The Toronto Mail and Empire, of November 23rd, stated that "Mr. Ross, who is himself a Prohibitionist, may be expected now to present legislation superseding the licensing system and making the sale of liquors, except for medicinal and religious purposes, illegal in Ontario.” The Ottawa Citizen, of two days later, declared that Mr. Ross was now suffering the penalty of trying to keep the liquor men in line while posing as a Prohibition sympathizer. The Woodstock Times on the same day, declared itself opposed to all Prohibition. The Toronto News described the situation confronting the Premier, to be "whether he will follow his own convictions in the matter; keep his word to the Temperance people, with whom he has been working for a quarter of a century, and enact a Prohibitory liquor law; or whether he will violate the pledge he made and evade the question by adopting one of the many subterfuges which the active brains of his journalistic allies are evolving." On December 2nd the London Free Press reminded the Premier that many important interests would go to the wall under Prohibition. The grape-growing industry, the making of cider, the growing of barley, would be destroyed. The proposed Referendum was described as "a cowardly retreat by a trick unknown to our laws and unprecedented in our legislation." The Hamilton Spectator criticised the Premier for not keeping his promise, and declared that the Liberal journals of the Province "talk about everything except the keeping or breaking of the Premier's promise." The Windsor Herald believed that there was no really strong feeling in the Province in favour of Prohibition. Of all the Conservative press, however, the most vigorous and direct in its denunciation of the policy in any form was the Toronto World-the organ of Mr. W. F. Maclean, M.P. The religious press of the Province dealt with the subject in most serious terms. On November 27th the Christian Guardian, the organ of the Methodist Church, after giving an historical review of the situation, stated that " Prohibition is one thing; Prohibition enforced is another thing." It would be easy to enforce an Act where only habitual drinkers were concerned, but in this case every kind of device would be adopted to bring the measure into disrepute. "One great result of this decision may be the shifting, reforming and cleaving afresh of political parties in Provincial politics." A week later the same paper reviewed the conditions under which the Manitoba Act had been upheld : These distinctions mean that the Provincial power cannot prohibit the drinking of liquor, which would be an extreme interference with personal habits; nor can it prohibit the manufacture or importation of liquor for certain purposes, which have always been deemed justifiable, and described as scientific, mechanical, medicinal and sacramental; nor can it prohibit the manufacture and exportation to territory outside the Province where Prohibition is not in force; but the Provincial power may wipe out all wholesale and retail transactions in liquor which are now carried on in licensed places and under Government regulations. Moderation was urged, but, at the same time, "Temperance men must never shrink from the fundamental position that this Province, which is now under a License law, must, in the near future, go under a Prohibition law." Then, however, would come the greatest diffi culties. It was easier to secure the Scott Act in the counties than it was to secure its enforcement and permanence." A somewhat extended period of preparation and work was suggested as better than any immediate legislation. In the pending elections "no Referendum or Plebiscite proposal should weaken the sense of responsibility resting on the representative of a constituency." The Westminster, of December 14th, followed up its first and well-known article by another. It pointed out the possibilities for a popular campaign which a great moral issue such as Prohibition presented to an orator like the Premier, and expressed the belief that he might win the elections upon it. But neither winning an election nor the passing of legislation was the vital consideration. "Experience has taught us a few lessons on the futility of hasty or inoperative legislation. Temperance reformers of the more extreme type are revising their theories of reform and are recognizing more clearly the importance of constant education and active moral agencies as essential to effective Prohibitory laws." State ownership or control of the liquor traffic was suggested as an alternative and important subject of consideration. The Church Record, the Anglican-Evangelical organ, of December 15th, rather regretted the revival of this agitation. "The Temperance cause is making progress in this country." In the rural districts drunkenness was rare, and in the cities young men were finding it advisable, from business and personal reasons, to leave liquor alone. "We should like to impress upon our readers the truth that the Church's work is to teach Temperance on the basis of the moral, not of the civil law." As expressing, nominally, the opinion of the Prohibitionists, the Royal Templar, the chief organ of the party, declared that it was now too late to inquire whether a Prohibitory law could be enforced. That should have been thought of before. "The issue to-day is a very simple one. Is a deliberate and long-standing