UC-NRLF 
 
 B 3 lEb bEfi 
 
 OCEEDINGS 
 
 IN THE 
 
 . . y \ 
 
 >iANITOBA SCHOOL CASE 
 
 HEAR!) B!:F0R'. 
 
 HER MAJESTY'S PRIVY COUNCIL FOR CANADA 
 
 FEBRUARY 26-H TO MARCH 7tf, 1895. 
 
 T T A W A 
 
 G O V E R X M >; X T P R I N T I N (J BUREAU 
 
 1895 
 
IHKEIEY 
 
 BRARY 
 
 Iiv6^.>l-T Of 
 lALlfOUNIA 
 
PROCEEDINGS 
 
 IN THE 
 
 MANITOBA SCHOOL CASE 
 
 HEARD BEFORE 
 
 r~ 
 
 HER MAJESTY'S PRIVY COUNCIL FOR CANADA 
 
 B'EBRUARY 26th TO MARCH 7th, 1895 
 
 ^' It* I 
 
 >0 T T A W A 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU 
 
 1895 
 
k/\H'^ 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 Preliminary meeting re fixing date for hearing appeal 1 
 
 Argument of Mr. Ewart 4 
 
 Argument of Mr. McCarthy 25 
 
 Reply of Mr. Ewart 89 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Exhibits A to Q 112 
 
 344 
 
IN HER MAJESTY^S PRIVY COUNCIL 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 DOMINION OF CANADA 
 
 ARGUMENT ^m SCHOOLS IN MANITOBA 
 
 Ottawa, 26th February, 1895. 
 The Privy Council met at 11 o'clock a. m. 
 
 Present : — Sir Mackenzie Bowell, Sir Adolphe Caron, Hon. Mr. Foster, Hon. Mr. 
 Patterson, Hon. Mr. Haggart, Hon. Mr. Ouimet, Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, 
 Hon. Mr. Ives, Hon. Mr. Daly, Hon. Mr. Angers, Hon. Mr. Dickey, and Hon. 
 Mr. Montague. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — We are prepared to hear the continuation of the argu- 
 ment of Mr. Ewart on this matter. It will be remembered that he spoke at a previous 
 meeting of the Council, and he will now go on. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Mr. President and gentlemen of the Privy Council, I appear 
 here for the province of Manitoba, and before the argument is entered upon, I desire to 
 state on behalf of the Government of Manitoba that they have had no opportunity of 
 making any preparation for this argument, that the notice of this meeting was only 
 received by them by telegraph on Saturday week. As you know, the Provincial Govern- 
 ment are now busily engaged in the work of conducting the session ; under the cir- 
 cumstances they say that there is no possibility for them to px-epare an ai-gument, or to 
 give that attention to the matter which its importance demands. I am desired, therefore 
 hj the Attorney General "to protest, " to use his own language, " and most vigorously, 
 against the absolutely short notice which has been given." I do that now respectfully, 
 before the argument is entered upon, as of course it would not be fair to my learned 
 friend, who appears for the minority, to allow him make his argument, and then for 
 me to make this statement. 
 
 Mr. Ewart. — On behalf of the Roman Catholic minority, we will not object to any 
 reasonable postponement my learned friend may ask for the purpose of preparing his case. 
 
But lis lie hiis not indicated the length of the postponement he desires, I am unable to 
 say whether we will oppose his request or not. If it is a reasonably short postponement 
 for the purpose of prejiaration, I will not object. 
 
 Sir M.vcKKNZiE UowKLL. — I was going to ask you, INIi'. McCarthy, what time would 
 yuu leiiuire to prepare your argument '/ 
 
 Mr. McCauthv. — It is not so much for myself I am speaking as for the Attorney 
 General ; and what T rather gatheied from him, though he has not said so in words, 
 was that he desired to have been here himself. It is a matter which involves the edu- 
 cational system of the province, a question which, of course, has attracted a great deal 
 of attention in IManitol)a, and has been a subject of discussion in more than one session. 
 I think what he would like is such a postponement as would enable him to go on with 
 the work of the session and to come here after the session. You are aware, of course, 
 that Mr. Greenway, the First Minister, is ill, and the leadership of the House, I suppose, 
 devolves upon Mr. Sifton, the Attorney General. He instructed me that he telegraphed 
 to this effect on Saturday, to the Secretary of State. 
 
 ^Ir. EwAUT. — I would object most strenuously to any postponement over the present 
 session of the legislature. You are aware that there has already been very great delay 
 in reaching a solution of this case, and that the difficulties that the minority in Manitoba 
 ha^•e been labouring under, have been almost insurmountable, extending so far as that 
 they have been unable to maintain a great many of their schools, and consequently the 
 children go without that education which my clients believe they ought to have. If 
 the postponement goes over this session, it Avill be impossible to make much progress 
 with the case until the local legislature meets again a year from now ; because, as you 
 are all aware, if this government decides, as I hope it will, to make a request to the 
 Manitoba Government, the fiist step is to submit to them some law which it is proposed 
 they should pass ; for atter that submission took place the Dominion Parliament could 
 do nothin" until a refusal came from the Local Government. The delay, therefore, 
 which my learned friend asks for, is not merely for a few days or a few weeks, it is a 
 delay for one year. I think, therefore, that the circumstances mentioned by my learned 
 friend are not such as to recommend his proposition to you. Indeed, we have in the 
 Queen's Speech, in opening the Local Legislature a few day ago, this statement : 
 
 " Whether or not a demand will be made by the Federal Government that that 
 Act shall be modified, is not yet known to my government ; but it is not the intention 
 of my government in any way to recede from its determination to uphold the present 
 public school system which, if left to its own operation, would in all probability, soon 
 become universal throughout the province." 
 
 I think those who ai^e responsible for that statement cannot urge as a reason for 
 postponing this case twelve months, that they have not had time to consider their posi- 
 tion, for tliey have had time to consider their position. 
 
 j\lr. McCarthy. — That is not our ground. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — Nor can they urge, I think, that it is necessary for a proper presen- 
 tation of their case that the Attorney General should be here. They have told you in 
 advance what they intend to do, and surely my learned friend need not repeat that. I 
 do not think it can be urged that they have had no opportunity for preparation. It is 
 extraordinary that they have had no time to prepare themselves when this question has 
 been before them for the last four years ; and my learned friend has certainly had plenty 
 of time to consider it, for he has been instructing the people of Canada upon this sub- 
 ject for the last two years : he is therefore perfectly qualified, I should think, to make 
 such an argument as can be made on behalf of the Manitoba Government. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — Have you any idea, Mr. McCarthy, as to the length of 
 
 the session ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — My learned friend can say better than I with regard to that. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — It is not expected to be very long this time. 
 
 Sir ^Mackenzie Bowell. — Have they intimated to you the probable length of the 
 session 1 
 
 jNIr. McCarthy. — No. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — If it is put off until after the session, it will delay action 
 for a year, whatever that may be. 
 
Mr. McCarthy. — That will undoubtedly be the effect of it. What I desire to say- 
 is that the Attorney General did not ask for any particular postponement, but the tenor 
 of his letter is that he desires to present the case himself. He looks upon it as a matter 
 of threat importance — not exactly with the same view as my learned friend has presented. 
 He does not want, of course, a conflict with the Dominion. Although is is plain enough 
 that the province does not intend to obey any remedial order that may be made, at the 
 same time it is desirable there should be no conflict, and consequently, in order that I 
 may show to this Council, if possible, that the Council ought not to interfere, I require 
 to have a minuter knowledge of the old school system and of the practical working of 
 the present system, than I am able to afford now, and it was impossible for me, with 
 the time at my disposal, to have mastered the subject. I am not going to answer the 
 personal observations of my learned friend ; I hope personalities will be kept out of 
 the contest. I appear here as counsel for the Manitoba Government, I do not appear 
 as a public man ; and I desire to present the case without regard to any other consider- 
 ations than those affecting the province. It is a matter affecting the province only, 
 and I have not yet been able to acquaint myself sufficiently with the practical working 
 of the late system as contrasted with the working of the present system. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ives. — ^Slight I ask, in case the adjournment is not made as you suggest, 
 would a short adjournment be of any particular advantage? If not, you might as well 
 go on now as to go on a week from now. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — The only advantage of a short adjournment would be to enable 
 me to communicate with the Attorney General and get specific instructions on mattex's 
 as to which I may say I have no information, and I do not know where I can get it. 
 I only received a lot of papers on Saturday at mid-day ; and I find that by some over- 
 sightj! papers which ought to have been included in the parcel were not included. The 
 object of an adjournment would be to enable me to consult with the Manitoba Govern- 
 ment, in other words, to receive instructions. I have got some instructions here, three 
 or four sheets of paper, merely saying that they inclose me so many papers, and that 
 they have not had time to make any special preparation for the argument. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — I may say that the Manitoba Government has had pre- 
 cisely the same notice as the minority, having been notified by telegraph, anxious as we 
 were to be in a position to take action one way or the other. What length of time, 
 the shortest time, would you think it necessary to enable you to have a consultation 
 with the Attorney General of Manitoba? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — It seems to me it would probably be necessary for some person 
 to come from there here, or for some person to go from here there, in case the Council 
 thought fit to allow an adjournment of sufficient length. I may say that when I saw 
 in the press this morning that there was a possibility that the matter might be post- 
 poned, I telegraphed at once to Mr. Sifton to know whether he would care for any 
 shorter postponement than a postponement till after the session. I would be better able 
 to answer when I get that reply. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Daly. — A letter leaving here to-morrow morning will reach Winnipeg at 
 10 o'clock on Friday. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Mr. Ewai-t says two or three days. Then, of course, they would 
 want two or three days for preparation, to get the papers together, and another two or 
 three days for the papers to come back. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — I may say on behalf of the Council that we could not 
 think for a moment of consenting to an adjournment till after the session. Any 
 reasonable adjournment, such as Mr. Ewart has agreed to, we would be quite willing 
 to accede to. The Council will consult upon the length of the adjournment, and give 
 our decision at three o'clock this afternoon. 
 
