the first telegrams announcing the Premier's progress, little or nothing more was said about it; nor have they ventured to deny the substantial truth of their opponents' statements. It may be taken for granted, therefore, that these statements are, in the main, correct. Nor is it surprising that this should have been the case. The Dominion is just now in the enjoyment of political repose; there is a grateful lull, which has not yet teen disturbed in the older Provinces, and will remain unbroken until the new series of Conservative pic-nics begins. Even the party journals have the good taste to give politics a wide berth almost wholly. The Labour and Protection questions, the Dunkin Act, and the interminable Orange question, furnish the staple productions of the editorial pen at present. There is no reason to suppose that the truce has not extended to the Maritime Provinces. Indeed, for some time past, Dominion politics have attracted little attention amongst them, as compared with local questions which touch them more nearly. The coal and fishery interests alone are matters of Dominion concern; on the first, parties are divided, and the other is being attended to or the reverse by the Commission. In the next place, there can be little doubt that the There is a dawn of hope for Dominion politics in the rumoured return to public life of the Hon. Mr. Tilley and Sir Alexander Galt. The Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick bears an honorable reputation for ability and probity, and he has been out of Parliament during its worst period. Bringing with him some of the dignity and judicial impartiality acquired in his high office, he is not likely to be a strong party man, and he is sure not to be a violent or unscrupulous one. From Sir Alexander Galt we have a right to expect even more than this. Independent in spirit and opinion, he has been forced out of alliance with one party, without taking refuge in another. He is a warm friend of National interests, and when they are advocated by him on the floor of Parliament, they will cease to be the plaything of party and stand honestly and squarely upon their merits. The financial and political knowledge and experience he will bring with him cannot fail to be of sterling value, and his genial temper must go far to improve and elevate the wretched tone at which our party politics are unhappily pitched. There is every reason to expect much from the reappearance of the two ex-Finance ministers, and it is earnestly to be hoped that they will not disappoint public expectation by still remaining in retirement. The times are out of joint, and public spirit, if nothing else, demands this sacrifice at their hands. The Fishery Commission now sitting at Halifax, affords additional proof, were any wanting, of the perfidious manner in which the American Government endeavours to evade treaty obligations. The case presented by their agent, Mr. Dwight Foster, shows clearly that they hope to force a decision in their favour by dint of mendacious pretension. By the Washington treaty of 1871, this Commission of three, one nominated by Great Britain, one by the United States, and a third by the Emperor of Austria, was constituted to decide upon the amount to be paid the Dominion for the use of the Fisheries. England claims $14,280,000: the Americans have the assurance to urge that, notwithstanding the express purpose of the Commission, they ought to pay nothing. The Treaty says that three arbitrators shall appraise the value of a property in dispute; the Americans now maintain that there is nothing to appraise. They actually claim that their admission of fish and fish oil free of duty, is an adequate return for the millions they will gain by the privilege they ask. Even that, it may be remarked, they have done their best to render nugatory by taxing the cans containing the exempt articles. Before looking at the case, we notice the effort to render the Commission abortive, by hinting that all three Commissioners must agree in any decision. Was that the way the German Commission acted? Is this not an arbitration; and, if not, why were three chosen-one by a Continental power? Clearly in order that, in case of a difference of opinion, a decision might be come to by the vote of a neutral party. It would be a worthy triumph of American finesse if Mr. Ensign H. Kellogg, who is, of course, instructed to support 'our country, right or wrong,' were permitted to grasp the future issue in the hollow of his hand. Let them try to apply one rule to Alabama claims, and another to Canadian Fishery claims, and our Do minion Parliament will soon make short work of their privileges on our coasts. Their case is so utterly incorrect, both in arguments and statements of fact, that it is difficult to expose its falsity with an even temper. Let us look at it in the light of common-sense. The treaty of 1818 gave the right of fishing within three miles of the shore-as Britain claims, from headland to headland ; as Americans contend, following inland a three-mile line, varying with the indentations of the coast, although both shores in the bays of Fundy and Chaleur are British territory. As the Globe pointedly shows, the American contention is absolutely untenable by the plain words of the treaty. Wheaton, in his International Law,' labours to prove that the treaty of 1783 was not abrogated by the war of 1812; but the distinct stipulations of 1818, at any rate, superseded it, and there remains nothing between the latter treaty and that of 1871, the Reciprocity arrangement having been abolished, after notice given by Mr. Lincoln. Now for the words of the treaty of 1818: 'And the United States hereby renounce, forever, any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish in or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America.' Fundy and Chaleur are such bays, and it is clear that American fishermen were excluded from them, and, therefore, it is the paltriest kind of lying to say that their claim was 'never surrendered.' Another palpable falsehood is one of fact: that the Americans obtain most of the mackerel from their own shores, or from deep-sea fishing; whereas, the bulk of these fish are obtained on our grounds, within three miles of the coasts of these bays. that, even