Page images
PDF
EPUB

for the first offence; double this penalty for the second offence; and six months imprisonment for the third offence. The legislation was carried by the Farquharson Government and was apparently intended to finally settle a much vexed question-though in its operation the City of Charlottetown only was included because of the rest of the Island being already under the Canada Temperance Act. The Patriot, of May 30, 1901, dealt with the situation as follows: "The measure is a strong one and the penalties for its infringement sufficiently heavy to put an end to the traffic if properly enforced, and to enforce it the Government are determined at whatever cost. This law was passed in earnest, and in earnest its provisions will be carried out." The question of the legality of this legislation was raised during and after its passage. The Premier and the Hon. Benjamin Rogers went to Ottawa, and stated upon their return that the Minister of Justice had reassured them upon this point. In the Senate, on March 20, 1901, the Hon. Mr. Mills referred to this matter in answer to a question. He had had an unofficial conversation with two of the Provincial Ministers, when he reviewed the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on Provincial Prohibition, and had said he thought the Island Act was well within it. He had given no official opinion." Various meetings were held on the Island, and this subject, as well as the better enforcement of the Scott Act (Canada Temperance Act), were generally discussed in the press.

[ocr errors]

At a Citizens' meeting in Charlottetown, on February 15th, Mayor Campbell declared the Scott Act to be unworkable, and denied having been elected upon a Temperance ticket. On March 15th the annual meeting of the Provincial Branch of the Dominion Alliance was held in the same city, with Mr. John Anderson in the chair. The President's address stated that the Prohibition measure of the past year had been prepared by a Committee of the Alliance at the request of the Government. "It was then taken and revised by the Government, and I regret to say very much weakened in its essential provisions, and then passed without any alteration or amendment being permitted by the Legislature." He declared the Bill to be "inadequate and defective," and of very little use in stopping or lessening the sale of liquors. Various Resolutions were then passed as to the working of the Scott Act. In this latter connection a delegation waited upon the Provincial Government, on March 26th, and urged the better enforcement of the Act. The Premier, in his reply, stated that the public prosecutors would be instructed to carry out the Act according to its spirit and intention. At a meeting of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, on June 20th, strong approval was expressed of the new Prohibition law. The Government was generally understood to have some definite expression of opinion from the Hon. David Mills, K.C., Dominion Minister of Justice, regarding the constitutionality of their measure, and, early in April, a letter from Senator Mills was made public, dated April 7, 1898, and assuring the Hon. Mr. Farquharson that: "There is nothing to prevent any Province

prohibiting the sale of intoxicants for consumption as a beverage within the limits of the Province, if so inclined."

It was finally decided to carry the Prohibition Act into effect despite the judgment of the Supreme Court of Manitoba regarding the unconstitutionality of the law in that Province. Prior to doing so, however, the Premier introduced, on April 17th, and carried through the Legislature, an amendment which provided that while the Act should prohibit transactions in liquor within the Province, "it shall not affect, and is not intended to affect, bona fide transactions in liquor between a person in the Province of Prince Edward Island and a person in another Province, or in a foreign country." In speaking to this amendment, on April 24th, the Hon. Mr. Farquharson explained that it was intended to prevent interference with trade and commerce. He was very explicit as to the enforcement of the Act. "He considered the liquor men of Charlottetown had had their day. They had 12 months notice that a new order of things took place on June 5th. If they had placed a large quantity of liquors in stock it was their own loss." A few days after the law came into operation the City Council of Charlottetown protested vigorously against the enactment. They objected to the preceding Council not having been consulted, and to the fact that the citizens had not been asked to approve of the measure. They pointed out that grave doubts existed as to its constitutionality, and alleged that the city might be mulcted in heavy damages if its officers joined in enforcing the Act. In view of these conditions, and of the statement by the Premier that the Government would take full responsibility for its enforcement, as well as two-thirds of all the fines imposed, the following Resolution was passed without discussion and with only one dissentient: "That it would be against the interest of the citizens that the city, by its officers or servants, should in any way interfere in prosecutions brought under the said Act, so as to render the city liable for damages in respect thereof." The Police Committee was also authorized to instruct the police officers in their duties in this connection. Upon June 12th following the Methodist Church Conference of the Charlottetown District met and passed a Resolution congratulating the Government upon their policy in this respect. "The District pledges its hearty support in every effort to make the law as effective as possible, and very strongly expresses dissatisfaction with the City Council in its refusal to allow its officers to enforce the Act." Considerable controversy and some local friction followed.