 H 
 
At 3 o'clock p.m. the Privy Council met again. 
 
 Sir .M.\OKiCNZiK BowELL. — Mr. McCarthy, will you kindly inform us of the nature 
 of the rtply you have received from the Manitol)a Government? 
 
 Mr. McCak'iiiy. — 1 have received a toniiniinication from the Attorney General in 
 whieh he says : " Postponement of sufficient length to he of assistance in the prepa-. 
 ration of the argument, accepted. Otherwise, proceed." I think that, taking three 
 days to communicate with them and three days to get a reply, allowing a day or two to 
 spare, probably Thurstlay next would be a convenient time, a time that would be of 
 some service. That would be eight days. 
 
 Sir Mackknzik Bowell. — Could you not telegraph them to send the Superintend- 
 ent of Education down here, or any one connected with this matter? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I am notable to say as to that. In adra t communication I have 
 prepared, I make the suggestii-n that some official from the Educational Department 
 shiiuld come. The 7th would do in a sense, but some accident might occur to cause 
 delay. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — I am afraid that would be too long. If we could be sure that the 
 Lesrislature would remain in session a sufficient time aft'^r that to enable them to con- 
 sider anything that might go to them from this Government, I would make no objection 
 at all. But, as I was informed before T came :nvay that the session would be extremely 
 short, I am afraid that if there is a delay now of even a week, it will defeat our purpose. 
 It seems to me my learned fi-iend might act upon the suggestion of Sir Mackenzie 
 Bowell, and send a telegram to bring down the Superintendent of Education with the 
 papers required, and he could be here in three days. Then, giving Mr. McCarthy a day 
 to consult with him, we might set on this week. 
 
 Hon. Mr. OuiMET. — Would not Monday next be a reasonable time? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — It could not be earlier than Monday. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — Would Monday suit you ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I am not speaking personally at all. Of course, I want to meet 
 the views of the Council as far as I possibly can. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell — We will adjourn till Monday at 11 a.m. 
 
 Ottawa, 4th March, 1895. 
 
 The Privy Council met at 11 o'clock a.m., in the Railway Committee Room of the 
 House of Commons. 
 
 Present : — Sir Mackenzie Bowell, Sir Adolphe Caron, Hon. Mr. Costigan, Sir 
 Chai'les Hibbert Tupper, Hon. Mr. Foster, Hon. Mr. Haggart, Hon. Mr. Ouimet, 
 Hon. Mr. Daly, Hon. Mr. Angers, Hon. Mr. Ives, Hon. Mr. Dickey, and Hon. Mr. 
 Montague. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — Mr. Ewart, we are ready to hear your argument. 
 
 Mr. EwAKT. — Hun. gentlemen of the Privy Council : Prior to the union with Canada 
 of Rupert's Land and the North-west Territories in 1870, there w. re in the vicinity 
 of the Red River about 12,000 settlers, of whom half were Roman Catholics and 
 the other half Protestants. Tiiese people and their fathers had for many years 
 lived happily and contentedly together und r the paternal control of the Hudson's 
 Bay Com| any. This era was, however, to come to a close, and by union with Canada 
 th'^ territory was to u dergo a complete transformation. Railways, immigration, 
 and the doubtful, blessings of a written constitution were to take the place of 
 hunting, isolation and patriarchal government. It was a great and momentous 
 change, and the settlers naturally desired to know beforehand what was to be the 
 exact nature of it ; what was to be their position with reference to the ownership 
 of the land ; what compensation was to be given to them for the extinction of the 
 Indian title ; what sort of government they were to have ; and what constitutional 
 guarantees were to be provided with reference to those subjects of legislation which 
 both English and French, Protestant and Roman Catholic, had always thought it proper to 
 
provide safeguards. With almost inconceivable folly no satisfaction of any kind was 
 given to the settlers, indeed no communication was had with them upon any of the sub- 
 jects. In Colonel Wolseley's language : " No attempt was made by the Ottawa Gov- 
 ernment to conciliate their newly acquired subjects. * * No explanations 
 were made as to what was to be the policy of Canada in its dealings with Rupert's 
 Land. * * Unfortunately the arrangement entered into had an air of pur- 
 chase about it, and a cry resounded throughout the North-west that its inhabitants 
 were being bought and sold like so many cattle." 
 
 So far from conciliating^ the settlers or explaining matters to them, the Canadian 
 Government sent forward surveyors to plot out the country into townships, and they 
 and some other Canadians staked out farms for themselves, " which they declared they 
 meant to claim as soon as the new Governor had arrived " — so Lord Wolseley tells us. 
 This was more than the settlers could stand. They accordingly stopped the surve3^s, 
 and proceeded in the most formal manner, and with the sanction of the Governor of ihe 
 Hudson's Bay Company, to form a Legislative Assembly. This Ass-rably did not con- 
 sist of a few illiterate half-breeds as has been so often said. One-half of it was composed 
 of English-speaking settlers, and among them were some of the most notable men of the 
 locality — the present Senator Sutherland was one of them. 
 
 Eventually retracing her steps, Canadi sent to Red River three commissioners, who 
 prevailed upon the people to send delegates to Ottawa, to negotiate as to the terms upon 
 which the union should be accomplished. These delegates were Judge Black, Mr. 
 Alfred Scott, and the Rev. Father Ritchot, and they took with them a list or bill of 
 rights containing the demands of the people. The seventh clause of this bill of rights 
 
 was as follows : — 
 
 "7. That the schools be separate, and that the public money for schools be dis- 
 tributed among the different religious denominations in proportion to their respective 
 population according to the system of the province of Quebec." 
 
 This demand was made as much on behalf of the Protestants as of the Roman 
 Catholics, for it was not then known which denomination would be in the majority in 
 years to come. There was consequently no objection to it. After the negotiations had 
 proceeded at Ottawa for a few days, the government prepared a draft of a bill framuig 
 a constitution for the new province, and sent a copy to each of the delegates for then- 
 comments. The nineteenth clause of this draft made provision for separate schools upon 
 the lines of the British North Ame-ica Act. This was quite satisfactory to the dele- 
 gates, and the Rev. Father Ritchot wrote as his comment upon the clause (and sent it to 
 the government) these words : — 
 
 " This clause being the same as the British North America Act confer?, as I interpret 
 it, as a fundamental principle, the privilege of separate schools to the fullest extent, 
 and in that is in conformity with article 7 of our instructions." 
 
 The bill which was introduced into the House by Sir John A. Macdonald on the 
 2nd Mav, 1870, contained the same provisions as to education as are now found in the 
 Statute." The only objection made to these provisions in the House (see Hansard of 
 1870, p. 1546) was that it appeared to give the minority more security than was accorded 
 to the other provinces by the British North America Act. For that reason an amend- 
 ment was proposed, having for its object to strike out the clauses; and thus to leave as 
 applicable the provisions of the British North Amei ica Act only. This amendment was 
 defeated by a vote of 81 to 34 ; and the greater safeguard provided by the bill was thus 
 given, as it was thought, to the future minority. 
 
 The bill having been passed, and become the Manitoba Act, it was taken back to 
 Red River by one of the delegates. After it had been read and explained to the Legis- 
 lative Assembly the following resolution was, amid much cheering, unanimously 
 
 passed : — 
 
 " That the Legislative Assembly of this country do now, in the name ot the people, 
 accept the Manitoba Act, and decide on entering the Dominion of Canada on the terms 
 proposed in the Confederation Act." _ j i • 
 
 This compact thus entered into was made under the express direction and authority 
 of the Imperial authorities. The Canadian Government had applied for the assistance 
 of the British troops to put down the outbreak, but were met with the repeated injunc- 
 
tion to come to terms. On the 5th March Earl Granville telegraphed to the Governor 
 General : — 
 
 " Her Majesty's Government will give proposed military assistance provided 
 reasonaV)le terms are granted to the Red River settlers." 
 
 On the 22nd of ]\Iarch Earl Granville directed that : " Troops should not be em- 
 ployed in forcing the sovereignty of Canada on the population of Red River, should they 
 refuse to ailinit it.'' 
 
 On the 23rd of April Earl Granville again telegraphed : 
 
 " Canadian Government to accept decision of Her Majesty's Government on all 
 portions of the settlers' bill of rights." 
 
 On the 3rd of May the Governor General was able to telegraph : " Negotiations 
 with dele<rates closed satisfactorilv." 
 