promise to be held sacred?" During the same month the Toronto Wine and Spirit Journal called upon the liquor men to organize against the "irksome ideas" of the Prohibitionists. Any attempt to enforce such legislation would be farcical in the extreme. On December 3rd a large gathering of the Ontario Branch of the Dominion Alliance was held, and the following Resolution passed unanimously: That we authorize a deputation to wait on the Provincial Government to remind the Government of the Premier's assurance given to a similar deputation when the Manitoba case was sub judice; to express our views as to the great importance of the decision given as settling the question of Provincial jurisdiction; to repeat the request for effective and enforced Prohibition to the full measure of Provincial power, and that such legislation be introduced at next Session; and to ask the Government for an early intimation of the plans and methods by which such Prohibition is to be secured and established in our Province. Three days later the Grand Division of the Sons of Temperance of Ontario met at Brantford, approved the action of the Provincial Alliance, and appointed a deputation to join them in waiting upon the Premier.* Clauses in the Resolution hinting at a Referendum were voted down. On December 10th the Ontario section of the Prohibition Committee of the Methodist General Conference met in Toronto, with the Rev. W. Kettlewell in the chair, and passed a Resolution appointing a deputation to wait upon the Government and "request a fulfilment of their promise by the introduction, at the approaching Session, of a Bill to prohibit the liquor traffic to the extent of their ascertained powers.' On December 11th the Rev. T. C. Scott addressed a meeting of the W.C.T.U. at London, and defined, with some care, the meaning of two phrases then in very common use. "A Plebiscite is the means of finding out the opinion or sentiments of the people on any matter, such as, for example, the Prohibition of the liquor traffic. A Referendum is a legislative enactment, finished in every detail, which, upon being referred to the people and receiving the sanction of the majority, becomes law." He thought the sentiment of the Province on this subject had been sufficiently tested and that a law should now be enacted. A Resolution was then unanimously passed stating that the Government had pledged themselves to this end through Sir Oliver Mowat, Mr. Hardy and Mr. Ross, and concluding with the statement that "we believe it to be the duty of the Ontario Legislature to grant, without further delay, the Prohibition they have so frequently promised, and the people have so persistently demanded. We cannot accept a Referendum as any fulfilment of past pledges, as such a course disowns all responsibility for the measure, and would render it little likely to receive a fair enforcement." At a meeting of City Council Division of the Royal Templars, in Toronto, on December 16th, a Resolution was carried unanimously calling upon the Premier to implement the promises made by his predecessors and reaffirmed by himself, to "fairly and squarely face the question." It also protested against "any subterfuge or equivocation in the shape of a Referendum or otherwise," and pledged support to the Government if a Prohibition measure was passed. During the next few weeks, and through the early months of the ensuing year, various meetings were held in favour of Prohibition in the Province; party candidates were questioned as to their views; and an active agitation maintained for some time. The Railway Award to Nova Scotia The history of the case, in which this Province was awarded $671,000 in the year 1901, is a lengthy one, of a somewhat political nature, and should be briefly summarized here. In 1876 the Government of Mr. P. Č. Hill, in Nova Scotia, entered into a contract with the Halifax and Cape Breton Railway and Coal Company for the completion of a piece of railway extending from New Glasgow to the Strait of Canso, and undertook to pay, and did pay, a subsidy of $671,836 for the work done. It was also arranged in the contract that the Provincial Government could acquire the road at any time on payment to the *It was not until the new year that the Premier received this deputation. Later on, it may be added, a Prohibition Bill was presented to the Legislature and carried with a Referen dum clause attached. Company of the amount they had paid out over and above the subsidy received from the Government. During the succeeding year the Dominion Parliament authorized the transfer of the Pictou Branch of the Intercolonial Railway to the person or Company constructing a line of railway from New Glasgow to the Strait of Canso. The construction was duly carried out, and, on April 4, 1880, an arrangement was made between the Provincial Government and the Company by which the former should be at liberty within two years from November 4, 1880, to take over all the railways and property of the Company, including the Pictou Branch, on paying the actual outlay of the Company-exclusive of Federal and Provincial subsidies. Finally, Government possession was taken of what had come to be known as the Eastern Extension Railway, the sum of $1,200,000 was paid over and a demand presented to the Federal Government for the transfer of the Pictou Branch upon which the profitable operation of the entire road