The Policy

of the

Manitoba
Liberals

On December 11th the first Liberal Convention during fifteen years in the history of the Province was opened at Winnipeg. Mr. D. W. Bole, Chairman of the Provincial Executive of the party, presided, and amongst those with him on the platform were the late Premier, the Hon. Thomas Greenway, M.P.P.; the Hon. Clifford Sifton, M.P., Dominion Minister of the Interior; Mr. W. F. McCreary, M.P., Dr. Rutherford, ex-M.P., and Mr. Valentine Winkler, M.P.P. A Resolution was carried unanimously expressing the Convention's "profound sense of

"

the great services given to Manitoba and the Liberal party by the Hon. Thomas Greenway during his twenty-two years of public life in the Provincial Legislature"; its confidence in him as Leader of the party; and its approval of his Government's record as one of economy, careful legislation and just administration." In reply, Mr. Greenway said that he had imagined himself practically out of politics; that he was surprised at their wanting him to remain in the leadership, and that he thought himself too old; that he believed, however, in his late Government as 'the best that had ever existed in a Canadian Province." He was unanimously re-elected Leader of the Opposition. The Convention was private, but at its close eight Resolutions were made public defining and announcing the party policy. In this platform, alarm was expressed at the "rapidly increasing Provincial expenditure" and greater economy demanded; confidence in the Laurier Administration at Ottawa was recorded and appreciation expressed of a tariff policy carried out along lines leading to revenue duties only; regret was stated at "the introduction into this Province by the present Provincial Administration of the spoils system"; the principle of manhood suffrage and one man, one vote, was re-endorsed and a protest registered against the alleged action of the Provincial Government in "discriminating against particular nationalities" in the matter of registration; condemnation was expressed of the Government's policy in "removing from municipalities the right to tax railway corporations"; and it was stated that the system of registration of voters recently adopted by the Legislature was cumbersome, defective and expensive." Some minor points were referred to, but these were the main items of the policy as announced.

The

Prohibition

The discussion over the general question of Prohibition during the year was considerable in this Province Question in and, in the end, became widespread throughout the Manitoba Dominion as a result of the decision of the Judical Committee of the Imperial Privy Council upon the constitutionality of Manitoba's law. That measure, passed by Mr. Hugh John Macdonald's Government early in 1900, was brought by the Roblin Government before the Provincial Supreme Court for decision as to the power and right of the Province to prohibit the sale of liquor. It was to come into operation on June 1, 1901. On February 20, 1901, the Dominion Alliance of Manitoba met in Winnipeg and Mr. E. L. Taylor, the President, delivered a long address reviewing the history of the movement in the Province and expressing confidence in the general terms and character of the Prohibitory Act. The Royal Templars of Temperance met on the same day and also heartily and unanimously endorsed it. In the meantime the constitutionality of the measure was being considered by the Supreme Court of Manitoba under the terms of certain technical questions submitted by the Government. The judgment of the Court was rendered by Chief Justice Killam, on February 24th, as an unanimous opinion in which he was joined by his colleagues the Hon. J. Dubuc, the Hon. A. E. Richards and the

Hon. J. D. Bain.

In his statement of the matter the Chief Justice declared that "the Legislature has exceeded its powers in exacting the Liquor Act as a whole "; that the various items of that measure as specified in the Case submitted were consequently without the jurisdiction of the Legislature; and that the Hudson's Bay Company were, therefore, not subject to the terms of the Act for the same reason that the public were relieved from them. The Counsel for the Government, who contended before the Court for the constitutionality of the law, were the Hon. C. H. Campbell, K.C., Attorney-General, Mr. J. A. M. Aikins, K.C., Mr. W. R. Mulock, K.C., and Mr. E. L. Taylor. The License Holders of the Province were represented by Mr. F. H. Phippen, and the Hudson's Bay Company by Mr. H. M. Howell, K.C.