 And to this Karl Granville replied : — 
 
 " I take this opportunity of expressing the satisfaction with which I have learned 
 from your telegram of the 3rd inst that the Canadian Government and the delegates 
 have come to an understandins: as to the terms on which the settlement on the Red 
 River should be admitted into the Union." 
 
 Finally the Imperial Parliament by statute ratified and confirmed the compact so 
 entered into and embodied in the Manitoba Act. 
 
 While the Imperial authorities were thus determined to see for themselves that 
 reasonable terms were granted to the settlers, the Canadian Government and the 
 Governor General were profuse in their promises of liberal treatment. By their instruc- 
 tions the Canadian commissioners who were sent to the Red River were directed to 
 sa}- : 
 
 " That no administration could confront the enlightened public sentiment of this 
 country which attempted to act in the North-west upon principles more restricted and 
 less liberal than those which are fairly established here. 
 
 '' The people may relj' upon it that respect and protection will be extended to the 
 different religious denominations. In declaring the desire and determi nation of Her 
 M tjesty's Cabinet you may safely use the terms of the ancient formula ' Right shall be 
 done in all cases.'" 
 
 About the same time the Governor General wrote to the Governor of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company : — 
 
 " And the inhabitants of Rupert's Land, of all classes and persuasions, may rest 
 assured that Her ]Majesty's Government has no intention of interfering with, or setting 
 aside or allowing others to interfere with, the religion , the rights, or the franchises 
 hitherto enjoyed, or to which they may hereafter prove themselves eq lal." 
 
 The Canadian .Secretary of State, too, wrote to Mr. McDougall : — " You will be in 
 a position to assure the residents of the North-west Territories : — 
 
 " 1. That all their civil and religious libex^ties will be sacredly respected : — 
 
 " 7. That the country will be governed as in the past by British law, and according 
 to the spirit of British justice." 
 
 In order that these assurances might have all the weisht of the name of Her 
 Majesty the Queen, the Governor General issued a proclamation (6th December, 1869) in 
 "which is the following : — 
 
 " By Her ^Majesty's authority I therefore assure you that on the union with Canada 
 all your civil and religious rights and privileges will be respected, your properties 
 secured to you ; and that your country will be governed as in the past under British 
 laws, and in the spirit of British justice." 
 
 I have shown that in the belief of one of the negotiators (on the part of the settlers) 
 of the ^lanitoba Act separate schools were provided for. I now desire to add proof 
 that the chief negotiator on the part of the Dominion was of the same opinion, and 
 thus that all parties so understood. From Mr. Pope's very interesting "Life of Sir 
 John A. Macdonald " I extract the following : — 
 
 " In 1870 he secured, or thought he had secured, hke privileges to the Roman 
 Catholics of Manitoba. We are not left in doubt as to his view of what was intended 
 by the operation of the Manitoba Act. In the very beginning of the present agitation 
 
in that province, he thus addressed a member of the local legislature, who had applied 
 to him for counsel : — 
 
 " ' You ask me for advice as to the course you should take upon the vexed qu' stion 
 of separate schools in your province. There is, it seems to me, but one course open to 
 you. By the Manitoba Act, the provisions of the British North America Act (sec. 93) 
 respecting laws passed for the protection of minorities in educational matters are made 
 applicable to Manitoba, and cannot be changed ; for by the Imperial Act confirming 
 the establishment of the new provinces, 34 and 35 Vict., c. 33, sec. 6, it is provided that 
 it shall not be competent for the Parliament of Canada to alter the provisions of the 
 Manitoba Act in so far as it relates to the province of Manitoba. Obviously therefore 
 the separate school system in Manitoba, is beyond the reach of the Legislature or of 
 the Dominion Parliament.' 
 
 " It is true that the highest legal tribunal in the empire has put a different inter- 
 pretation on the Manitoba Act. But with the merits of this question we are in no 
 Avise concerned here, my object is merely to show what were the views of him who had 
 by far the greatest share in the framing of this piece of legislation, as to its scope 
 and effects." 
 
 All the facts to which I have referred are undisputed, with the exception of the 
 statement that the bill of rights contained a demand for separate schools. To my mind 
 it is unimportant whether the suggestion of protection for the minority came from Red 
 River or Ottawa ; for whichever be the case there is no room to doubt that the educa- 
 tion clauses were agreed to by the negotiators, and formed part of the arrangement 
 for the union with Canada, which was finally adopted both by the Dominion Parliament 
 and by the Red River Legislative Assembly. 
 
 But for those who deem the point important, I am in a position to prove the fact 
 that the separate schools provision emanated from the settlers. I produce now an 
 affidavit made by one of the delegates— the Rev. Father Ritchot— which, not only 
 because of the oath of the venerable priest, but because of the circumstances to which 
 he refers, leaves no room for further doubt. 
 
 (Affidavit read. Exhibit A.) 
 
 It will be observed from this affidavit that the original bill of rights was filed in 
 court upon the trial of Lepine. It has in some way been lost, but I am in position to 
 prove a copy of it. In accordance with the usual practice in capital cases, the protho- 
 notary of the court, immediately after the trial, sent to the Department of Justice a 
 copy of all the proceedings, and among these a copy of the bill of rights. I now pro- 
 duce from the Department of Justice a certified copy of this document. (Copy produced. 
 Exhibit B.) 
 
 The relation of these facts ought to be sufficient to prove that there was a solemn 
 agreement entered into by the Dominion of Canada with the Red River settlers that 
 the future minority should be entitled to separate schools. But for those who retain 
 any doubt upon the question I quote the language of the recent judgment of the 
 Imperial Privy Council : 
 
 " The terms upon which Manitoba was to become a province of the Dominion were 
 matters of negotiation between representatives of the inhabitants of Manitoba and the 
 Dominion Government. . . . Those who were stipulating for the provisions of section 22 
 as 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — That is not in the judgment. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — I think you will find it there. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet.— If what you are quoting is to be found in the case as edited 
 for the Canadian Government by the appellant's solicitors in London, will you please 
 give us the page 1 
 
 Mr. EwART. — What I am quoting will be found at the top of page 272. 
 
 " a condition of the union, and those who gave their legislative assent to the Act 
 
 by which it was brought about, had in view the perils then apprehended It was 
 
 notorious that there were acute differences of opinion between the Catholics and Pro- 
 testants in the education question prior to 1870. This is recognized and emphasized in 
 almost every line of those enactments. There is no doubt either what the points of 
 diflference were, and it is in the light of these that the 22nd section of the Manitoba 
 Act of 1870 which was in truth a parliamentary compact, must be read." 
 
8 
 
 It may be argued that in their first judgment the Judicial Committee held that the 
 Manitoba Act did not guarantee separate schools. I am aware of the language used, 
 but its t'tlect (as explained in the second judgment) is merely that the words which oc- 
 cur in the statute were not sufficient to accomplisli the purpose intended — that is, that 
 the drafting of the statute was defective. A perusal of the second judgment makes it 
 clear that in their Lordships' opinion it was intended to guarantee separate schools, and 
 that that guarantee was a matter of agreement and " compact " between the Dominion 
 of Canada and the people of the Red River. 
 
 This then is my first argument : Tlie people of Canada made a solemn agreement 
 that in ^Manitoba the schools should be separate. If tlie minority there now were 
 Protestajit, and Catholics desired to ignore this agreement, we would hear much of the 
 supposed Catholic principles of "No faith with heretics," "The end justifies the 
 means," etc., Imt it is the Catholics that are in the minority, and what excuses do 
 Protestants allege for l)reach of faith and violation of solemn pledges? The excuse of 
 the vast majority, so far, may well be that they were not aware of the facts. I have 
 placed these facts in the very forefront of my argument to-day, with the hope that 
 they may be widely circulated by the press, and thus that no Protestant shall any 
 Ioniser be unaware of what is being done in his name in the province of Manitoba. 
 
 * One of the guarantees afforded by the Manitoba Act for the preservation of the 
 rights of the minority was the Pi-ovincial Senate. Six years' experience proved to 
 M^anitoba that, apart from its functions as a guarantee, the Senate was little more than 
 an item of expense ; and the Protestants then in the majority, and feeling confident of 
 their own rectitude, proposed to abolish it. The Catholics naturally hesitated, but 
 their apprehensions were removed by profuse promises. The premier (Mr. Davis) in 
 the debate said : — 
 
 " It may be said that the Council is a safeguard to the minority. He could as- 
 sure the minority that their rights would never be trampled upon in this province. 
 There would always be suflicient English-speaking members in this House, who would 
 insist on giving their French fellow subjects their rights, to protect them." 
 Mr. Luxton (then and still a very influential journalist) said : — 
 Hon. Mr. Foster. — AVas Mr. Luxton a member of the legislature 1 
 Mr. EwART. — Yes, and this was said in the course of debate : 
 
 " There wei-e some questions of sentiment which lay close to the hearts of the French 
 people ; and he could assure them that tne English-speaking members would not 
 ruthlessly deal with these, if the French representatives were sufficiently patriotic to 
 support the measure before the House. They would recognize their generosity and not 
 
 forget it." 
 