were their false interpretation of the treaty of 1818 correct, they would be as far as ever from obtaining the benefit from our fisheries they desire. As for the equivalent in the exemption from duty of fish and fish-oil, it is a matter of utter indifference to us. The Americans must have the fish, whether admitted free or not, and we shall not pay the advance in the price. So The difference between the treaties of 1818 and 1871, for which Britain claims compensation, are thus stated in our case: The right to enter the great bays, like those of Fundy and Chaleur, within the lines drawn for the purpose of fishing; the right of fishing within the three-mile limit from shore; the use of the coast for the purpose of drying and curing fish; the privilege of traffic for bait, supplies, etc., in the Dominion and Newfoundland ports, and the right of transhipment of fish from the same. Now, these are the privileges for which the United States has the right to pay, if she wants them; and their value has been carefully appraised by our Government on evidence now being heard at Halifax. The additional equivalent of free fishing in United States ports is much of a piece with the free navigation of the rivers of Alaska, and equally valuable; and the economical argument is simply ludicrous in the mouths of people who refuse reciprocity of trade with us. The Globe, we are sorry to say, persists in attacking Sir John Macdonald, and holding him responsible for the surrender' of 1871. Our contemporary knows perfectly well that Sir John was an Imperial representative, not merely bound by preliminary instructions from Downing street, but by peremptory and continual orders sent from home. In point of fact, the treaty was directly negotiated between Washington and London by Mr. Fish and the Foreign Secretary, and the representatives of England at Washington were helpless, and, therefore, had no responsibility whatever. A New York paper tries to make out that the six years' delay in settling this matter must be laid at the door of Canada. The negotiations in which Mr. Brown took part began and ended in 1874; the delay, both before and since, has arisen from a characteristic disposition on the part of the United States to shirk the obligation to pay what they promised, under the treaty. It is to be hoped that there will be no ignominious Ashburton or Washington 'surrender' of Canadian rights this time. If any such manœuvre be attempted, we have, fortunately, the remedy in our own hands. The privileges were granted provisionally by an Act of the Dominion Parliament, and they may be revoked definitively by its repeal. Two circumstances have arisen to keep alive, in the public mind, the disgraceful events of July in Montreal. The murderers of poor Hackett are in a fair way of being brought to justice; but the True Witness persists in fanning the flame of religious strife by its coarse and violent articles. Not only does it denounce Orange processions, but also clamours for their suppression by statute; lays all the blame upon the members of the Order; virtually applauds the scoundrels who wantonly shot down Hackett, and then brutally kicked him when he was lying prostrate; and uses language of so inflammatory a nature that its words can have but one purpose-to provoke a breach of the peace, or, rather, to render any attempt to restore or preserve it abortive. One Irish Catholic society, we are sorry to say, has expressed its approval of the course adopted by the True Witness, and it is to be feared from the tone of their resolutions that other societies, not quite so outspoken, are of the same opinion. What particularly exasperates them is the manly rebuke administered by Father Stafford, of Lindsay, who did not hesitate to own that the Irish Catholics, and not the Orangemen, were to blame for the riots. In Ontario, it is pleasing to observe that none of the clergy, from the Archbishop to the parish priest, and no Catholic organ in the press, has uttered a word in extenuation of the lawless conduct of the rioters. The other circumstance is the recent action of the Imperial Government in reference to an Orange procession at Lurgan, a town on town on the railway, about equidistant from Belfast and Armagh. It would appear that Lurgan has a mixed population, and that there is a Roman Catholic quarter and a Protestant quarter. Both parties seem to take every opportunity of exasperating each other, and this provocation usually takes the form of a procession through the streets occupied by their party foes. The magistrates, acting upon three sworn informations that a breach of the peace was apprehended, called out the military and the mounted police, after informing the Orange leaders that they were at perfect liberty to walk through any other streets, and would be protected, but that they must either abandon the proposed route or abandon the procession. Sir M. Hicks Beach, the Irish Secretary, stated that similar action had been taken when a Roman Catholic procession was about to walk last August. Now some of our Reform papers, beginning to fear a falling away of the Catholic DorM Toronto closed on the 22nd ult., by the consent of both parties. On the previous evening, the Dunkin Association had resolved to abandon the contest, and in that they appear to have acted wisely. Taking ten thousand as the number of available votes, seven thousand had been recorded, giving the Anti-Dunkinites a majority of eleven hundred and sixteen. It is clear that, of the remaining three thousand, a large proportion were half-hearted supporters or secret opponents of the measure. That the majority could have been material League, attempt to institute a parallel be- cut down is improbable; indeed, if other electoral contests may be taken to furnish any analogy, it was more likely to be increased. The morale of an army is seriously impaired by a series of heavy disasters, and it is not otherwise with a minority after over two weeks of unavailing struggle at the polls. It was therefore politic to end a fruitless contest; for, by so doing, the majority remains almost certainly smaller than it would otherwise have been. Regarded in this light, either the present or any future effort, the decision of the Association was a prudent one. The chief advocate in our