On March 28th, following, the Attorney-General proposed in the Legislature an amendment to the Liquor Act by which the new law, instead of coming into force on June 1st as enacted, should come into operation only upon the proclamation of the Lieut.-Governor-inCouncil. The Government would thus be able to appeal to the Judical Committee of the Imperial Privy Council from the judgment of the Manitoba Court. It was at once passed through the necessary readings without opposition. The Supreme Court of the Province was then asked for leave to appeal the case to the Judical Committee but on May 6th Chief Justice Killam refused to grant the request and his judgment was concurred in by Justices Bain and Richards. By its permission, however, the case was argued before the Privy Council Committee in London, on July 10th, with a Court composed of Lord Hobhouse, Lord Macnaghten, Lord Robertson and Lord Lindley. The Counsel for the appellants were Mr. R. B. Haldane, K.C., Mr. R. Lane, jr., and the Hon. C. H. Campbell, K.C., and for the respondents the Hon. Edward Blake, K.C., M.P., and Mr. F. H. Phippen. Mr. E. L. Newcombe watched the case for the Dominion Government. The appellants, or the Manitoba Government, urged that the appeal should be allowed and the Manitoba judgment reversed on the ground that the matters dealt with in the Liquor Act come within the Provincial powers as expressed in the British North America Act and that the Liquor Act did not compete with any existing Federal legislation or in any way encroach upon Federal authority. The respondents, or License Holders' Association, asked that the Manitoba Court's judgment be affirmed because the prohibitions, preventions and restrictions of the Liquor Act were in excess of the powers of the Provincial Legislature and in conflict with the powers and legislation of the Federal Parliament; because the Prohibition or restriction of the import of goods produced in other Provinces was in direct contravention of the British North America Act; because the Liquor Act unlawfully interfered with the system of trade and taxation which rested in the hands of the Federal authorities; because it contravened the Dominion Inland Revenue Law. Judgment was reserved after Messrs. Haldane, Campbell and Phippen had also addressed the Court.

On November 22nd it was announced that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had advised the King to discharge the judgment of the Court of King's Bench of Manitoba under which the Manitoba Act was declared to be unconstitutional and void. Lord Macnaghten delivered the opinion and stated that although eleven questions had been submitted to the Manitoba Court, the Law Lords had only considered one-that of the power of the Manitoba Legislature to pass the Act. To this the answer was in the affirmative, and the Committee believed that it would practically answer all the other questions referred to them in this connection. This decision created wide discussion. The Hon. Mr. Macdonald, the father of the measure, was at once interviewed by the Winnipeg Telegram, and spoke frankly on the subject. "It was the judgment I had expected; in fact, I believed when the Act was introduced that this would be the result and that, although it went very near to dangerous points, it was always within the competence of the Legislature of the Province." Others were interviewed, and it was pointed out that all would be uncertainty until the Government had declared their intention of either proclaiming and enforcing the Act or of asking the next Session of the Legislature to repeal it. The Hon. Mr. Roblin was in Toronto on November 30th, and, to the Mail and Empire, said that the Government were not at all surprised at the decision. It was what the AttorneyGeneral had told them would probably result upon his return from London. The Act could, he explained, only go into force by proclamation, and they had not yet had time to deal with the subject. Speaking to the Montreal Gazette, on December 2nd, Senator Watson, of Manitoba, stated that there was no doubt as to public sentiment in the Province being favourable to Prohibition. "The people of Manitoba voted for it and, as the Privy Council says the Act is constitutional, I do not see why it should not be enforced." At the same time he pointed out that many people who had voted for the law would not help to enforce it, and some would be the first to violate its provisions.

Temperance
Questions

in other

In Nova Scotia, on March 5th, a proposal was presented to the City Council of Halifax, outlining new legislation along the lines of high license and greater Provinces freedom of sale within certain defined limits. The matter elicited a keen discussion of existing conditions in the Capital and elsewhere in the Province. After passing the Council the proposals were rejected by the Temperance Committee of the Legislative Assembly. On May 7th the Maritime Prohibition Convention met at Truro, N.S., with a small attendance. The Rev. Dr. Joseph McLeod was elected President. The Scott Act was discussed, and it was decided to prepare a Memorial to the Government asking that provision be made for the searching of suspicious premises at night, and hard labour for convicted liquor dealers. The President denounced the Gothenburg system vigorously, and declared it "the most iniquitous

* A Provincial Referendum was held in March, 1902, and the Act was voted down by a substantial majority.

« PreviousContinue »