 Mr. Frank Cornish (then a prominent lawyer) said he " believed the old settlers 
 and the French would make common cause if their rights were infringed upon ; and he 
 could assure them that when the Canadian (that is the English speaking) party became 
 the great majority it would not be found oppressive." In accepting these promises on 
 the part of the French and Roman Catholics, Mr. Royal said: — 
 
 Hon. Mr. H.\f;(;ART. — Are you using that merely as a matter of history, or as 
 bearing on the right that was acquired then 1 
 
 Mr. EwART. — I am showing that these promises were made to the Roman Catho- 
 lics at a very important juncture in the history of the provin e, and I am appealing to 
 the Protestants who made these promises to see that they are carried out. Mr. 
 Royal said : •' But there was something else for himself, which had not been guaranteed 
 by any act ; he found it yesterdav in the remarks of the Hon. Messrs. Davis and Nor- 
 quay, in the applause given by Mr. Brown to the sentiments of Mr. Luxton, and in the 
 expressions of Mr. Cornish." 
 
 And Mr. McKay added : — 
 
 " He was very much pleased to hear the generous and just remarks of the Hon. 
 Premier, the Hon. Prov. Secretary, and also that of the hon. member for Rockwood, 
 which gave the minority in the House that confidence which the members of this 
 House, and by their vote on this bill would express, the security they felt in the hands 
 of that majority." 
 
 This is my .second argument. My first was based upon an agreement entered into 
 by the Dominion of Canada with the settlers at Red River. I now present the 
 
assurances of the Protestants of Manitoba to the Roman Catholics of Manitoba, — 
 assurances that their " rights would never be trampled upon in this province ; " that 
 the " Protestants would recognize their generosity and not forget it ; " that " the great 
 majority would not be found oppressive," etc. Again I say let the Protestants of 
 Canada know what has been done in their name. 
 
 My third j-rgument is based upon further promises, and this time the promises 
 made by the Liberal party in Manitoba, which enabled them to defeat the Harrison 
 Government, in St. Francois Xavier, and themselves to acquire power. The facts may 
 best be stated by reading the following affidavits : — 
 
 Mr. Fisher, the President of the Liberal Association ; Mr. A. F. Martin, the 
 Liberal Organizer in St. Francois Xavier, Mr. Francis, the Liberal candidate in St. 
 Francois Xavier ; Mr. Burke, the Conservative candidate in St. Francois Xavier, and 
 also those of Messrs. Joseph Hogue, William Hogue, J. P. McDougall, Francis Walsh, 
 G. Todd and IST. Todd, electors in St. Francois Xavier. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I suppose there is no object in making any objection ; I suppose 
 that everything is regular. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — What would the nature of the objection be 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I do not suppose that a promise given by an organizer or by a 
 gentleman running as candidate in a constituency can be held as binding upon the 
 
 province ? 
 
 Hon. Mr. Angers. — These may be witnesses to some promise made by persons in 
 
 authority. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I suppose that everything is regular. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Angers. — We can hardly know what these affidavits are, until they are 
 
 read. 
 
 (The affidavits were read by Hon. Senator Bernier, Exhibits C, D, E, F, G.) 
 
 Mr. Ewart. The affidavits of the other five electors are almost identical with the 
 
 last read, and I suppose they may be taken as read. 
 
 (Affidavits put in, Exhibits H, I, J, K, L.) 
 
 My fourth argument is nearly allied to the third. It is based upon promises made 
 by the Greenway Government (after its accession to office,) to His Grace the Archbishop 
 of St. Boniface and to various other persons, in order to enable him to obtain for his 
 cabinet a representative of the Roman Catholics and to carry the general elections of 
 1888. In support of this I read the affidavits of the Reverend Yicar-General Allard, 
 and Mr. W. F. Alloway. (Affidavits read by Hon. Senator Bernier— Exhibits M. 
 
 andN.) ^ ^ ,. 
 
 The promises proved by these affidavits, given at these four periods of the history 
 of Manitoba have all been violated by the passage of the School Act of 1890. I have 
 endeavoured to think of language which would fittingly characterise the utter degrad- 
 ation and complete abnegation of all truth and honour exhibited by the recital of the 
 conduct which it has been my painful duty to lay before this Honourable Council , but 
 I acknowledge myself utterly unable to find adequate expression. I do not suppose 
 that it would be possible in the political record in any civilized country to find anything 
 so utterly and indefensibly base, cowardly and heartless. My first four arguments, then, 
 are founded upon agreements and promises :— First, the compact made by the Dominion 
 of Canada ; second, the promises made by the Protestants of Manitoba ; third, the 
 promises made by the Liberal party in Manitoba ,; and fourth, the promises made by the 
 Greenway Government. All these agreements and promises have been violated — those 
 of the Greenway Government ; those of the branch of the Liberal party in Manitoba 
 (and I say it with bowed head, for to that party I once belonged) ; those of the Protes- 
 tants of Manitoba (and I feel the shame of it, for in that faith was I born and nurtured) ; 
 and those, too, of the people of Canada. For this violation, however, the Liberal party 
 of Canada, the Protestants of Canada, and the people of Canada have not yet made 
 themselves responsible ; and to them I lift my eyes with confidence, that when the facts 
 are known, then that which has been done will by them be repudiated, and all injustice 
 remedied. With a full sense of my responsibility for the statement, I add that in my 
 humble judgment Canada would not be a fit place for an honest man to live in, were its 
 inhabitants to remain unaroused to indignant action by the relation of such shamefully 
 perfidious action. 
 
10 
 
 I pass on now to argue, as a fifth point, that even had we no agreements or pi'omises 
 to urge, yet that relief should be given to us. But upon this subject I will not be 
 expected to present all the arguments which may be advanced in favour of separate 
 schools I shall not do more than indicate the more salient of them. 
 
 First and ever first upon this subject must stand the principle of individual liberty. 
 There are three kinds of schools : — The purely secular ; the secular, plus a little religious 
 teaching ; and the secular plus some more I'cligious teaching. Many of the supporters 
 of the first urge that all religion must be excluded from all the schools ; but I need not 
 stop to argue with them, because Manitobans will have none of such a system. Many 
 of the supporters of secular schools plus a little religion want to have all the schools 
 conducted according to their particular views. They argue to their own satisfaction 
 that " Godless schools " are an abomination ; that a certain particular quantity of religion 
 is the proper allowance for all schools ; and that any more than that is an interference 
 with the principle of separation of churcli and state — something to be violently declaimed 
 against. These gentlemen never stop to tell us why it is that if their modicum of 
 religion may be admitted without breach of everlasting principle, some other person's 
 modicum must be excluded because of the same principle. If we determine that the 
 schools are to be in some sense religious, then the question arises : How much is there 
 to be 1 Now that question may be answered by Mr. Greenway and Mr. Martin and others, 
 skilled in theology, by adopting some one or other of the thousand conflicting opinions 
 which are held upon the subject. For example, they might adopt the opinion of one of 
 the most influential of the Winnipeg Protestant theologians, and say that the " Being, 
 character and moral government of God," but not the higher graces due to the operat.ion 
 of the Holy Ghost, should be taught — that the schools ought not to be Godless (it seems), 
 but may very well be Ghostless — and these politicians might probably think it advisable 
 to prepare a model lecture or two upon the subjects prescribed. But the better way, as 
 it appears to me, to answer a question as to the amount of religion to be admitted in the 
 schools, is to say that the people shall be permitted, so far as possible, to ansv,'er it for 
 themselves — better to allow freedom of opinion upon a matter of that kind than resort 
 to the old-fashioned method of endeavouring to make everyone think and act alike. 
 
 But I shall be told that such a course is not practicable — that Government must 
 regulate the supply of religion in the schools, or we shall have lio public schools 
 at all. To such persons I say : Look around you. Broadly speaking, there ai'e the 
 three great divisions or opinions already referred to, and no difliculty has been felt 
 in arranging so as to let all three ha\ e their own way. I do not say that there are not 
 individuals who are not within any of three classes ; but I do say that no one of 
 the three great classes is to be deprived of liberty because it is found impossible to give 
 a like complete liberty to every individual. Extend liberty as widely as possible. That 
 you cannot attain the ideal is no reason for not doing the best you can. Because you 
 cannot convict all criminals, furnishes no argument for the abolition of the administra- 
 tion of justice. How then are we to give liberty of action in this matter to the three 
 great classes in the community 1 The answer is, that the system in foi-ce in Manitoba 
 prior to 1890 secured that end. It gave to Protestants complete control of their 
 schools, and that body (including as it does the first two classes of persons) could 
 arrange for their religious modicums, and the absence from attendance of those who 
 desired purely secular education, as they pleased, The third class of persons, forming 
 the Roman Catholic body, were entrusted with the control of their schools, and they 
 introduced into them the religious instructions which they thought proper. All classes, 
 therefore, had their way, and were quite content till informed in 1890 that they were 
 not. 
 
 Now what are the objections I'aised to that system ? The most usual one is that 
 thereby public money is used to propagate denominational teaching. But this is a very 
 easily answered mistake. In England public money is distributed among the denomina- 
 tional schools, but does the State pay the money for propagation of religious teaching ? 
 Not at all. Upon the contrary it is specially provided (33 and 34 V., c. 65, s. 97) : — 
 
 " .Such grants shall not be niade in respect of any instruction of religious subjects" ; 
 and no in.spection takes place upon I'eligious subjects. 
 