local press of the by-law, gives a salient instance of frank admission after defeat. In an editorial published on the day after the contest, it admits almost everything urged against the Act. Its machinery is bad, the mode of voting old-fashioned and cumbrous, and the results of its operation elsewhere seem uncertain and dubious. The only benefit derived from the submission of the by-law is that of gauging public opinion. This singular backing down after the event is noteworthy; because it is an admission that the by-law should not have been submitted at all until, first, the effects of the Act had been clearly ascertained, and secondly, its defects had been repaired by fresh legislation. Now it is clear that even if it were proved that the measure works well in the counties, that is no criterion at all of its probable effect in the cities. Kingston and Toronto have rejected it, and the other cities would inevitably follow their example. There are special reasons why the Act is unsuited to the urban centres of population, in addition to the general objections that might be pressed. As the Hon. Mr. Macdougall urged in a letter to the Telegram, in Toronto it would The voting on the Dunkin by-law in simply mean free trade in liquor, cheap and The state to which Ireland has been reduced by the combined action of bigotry, treason, and agrarianism, does not exist amongst us, and therefore we require no Peace Preservation Acts. We may add that in New York the authorities allow Orange processions and protect them, but, like the Armagh magistrates, they reserve to themselves the right of changing the route, if it be found. necessary or desirable. probably bad liquor, and wide-spread demoralization. Indeed, it must be obvious to everyone who reflects for a moment on the matter, that, however the case may stand in the rural districts, the Act should never have been made applicable to cities. With regard to the defects in the law, the first question is, which Parliament has power to remedy them? Mr. Crooks desired to amend the Act by changing the day of its coming into operation from the 1st of March to the 1st of May, the opening of the license year. Last session, at Ottawa, the member for West Toronto introduced a bill to provide that votes on any Dunkin by-law should be taken by ballot; but Mr. Blake opposed the bill, because he was of opinion that its passage would be ultra vires, and it was withdrawn. When the mere machinery of the Act is considered, there, are of course, some general points on which everyone is agreed; but, perhaps, the ballot would not be one of these, although it is absolutely necessary to protect, not exactly against intimidation, but against coercive influence, ecclesiastical, social, and domestic. No matter how subtle this influence may be, society has a right to protect itself against it. Anything which impedes the free exercise of a man's judgment and induces him to vote contrary to his own convictions, or not to vote at all, is a sin against free institutions. Furthermore, if a law of this kind is to continue on the statute book, although it is utterly repugnant to the genius both of our religious and constitutional systems, two provisions of Sir Wilfrid Lawson's Permissive Bill should be inserted to secure so decided a power of public opinion as to warrant its enactmant, three-fourths,for say two-thirds, of the votes cast should be necessary to its passage, or a clear majority of one-fifth of the number of votes on the roll. order to be worthy of the name of a British law, those deprived of their livelihood should be properly compensated, as England compensated the West Indian planters, although she did suddenly and violently enfranchise the slave. In It may be remarked here that the proposal to obtain an expression of public opinion on Prohibition by a plébiscite, at the next general election, is clean out of the way. That anyone should advocate so absurd an idea, is simply amazing. The introduction of this foreign excrescence,' as it has been aptly termed, would at once inflict a deadly stab upon responsible parliamentary government. Let it be once introduced as a precedent, and there is an end to our constitutional system. The moment the House of Commons becomes merely the registrar of rude popular behests, it will cease to be an estate worthy of respect or even of existence. Its calm deliberation, its mature judgment, the weight due to superior knowledge, ability, and experience, would be of no avail where ignorance and unreasoning fanaticism, ruled by rhetorical demagoguery, held sway. From the plébiscite of Pilate, which voted not this man but Barrabas,' to that which hurried Napoleon III. to Sedan and ruin, the system has produced nothing but madness and disaster. means multitudinism, in its worst form, trampling upon all individual rights, and hurrying the nation to certain ruin. people are dissatisfied with Parliamentary government, let them say so and boldly advocate mob-rule-the two cannot coexist together. The history of the French plébiscite ought of itself to make the very word stink in British nostrils. It If Four kinds of voters are enumerated by the Globe who have abstained from voting. The division is not true to the logical principles of classification, still it is suggestive. There are those who are strongly in favour of 'temperance,' but disapprove of 'coercive legislation; those who are not clear as to the merits of the Dunkin Act; those whose Conservatism makes them hostile to change; and those who are 'secretly' opposed to the law, but on various considerations' refrain from voting. The last is a tacit admission that illegitimate influences have been at work. The Conservatism' in the third, is used in a generic, and not a party, sense, and seems founded on a baseless theory that all change is Reform or progress, which is far from being the case, in other matters besides Prohibitory legislation. Reaction and retrogression are 'changes' as well as their contraries. see that in France at this moment, and we should see it in England and Canada, if the Habeas Corpus Act were repealed there or the law of Primogeniture re-enacted here. The first and second glide into one another imperceptibly, and the fourth is not distinct from them, but, taken together, they We |