depended. By a Federal Order-in-Council, of October 20, 1883, two conditions were imposed upon this transfer-one the maintenance of existing through rates and the other an expenditure of $800,000 by the Province upon rolling stock. These conditions were claimed by the Provincial Government to be too onerous, the transfer was not accepted, the entire road was ceded to the Dominion authorities, and re-payment of the original subsidy of $671,000 demanded. By correspondence and joint Resolution of the two Houses at Halifax the claim was pressed, but without success, until Sir Wilfrid Laurier's Government took up the matter, and appointed a Board of Arbitration composed of Chief Justice Sir George W. Burton, of Toronto; Mr. F. B. Wade, Q.C., of Halifax, and Mr. E. J. Barbeau, of Montreal, to investigate the case and report a fair and equitable settlement. Principles and justice rather than strict rules and the letter of the law were to guide them. The result was announced, on March 13th, and the above amount awarded the Province. The Arbitrators gave reasons for not allowing any interest upon the claim, and also pointed out in the Award that the Pictou Branch was a most valuable property and that the Eastern Extension could not profitably be operated without the same. They were both really the property of the Province, they had cost about $4,000,000, and the Dominion, by taking the course it had, secured both properties for the amount paid the Company, namely, $1,200,000. The decision did not end the claims against the Dominion Government on account of the Eastern Extension Railway, as the Counties of Pictou, Antigonish and Guysboro' had each furnished a free right of way, and they still claimed $71,000 for land damages. The decision of the Arbitrators was presented to the Nova Scotia Assembly by Mr. J. W. Longley, Attorney-General, on March 22nd. He referred to the long struggle which the Province had fought out with the Dominion upon this question, to the high character of the Arbitrators appointed and the vigorous and able opposition to the claims of Nova Scotia which had been presented to that tribunal by Mr. E. Lafleur, K.C., the legal defender of the Federal case. He congratulated the Government and the House upon the settlement thus obtained. Mr. C. S. Wilcox, the Opposition Leader, while rejoicing that the Province had received this money, defended those who, in the earlier stages of the matter, had opposed the Government claims and who conscientiously believed that the Province was not entitled to press the matter. Mr. E. M. McDonald and others followed in a lengthy debate, during which the claim of the Counties to special indemnity was presented by various speakers. A prolonged debate took place in the House of Commons at Ottawa, on May 22nd, regarding this Award. In presenting the motion the Prime Minister explained the causes leading up to the proposed vote, and expressed a strong conclusion in the premises. "When the Dominion Government practically took possession of the road in spite of the agreement it had with the Government of Nova Scotia, I have no hesitation in characterizing it as an absolute breach of faith." The Hon. Mr. Haggart accepted the Prime Minister's general statement of history but demurred at the alleged unfairness of the Dominion Government's demands in 1883. Federal control of rates was essential and it was equally necessary that the Provincial Government should guarantee the efficient working of the road. So far as its value in those years was concerned the road was a worthless asset to the Province, as the latter had not sufficient means to run it. "As to the legality of the claim of Nova Scotia, there is no doubt whatever that there is no legal claim." The case had been submitted to Sir John Thompson and successive Ministers of Justice in the late Government and they had all reported to this effect. The Arbitrators, therefore, had dealt with the equities of the case. Authority should have been obtained from Parliament to submit the matter to arbitration under such conditions. Mr. James Clancy quoted the Hon. W. T. Pipes, the Hon. Mr. Fielding, when in the Provincial Legislature, and the Hon. J. W. Longley, to prove that the assumption of the road by the Dominion Government was regarded in the period around 1883 as having been far from an injury to the Province. There was, he thought, no claim for compensation which could not be presented on account of railways in every other Province. In any case the road had become a part of the Intercolonial and was being worked at the public expense for the special benefit of Nova Scotia. "Where are we going to stop?" Upon the same basis Ontario could claim some $16,000,000 from the Dominion Government. The Province of Nova Scotia had never alleged that an actual loss was suffered. It was, he declared, part of a general raid upon the Dominion Treasury, under Liberal auspices, by the smaller Provinces. This seemed to be the general Conservative contention. The Hon. Mr. Blair and the Premier, however, claimed that it was simply compensation for a breach of contract. The Provincial The debates in the Legislature and the policy of the papers and parties during the year led up naturally to the dissolution of the Assembly and the elections on October 2nd. A Convention of the Conservative party -under the leadership of Mr. C. S. Wilcox-was held at Halifax on |