11 
 
 The State pays for the secular work accomplished and does not prohibit people 
 from teaching, or being taught religion : -that is all ; nor does it attempt to cut off a 
 religious portion and prescribe that for every body. When the city of Toronto 
 makes large grants to charitable institutions, many of them under denominational 
 control, it pays nothing for propagating religious doctrines, but only for the good work 
 done to the bodies of the needy. Surely, if the Government paid for certain road work 
 done by Roman Catholics in industrial schools it could not be charged with propagating 
 Roman Catholic doctrine ; and if it pays the same institution for educating in secular 
 subjects some of its youthful citizens, how can a similar charge be made 1 It may be as 
 well said that I paid money for extending the Roman Catholic religion did I send my 
 washing to a Roman Catholic house of industry. I pay for the washing, not for the 
 prayers which may be said over it, about the advantage of which I might have my own 
 opinion. 
 
 The truth is that the general principle invoked by our opponents is, as so often 
 happens, one made for the occasion. They are oppo>ed to anything savouring of the 
 Roman Catholic religion appearing in the schools, but are in favour of some portion of 
 their own religion being there. They, therefore, have to manufacture a principle which 
 fits their wishes, and then from such principle they triumphantly argue. They cannot 
 assert that Church and State being separate, there ought to be no religion in the 
 schools, for that would exclude their own, so the formula they hit upon is that there 
 ought to be no kind of religion there which could be recognized as belonging particu- 
 larly to anybody. They say to the Catholics : We both believe this much ; let there- 
 fore, this rnuch be taught in the schools. The Catholics answer : Those items which 
 you pick out, standing apart from other things, are Protestant and not Catholic. 
 Protestants reply ■ You can teach these other things on Sunday in your churches 
 elsewher \ In fact to use a simile, Protestants say to Catholics we must eat together, 
 and we both like porridge. The Catholics answer : Yes, but not without salt in it ; 
 and Protestants with unanswerable logic, and without a shadow of a smile, reply : Very 
 well, you can take the salt on Sundays, at home or elsewhere, as it pleases you. 
 
 A second objection to separate schools is, that when there is Roman Catholic 
 religion in the schools, the children do not progress properly in their studies. Some 
 people tiiink that this is because God has so ordered, others think that it is because of 
 the encroachment upon the time of the children. To these latter I say, did you ever 
 visit a Roman Catholic school 1 If so, how much time did you find devoted to catechism 1 
 But such persons never did visit a Catholic school, and they tell me it is not necessary 
 to do so — that the results tell the tale. Let such persons be informed that the facts 
 are not so clear as they may think them ; that in Winnipeg and many other places, 
 Protestant children are sent to Catholic schools because the education is better there 
 than in other schools ; and that if the results in some schools are otherwise it ought to 
 be remembered that the Roman Catholic church in Ontario and Manitoba is not the 
 church of the elite, but of the poor, and that results in every department of life are 
 largely governed by the material employed. 
 
 This leads us to discuss the facts with reference to the character of the schools now 
 in Manitoba. T do not at all concede that if the schools can be shown to be non- 
 sectarian our right to relief is any the less strong. That Catholics are prevented from 
 teaching their own religion is the complaint, and it is no answer to that, that others 
 are likewise so prevented. Many minds may, however, be influenced by the settlement 
 of the fact and for them I shall now answer the question. Are the schools unsectarian 
 or Protestant 1 The answer is not difiicult : and it forms my sixth argument. 
 
 Prior to 1890 there were two sets of schools in Manitoba — Protestant and Roman 
 Catholic. The Protestant schools were fashioned anxl conducted by Protestants, without 
 either Catholic or State interference ; and the Catholic schools were fashioned and 
 conducted by Catholics without either Protestant or State interference. We are in a 
 position therefore to ascertain exactly what Protestant schools are — what kind of 
 schools, and how much religion Protestants would have if left to themselves to regulate 
 it. This system commenced in 1871 and in that same year the Protestant Board 
 " determined to exclude all distinctive religious teachings from its schools, but enjoined 
 
12 
 
 the readiiii; of the Holy Scriptures iind the prayers as published in the by-laws and 
 regulations, at the opening and closing of the schools." (»SV" Report 1871, p. 8.) 
 
 The regulations of the Protestant board which were in force immediately prior to 
 the Act of 1890 provided as follows : — 
 
 " The Bible shall be used as a text book in the Protestant schools of Manitoba. A 
 sui)ply for use in each school may be obtained by the trustees, otherwise each pupil from 
 stjindard three upwards shall be required to provide himself with a Bible in addition to 
 his other text books. 
 
 " The selections for reading shall >ilways include one or more of the lessons in the 
 authorized list given herewith ; but any other selection from Scripture may, in the dis- 
 cretion of the teacher, be read in connection with them. 
 
 " The Scripture les.son in each school shall follow the opening ])rayer, and shall 
 occupy not more than fifteen minutes daily. Until notes and questions are provided 
 under the authority of the Board, the readings shall not be accompanied by comment 
 or explanation."' 
 
 No notes and questions ever were j^rovided, so that the Bible reading was without 
 " comment or explanation." A form of prayer was also prescribed. The regulations 
 adopted immediately after the Act of 1890 provided : — 
 
 " (a.) The reading without note or comment of the following selections from the 
 authorized English version of the Bible or the Douay version of the Bible. 
 
 " (b.) The use of the following forms of prayer." 
 
 The Bible selections after 1890 are not so numerous as those prior to that year, but 
 so far as they go they are the passages selected by the Protestant board, and the forms 
 of prayer are identical with those previously used by Protestants. It will thus be seen 
 that the religious exercises prescribed by Protestants for purely Protestant schools are 
 substantially identical with those for the non-sectarian schools. Catholic services are 
 of course wholly different. The non-sectarian exercises were, therefore, constructed to 
 meet Prote.stant and not Catholic ideas, and so may well be said to be Protestant. But 
 they are sectarian not only in Roman Catholic view, but in the estimation of Jews, 
 Unitarians and others. It will not be possible for any Jew or Unitarian to join in the 
 prayer prescribed. 
 
 I now turn to the religious instruction prior and subsequent to 1890. Prior to 
 1890 the regulations were as follows :— 
 
 " It shall be the duty of the teacher of each school to instruct his pupils from 
 standard three and upwards in the Ten Commandments and the Apostles' Creed, so that 
 they may be able to repeat them from memory ; and to devote one-half hour weekly to 
 this exercise ; and to the giving of such instruction in manners and morals as he may 
 find practicable." 
 
 Since- 1890 the following regulations prevail:- — 
 
 " To establish the habit of right doing, instruction in moral principles must be 
 accompanied by training in moral practices. The teacher's influence and example, cur- 
 rent incidents, stories, memory gems, sentiments in the school lessons, examination of 
 motives that prompt to action, didactic talks, teaching the Ten Commandments, &c., 
 are means to be employed." 
 
 The only difference then between Protestant religious teaching prior to the Act, and 
 non-sectarian teaching after the Act, is that the latter is a little more specific than the 
 former. I cannot imagine that any wider instructions could be given for the conduct 
 of a Sunday school than are contained in this "non-sectarian" programme. As one 
 reads them one feels that the atmosphere becomes distinctly sabbatic. One sees the 
 "memory gems" upon the wall — "There is no other mediator, &c." ; the teacher 
 becomes the superintendent; he tells of " the motives that prompt to action," observing 
 that superstitions are not sufficient foundation for a system of ethics, and recounting, as 
 Mr. Heath recently did in British Columbia, the contempt which he personally dis- 
 played towards the Holy Wafer by putting it in his pocket instead of in his mouth ; he 
 calls upon his class to recite the fifth commandment, and when some of the children 
 commence with the Protestant fifth and others with the Catholic fifth, he explains 
 which has the right of the matter; and he finishes with a "didactic talk," which may 
 very well be a Presbyterian sermon. It may be said that the " didactic talks," the 
 
13 
 
 " memory gems," (fee, must be all of a non-sectarian character. But this can only be 
 properly accomplished when you hav'e a supply of non-sectarian teachers. It would be 
 impossible for a Presbyterian or a Roman Catholic conscientiously to conduct a Sunday 
 school without disclosing his distinctive characteristics. But if a teacher can success- 
 fully conceal his real belief under general language when talking in didactic fashion, 
 what is the poor non-sectarian teacher to do wiien he is set to teach the Ten Command- 
 ments 1 What reason is he to give why the Protestants divide the Catholics' first com- 
 mandment into two, making up for it by adding their ninth and tenth together. When 
 he is teaching the Protestants' second commandment, is he to state that it is a special 
 commandment aimed at Roman Catholics' images and relics 1 or is he to explain " Thou 
 shalt not make unto them any graven image" as the Catholics explain that language? 
 And when he comes to the Protestants' foun h commandment enjoining the keeping of 
 Sunday, shall he inculcate Protestant or Catholic belief as to the lawfulness of recrea- 
 tions, and works of liberal and artistic character ? Let Protestants tell me that they are 
 willing to have their children taught the Ten Commandments by Roman Catholics, and 
 I shall then, but not till then, acknowledge, that the present schools are unsectarian. 
 
 I have with me the Presbyterian and the Roman Catholic methods of teaching the 
 decalogue. According to the former, one of the sins forbidden by the first command- 
 ment is " Praying to saints, making men lords of our faith and conscience," ifec. ; one 
 
 of the sins forbidden by the second is " the making of any representation of God, of all 
 or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind or outwardly in any kind of 
 image, or likeness of any creature whatsoever ; all worshipping of it, or God in it, or by 
 it," &c. ; one of the sins forbidden by the third is "the maintaining of false doctrines," 
 &o. ; one of the sins prohibited by the fourth is "all profaning the day by recrea- 
 tions " ; and so on. Does any one tell me that this is not sectarian, or that it is possible 
 for a Presbyterian believing that these are sins, and that they are prohibited by the 
 Ten Commandments, to teach the decalogue and say nothing about them 1 I need not 
 stay to contrast the lessons drawn by the Roman Catholics from the same Command- 
 ments. Suffice it to say that they are such as are anathematized by all Protestants. 
 
 I have now shown that the religious exercises and the religious instruction are 
 essentially sectarian. The same vice (or virtue) invades even the programme of studies 
 prescribed for " non-sectarian " schools. I shall in this connection mention but one of 
 the objections which Roman Catholics urge against this programme ; but it is directed 
 to a subject so palpably sectarian, and of such clearly controversial, if not explosive, 
 character that Protestants will at once recognize the validity of the objection. Among 
 the subjects prescribed for Grade VII., there is the following : — • 
 
 " History— (a) English — Religious movements — (Henry VIII. and Mary)." 
 
 Now I should think it extremely difficult for anyone to teach at all adequately the 
 history of religious movements, without leaving himself open to criticism by one of the 
 parties interested. But of all periods, I know of none more difficult to treat in this 
 fashion than the two selected for our non-sectarian schools. To Protestants, Henry 
 VIII. was the one who released the English Church from the "thraldom of Rome," and 
 threw off for ever the yoke of the " foi-eign potentate." To Catholics, he was the great 
 schismatic, the disrupter of God's Church, and the confiscater and plunderer of her 
 heritagt\ Por Protestants, the religious movement under " Bloody Mary " were 
 principally movements from homes and hiding places to scaffold and faggot fires. To 
 Catholics, Mary's reign was a period of rehabilitation, and of return trom the sin of 
 schism to the bosom of the true church. It is not possible for Protestant or Catholic, 
 if he be earnest, to teach these subjects without offending the other, and the poor non- 
 sectarian, struggling to please both, would most certainly be condemned by both. 
 
 I cannot leave this part of my argument without quoting from an address delivered 
 before the Winnipeg Liberal Club on the 20th February, lS9i, by the author of the 
 School Act of 1890 — Mr. Joseph Martin — in which he himself argues against the 
 religion in the schools as being unfair to the Catholics. He said that : — 
 
 " He was himself not satisfied with the School Act and had never been so. He h id 
 made a strong effort to have the public schools, controlled by the Government, really made 
 national schools with religion obliterated ; and he was now more convinced than ever 
 that was the only school which could be justified as constitutional. They said that the 
 
14 
 
 State had no right to interfere with the different denominations, but had the right to 
 intotfcrc in the matter of religion ; but he contended that they would not do the one 
 without the otlier. It had l)een uiged by satisfied supporters of the Act that none 
 could comphiin of the devotional element introduced, as it was of the broadest nature. 
 But they found that the Roman Catholics had the very greatest objections to this 
 provision of the Act, and he was hiniself dissatisfied with it, and was glad many 
 Protestants shared his objections. . . . The Roman Catholics had honestly vtated that 
 in their belief the two forms of education should go together. The Protestants admitted 
 on the other hand that it was impossible to have religious training in the schools, and 
 only asked that it be recognized — insisting, howe\er, on imposing their views on others 
 in that respect ; rather than that small amount of religious training should be done 
 away with in the schools, the Protestants said they would prefer the old state of ffairs. 
 He would leave it to his audience to determine which was the more honest stand 
 of the two." 
 
 If, in the opinion of the author of the Acts (although for reasons other than those, 
 which w<,uld be urged by Roman Catholics) their practical working has proved that 
 their continuance is an imposition of Protestant opinions upon Roman Catholics, in a 
 matter almost indifferent to Protestants, but affecting in a vital point the faith of the 
 Catholics, to such an extent that the very honesty of the Protestants may thereby be 
 impeachable, I say that if that is the opinion of the author of the Acts, I have to go 
 no further for arguments, as to their unfairness. 
 
 One other suggestion as to the character of the public schools in Manitoba. Speak- 
 ing very generally the Roman Catholic religion includes the Protestant religion, and the 
 distinctions are found in its additional features. Protestants desire, so they say, to have 
 taught in the schools that which is held in common. Catholics say that if you separate 
 what is common from the rest that is Protestantism. Suppose a vegetarian asks me to 
 dine with him, and I stipulate that the dinner is not to be of a vegetarian character, 
 ought I to feel aggrieved if I got nothing but vegetables ? My host would say that the 
 dinner was not vegetarian, that I believed in the vegetables as much as he did, and 
 that this was, therefore, a common and universally approved dinner — one to which all 
 alike could come. Nevertheless, I think that I would be ri^ht in callinsr it a vetretarian 
 dinner. In the same way I may say that the schools are distinctively Protestant — by the 
 very omission of an ing/ edient (the very salt of the matter as is thought) the schools 
 are rendered obnoxious to Catholics, and represent the Protestant and not the Catholic 
 teaching of religion. 
 
 And why should not Catholics have salt in their porridge if they want it ? They 
 do not ask anyone else to have it in theirs. They are willing to accord to the non-salt 
 eaters full liberty of action. Why should not the same liberty be returned to them % 
 For what is there involved in the separate school question ? Why this, and nothing 
 more, whether Catholics are to be permitted to have in schools, attended by nobody but 
 Catholics, a somewhat different kind of religion from that taught in the other schools, and, 
 probably, a little more of it — ^they want salt in their porridge. They do not ask that their 
 church should in any way control the scho.ols. They are perfectly willing to work up 
 to any state-prescribed standard of secular instruction, to be subjected to inspection, 
 and to use school books not at variance with their religious doctrines. They do not seek 
 to displace the Protestant schools or to change in any way the teaching in them. Pro- 
 testants may have it without salt if they please. All that is desired is the same liberty 
 as the Protestants, by their numbers, compelled the Gieenway government in 1890 to 
 give to them the same liberty which is willingly given by Roman Catholics to Protestants 
 in the province of Quebec. 
 
 I feel certain that the settled belief of the people of Canada is that such liberty 
 ought to be accorded to Roman Catholics everywhere throughout the Dominion. This 
 forms my seventh ai'gument. In Ontario an experience of very many years has made 
 that matter so clear that now very few are left who complain, and these are usually 
 those whose antipathy to Roman Catholics would carry them to the exclusion of their 
 fellow-countrymen from public employment because of their faith. In Quebec there 
 is no complaint. There the majority is Roman Catholic, and Dr. Robbins, Principal of 
 the McGill Normal School, has testified : " We are of the minority of this province, but 
 we know that we are not regarded as a factious or insignificant minority. Our suscep- 
 
15 
 
 tibilities are considered, our educational rights are maintained by the majority." Some- 
 thing of a lesson there, I think, for some Protestants in the virtues of tolerance and 
 wood fellowship. In New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, although there is no law per- 
 mitting ir, yet, by common consent, the Catholics are permitted exclusively to occupy 
 certain of the public schools and there to teach their children such parts of their doc- 
 trine as they think fitted for the schools. I am informed that a similar custom pre- 
 vails in Pi ince Edward Island. 
 
 This tolerance and freedom is also spreading in the United States, notwithstanding 
 the fact that, as the law stands, the whole community must wink in common at it, or 
 it would be stopped. At Poushkeepsie, at Rondout, at Savannah, New Haven, Lima 
 and many other places, the people are more liberal than their laws, and Catholics enjoy 
 no small measure of the liberty they so eagerly desire. 
 
 Returning to Canada, I can point to the unvarying support which the separate 
 school principle has always received in the Dominion Parliament. In 1872, in the New 
 Brunswick school case, by a majority of 117 to 52 the House of Commons regretted the 
 passage of the Statute which was complained of, and by a majority of 114 to 73, passed 
 an address asking; Her Majesty " to use her influence with the Legislature of New 
 Brunswick to secure such a modification of the said Act as shall remove such ground of 
 discontent." The figures which I have given do not represent properly the overwhelm- 
 ing number of the majority that was in favour of the Catholics in New Brunswick, for 
 upon both occasions, there were many in the minoi'ity who voted as they did, because the 
 resolutions were not sufliciently strong. If the resolutions had been stronger, they 
 would have had much additional support. 
 
 Afterwards, in 1878, the Dominion Parliament provided for separate schools in the 
 North-west Territories without hardly a dissentient voice. When in 1894, Mr. 
 McCarthy wished to amend the statute and leave the subject in the hands of the people 
 of the North-west Territories, he was defeated by 114 to 21 ; and Major Hughes, who 
 wished to prohibit directly all sectarian teaching in the North-west schools, by 131 to 2. 
 
 It has been urged that the matters in question here should be left to the disposition 
 of the province of Manitoba. This argument emanates, of course, from the majority 
 — leave it to the province, they say — that is leave it to us. Now, why was an appeal 
 provided for by the constitution at a time when parties were about equally divided 1 
 Was it for the purpose of being acted upon, or was it inserted merely as something 
 ornamental 1 Was it to be used if the Protestants were in the minority, but not if the 
 Catholics were the injured ones? What was it put there for? I say that it was placed 
 there as one out of many constitutional guarantees which Protestants and Catholics alike 
 enjoy under Canadian constitution — a guarantee which it was hoped would remain 
 unused, like a life-preserver, but which was to be resorted to in case of need. 
 
 Let me quote the language of the Privy Council upon this point : — " Bearing in 
 mind the circumstances which existed in 1870, it does not appear to their Lordships an 
 extravagant notion that in creating a legislature for the province with limited power, 
 it should have been thought expedient, in case either Catholics or Protestants became 
 preponderant, and rights which had come into existence under different circumstances 
 were interfered with, to give the Dominion Parliament power to legislate upon matters 
 of education as far as was necessary to protect the Protestant or Catholic minority, as 
 the case may be." 
 
 I wonder what our opponents would say about Dominion intei'ference with provin- 
 cial rights, were Quebec to interfere with the Protestant privileges there. It would 
 not be provincial, but " Protestant rights " then that we would hear of — " solemnly 
 guarded and guaranteed by the constitution ; " and so 1 urge that it is Catholic rights 
 and not provincial rights that are being interfered with ; that it is a provincial wrong, 
 and not a provincial right that we have to deal with. The appeal is given so, that pro- 
 vincial wrongs may be made into rights. 
 
 Such considerations are, however, not properly up for discussion before this Coun- 
 cil, for, as I have formerly contended and now repeat (as my eighth argument, and with all 
 proper deference and respect), not only has His Excellency in Council a power of appeal, 
 but it is his bounden duty to hear the appeal, and to adjudicate thereon, as its merits 
 may require. 
 
 The Council adjourned until 2.30 p.m. 
 
16 
 
 AFTER RECESS. 
 The Council resumed at 2.30 p.m. 
 
 >[r. EwAirr. I argue that the constitution has given to the Catholic minority of 
 
 the (^)ueens subjects in Manitoba, as a right, an appeal from Acts of the Legislative Assem- 
 bh' ; that His Excellency in Council cannot decline to hear such an appeal, and cannot 
 refuse, whether out of regard for the Legislature or for any other reason, to deliver a 
 judgment upon the merits of the case, when brought before him. It is a well-known rule 
 for "the construction of statutes that where functions of a public nature are bestowed 
 upon individuals, such persons have no right to refuse to exercise their powers. The 
 rule includes cases in which jurisdiction of a judicial character is given. Even when 
 the language of the statute is permissive— the judge may do so and so, "may " is always 
 held to°mean that if a proper case is made out he shall do so and so. Allow me to 
 quote a passage from Maxwell on Statutes (pages 295-6) : 
 
 " It is a legal or rather a constitutional principle that powers given to public func- 
 tionaries, or others for public purposes, or the public benefit, were always to be exer- 
 cised when the occasion arises." And again : " But as regards the imperative character 
 of the duty, it was laid down by the King's Bench (R. v. Hastings, 1 D. & R., 48), that 
 words of permission in an Act of Parliament, when tending to promote the general 
 benefit, are always held to be compulsory ; and as regards courts and judicial function- 
 aries who act only when appealed to, the same rule was in substance, re-stated by the 
 Common Pleas in laying down that whenever a statute confers an authority to do a 
 judicial act (the worcl 'judicial " being used evidently in its widest sense) in a certain 
 case, it is imperative on those so authorized to exercise the authority when a case arises, 
 and' its exercise is duly applied for by a party interested, and having a right to make 
 the application ; and that the exercise depends, not on the discretion of the courts or 
 judges, but upon proof of the particular case out of which the power arises." 
 
 * Our Supreme Court Act pro\ddes that " an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court 
 from ail final judgments " of provincial courts. The Manitoba Act in similar terms, 
 provides that " an appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any act or 
 decision of the Legislature of the province." What would we say of the Supreme 
 Court did it refuse to hear an appeal, or to deal with it as justice required, merely be- 
 cause the case involved some political, or otherwise troublesome, question 1 With all 
 proper respect and for identical reasons, I say that His Excellency in Council cannot 
 decline to exercise the important powers by the Manitoba Act conferred upon him for 
 the protection of the Roman Catholic minority in that province, and I humbly claim, 
 as a right, that the petitions shall be disposed of upon their merits and without regard 
 to theleelings of the body appealed from. A further consideration which emphasises 
 the duty of the Council in this particular case, is the fact that rights, vested rights, 
 which the Catholics had in Manitoba, prior to the Act of 1890, have been taken away 
 from them. The Legislature of Manitoba voluntarily conferred those rights upon the 
 Catholics, and I urge that Parliament ought, by an order to be made by this Council, 
 be given the jurisdiction to deal with the matter, and, if it thinks proper, to restore to 
 us the rights of which we have been deprived. In other words, I contend that this 
 Council ought not to refuse to allow the matter to be taken before Parliament. 
 
 As to "the measure of relief asked for by the Roman Catholic minority in Mani- 
 toba, I have prepared and now submit (without prejudice to any other claims which 
 we may have) a draft of such a statute as we would propose the Legislative Assembly 
 of Manitoba should be asked to pass. (Exhibit P.) 
 
 I may say that it is taken very closely from the old statutes, and it is one under 
 which we would seek to get relief. 
 
 Hon. Mr. IvES.-Might I ask if it is an amendment of the law of 1890, or if it replaces 
 
 the law of 1890? ^ i ^ • 
 
 Mr. EwART.— Neither, accurately. It is drafted upon the lines ot the Ontario 
 Statute. It is neither strictly an amendment of the Act of 1890 nor does it replace it. 
 The Act of 1890 is left to its operation, and this will be a further Act. We have given 
 it the title of " The Separate Schools Act, " taking the title from the Ontario Statute. 
 
17 
 
 It would then be in Manitoba, as in Ontario, a Public Schools Act and a Separate Schools 
 Act. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Curran. — Do you go beyond the rights and privileges they had before 1 
 
 Mr. Ewart. — No. We have been very careful not to go one step beyond, but we 
 have given up some things we had before, as I shall now explain. 
 
 Prior to 1890 additional matters were confided to a board of education composed 
 of twelve Protestants and nine Catholics. This board was divided into a Protestant 
 and a Catholic section, each having care of its own schools. The Board, as a whole, 
 had certain jurisdiction, and the respective sections had what remained. The Act of 
 1890 abolished the Board of Education and provided for a Department of Education, 
 composed of the Executive Council, or a committee thereof. We do not propose to re- 
 establish the old Board. If the Legislature would rather have a Department of Edu- 
 cation than a Board of Education, we have nothing to say. But we do ask that those 
 powers which, before 1890, were exercised by the Pioman Catholic section of the Board, 
 should again be entrusted to a similar body. The jurisdiction formerly exercised, not 
 by the Catholic section of the Board, but by the whole Board, we are satisfied should for 
 the future, be relegated to the Department of Education ; although that will remove 
 from Catholics all share in the settlement of such matters. The reconstituted body of 
 Catholics will, I presume, and as I have provided, have to be appointed by Government, 
 foi- that was the provision prior to 1890. We ask, too, that we should be relieved from 
 taxation for the support of the present Protestant schools, and of any schools which are 
 non-Catholic ; that we should have power to organize our own schools and tax ourselves 
 as formerly : and that we should have our share of all public moneys voted for the main- 
 tenance of schools. 
 
 So much for the future. With regard to the past some things that have been done 
 ought to be undone. The efiect of the Act of 1890 was to transfer the ownership of all 
 Catholic school property to the Protestant schools. We think that this should be given 
 back to us. As part of the property which was confiscated by the Act of 1890, I may 
 mention the sum of §13,879. 47, which the Catholic section of the School Board had at its 
 credit in 1890. The circumstances connected with the confiscation of this amount of 
 money (a large sum for Manitoba Catholics) can best be related by reading the affidavit 
 of the Honourable Senator Bernier (Exhibit O). We think that we cannot be deemed 
 unreasonable if we ask that this money, filched by Act of Parliament, should be restored 
 to us. 
 
 The remedy which we seek we are content to obtain in the method pointed out by 
 the judgment of the Privy Council, in which it is said : " It is certainly not essential 
 that the Statutes repealed by the Act of 1890 should be re-enacted, or that the precise 
 provisions of these Statutes should again be made the law. The system of education 
 embodied in the Act of 1890, no doubt commends itself to and adequately supplies the 
 wants of the great majority of the inhabitants of the province. All legitimate ground 
 of complaint would be removed if that system were supplanted by provisions which 
 would I'emove the grievance upon which the appeal is founded, and were modified so far 
 as might be necessary to give effect to these provisions." By supplement and modifica- 
 tion, then we are satisfied to obtain the relief which we ask. 
 
 There are various points regarding details upon which we would be very willing to 
 make some compromise or agreement with the Manitoba Government, but we are at 
 present in this difficulty, that we are not in a position to ask that any compromise, 
 however fair, should be enacted by the Dominion Government, without the assent to it 
 of the local legislature. We can ask only for that which we had before, and must be 
 careful not even by concessions to change in any material respect the position which we 
 formerly occupied. If we did, any statute that the Dominion might pass might be 
 ultra vires. 
 
 I hear it frequently said that the Protestant portion of the province of Manitoba 
 is almost a unit in its opposition to separate schools ; that Manitoba will refuse to 
 comply with any law passed by the Dominion Parliament ; that Manitoba will defy the 
 law laid down by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and refuse to be bound 
 by the terms of her own constitution. But it is only when I come to Ontario that I hear 
 those things ; even as one had to go to that province to hear of the frightful wrongs 
 
18 
 
 imposed upon the downtrodden Protestants in Quebec, by the passage of the Jesuit 
 Estates Act. The Manitoba School Act of 1890 is well known to have originated with 
 one man, and to have been imposed by him upon the Government, of which he was the 
 only stron" member, much against the will of his chief ; and to be maintained now 
 purely for political purposes, and by the local representations of but one political party. 
 The strategic uses to which the question is put, may well be seen when we observe that 
 althou"h it is the Liberals who conjure with it in ]Manitoba, it is the Conservatives who 
 endeavour to make capital out of it in Ontario. I say that it is in Ontario alone that we 
 hear of an intending rebellion in Manitoba. The local Government no doubt, has 
 asserted that it will resist to the extent of its power, but outside of Ontario, there has 
 been no hint of reconstitutional action, no suggestion that the loyal people of the Prairie 
 Province had any idea of setting themselves against, or above, the law of their own 
 constitution. The Conservatives in jNIanitoba are almost to a man in favour of liberty to 
 mv clients ; and so too are many of the Liberals. 
 
 ' In closing my argument, I cannot do better than adopt (with the exception 
 of a single expression) the concluding language of an address delivered by Dr. J. H, 
 Morrison" l)ef ore the Junior Liberal-Conservative Association of St. John, N.B. : — 
 
 He said : " Anticipating the appearance of this question in tlie arena of federal 
 
 politics, Mr. McCarthy and his Protest? nt Protective Association have launched out 
 upon a campaign of open hostility to the Roman Catholic Church upon general principles. 
 They hope to enlist the great army of loyal Orangemen upon their side, when they have 
 to face this question. I am proud to be'^a member of the Orange Society. It is a noble 
 institution and I wish its aims, principles and precepts were better understood by the 
 public at large. But no part of an Orangeman's obligation, permits much less requires, 
 him to oppose a Roman Catholic fellow citizen, merely because he is a Roman Catholic, 
 and he is bound by his obligation to resist the encroachments of the Church of Rome 
 only by just and legitimate means. Is it just and legitimate to break solemn pledges, 
 to violate solemn compacts, to insult, despoil and trample under foot a weak minority, 
 simply because that minority is Roman Catholic 1 " 
 
 Should the Legislature of Quebec abolish the Protestant separate schools of that 
 province, what a cry would go up from all the Protestant newspapers all over Canada ? 
 The very men who now cry " let the majority rule," would then enter the lists to see 
 that the minority should have protection ; anl you would find Mr. Dalton McCarthy in 
 the van«'uard of those who would be ready to unsheathe their swords for the defence of 
 separate" Protestant schools. And if the helpless Protestant minority in Quebec should 
 appeal to the Parliament of Canada for protection, wouM not the entire country endorse 
 and support the Government which would restore them to their present favoured position ? 
 Who would then cry "let the provincial majority rule." Can we afibrd to withhold from 
 the Catholic minority in Manitoba the same justice which we would readily grant to the 
 Protestants in Quebec ? Can we make flesh of the one, and fish of the other, and stdl 
 maintain our own self-respect? Will it be just for us to ratify the wiping out of the 
 separate schools of JNIanitoba, simply because we are on general principles opposed to 
 separate schools, without taking into consideration the circumstances which surround 
 the case? We cannot afford to adopt the Jesuitical (I object to that word) doctrine, 
 that the end justifies the means, we cannot afibrd to do wrong that good may come. 
 
 We cannot afford to be unjust. i • , i 
 
 " Nearly 1900 years ago, there was delivered to the world a law, which has been 
 the greatest of all forces, in the revolution of religion, civilization and society. It was 
 the faw," Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you." Actuated by the 
 spirit of that law, President Cleveland decided to restore to her throne the deposed 
 Hawaiian Queen. Should party jealousy, or Republican hatred of monarchical institu- 
 tion, thwart his ben' ficent purposes the finger uf scorn will be turned upon the United 
 States by the nations of the world. Let not the finger of scorn be turned upon Canada, 
 because she shall refuse to be as just and generous as the President of the Great 
 
 Republic. . . 
 
 " Again I say, that when this question comes before us, as it must come, it the 
 
 Governm'ent of Canada find it their duty to interfere, let our motto be " Let justice be 
 done though the Heavens fall." 
 
19 
 
 Sir CuARLES TuppER. — You have submitted a bill. Is your construction of the 
 British North America Act or of the Manitoba Act — I refer to the clause having to do 
 with this matter in each case — is it your construction that the Governor in Council, if 
 they decide to act, are bound to submit a bill to the Legislature of Manitoba? 
 
 Mr. EwART. — I am inclined to think so. I am not perfectly clear about it, but I 
 am so much of that opinion that I would be afraid to adopt any other course. 
 
 Sir Charles Tupper. — Then what is your construction of that clause 4 in the 
 first Act, and of clause 3 in the other, where, in one case, they use the expression 
 ' provincial authority ' 1 I desire to call your attention to this point, and to ask whether, 
 in the clause to which I refer, the Legislature contemplated an alternative answer, that 
 is to say, whether the Govei'nor in Council, in the first pai't of the paragraph, should 
 intimate to the Legislature what is requisite, and in the alternative, whether it would be 
 sufiicient for the Governor in Council to make a decision in general terms ? 
 
 Mr. EwART. — I am inclined to think that it applies to different cases, that the first 
 of these alternatives applies to the case of a law, and the second, to some administrative 
 proceeding taken by some provincial authority. 
 
 Sir Charles Tupper. — -Other than the Legislature 1 
 
 Mr. EwART. — I am inclined to think so. I admit the clause is not free from doubt. 
 There are so many different opinions about it that one must admit that it is not free 
 from doubt. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Angers. — Do I understand that the bill you have presented is suggestive 
 and not an injunction 1 
 
 Mr. EwART. — Suggestive merely. 
 
 Sir Charles Tupper. — As the widest measure of relief, I suppose. 
 
 Mr. Ewart. — Not as the wi lest measure of relief, but what we are willing to ask 
 and accept. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Angers. — One that would satisfy your clients'? 
 
 Mr. Ewart. — Yes. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ives. — In your previous address, you say that you appreciate the fact 
 that the Government have no power except to confer jurisdiction upon the Parliament of 
 Canada. I suppose you still adhere to that view 1 
 
 Mr. Ewart. — Yes. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — That the Government has no legislative authority. 
 
 Mr. Ewart. — None whatever. 
 
 Hon.' Mr. Ouimet.— What is suggested in your bill would give you a full remedy 
 of all the grievances you now have to complain of. 
 
 Mr. Ewart. — Yes, except as to some matters such as this, for instance, a share of 
 the legislative grant during the last four years, we have not got any of that. "VVe have 
 had to maintain our own schools out of our own pockets in the meantime, and we have 
 had to pay taxes for the support of Protestant schools, but we have not had any share 
 of that. There are one or two other matters. I cannot say that by this bill we would 
 be put in anything like the position we would have been in had there been no interfer- 
 ence, or as a matter of broad equity, we should be in. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Haggart. — I suppose you intend to produce evidence to show how the Acts 
 of 1890 interfered with rights and privileges that you acquired. 
 
 Mr. Ewart. — That is established sufficiently by the judgment. That must be taken 
 as conclusive upon that point. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Mr. President and gentlemen of the Privy Council : Before 
 proceeding, I desire to state that Mr. John O'Donohue, a public school trustee of the 
 city of Winnipeg, has come here on behalf of himself and that portion of the Roman 
 Catholics in the province that he believes to be in sympathy with his views, and I 
 would ask that you hear him before I commence my argument. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — Mr. O'Donohue may proceed. 
 
 Mr. O'Donohue (reading a statement). — I am a resident of Winnipeg, a public 
 school trustee for Ward 3, and a member of the Catholic Church and a regular 
 communicant. I desire to appear before you to present my views on the public school 
 question on behalf of myself and a large number of Catholics of the province of Manitoba, 
 whom I represent. 
 
20 
 
 When I first arrived in Manitoba in 1882, my business for the first five or six 
 years brouglit me into contact with the people all over the province, more particularly 
 the French settlements. From the first I took considerable interest in the schools, and 
 it was clear to me from the first that the French schools and the Catholic schools 
 generally were not in the progressive state that the Protestant schools were. My 
 reason for coming to this conclusion was on account of the class of teachers generally 
 employed, and the wretched shape of the schools, both as to grounds, buildings and 
 furniture, notwithstanding that in most of the school districts, the school taxes should 
 be sutHcient to maintain the schools in a much better shape as to comfort and efficiency. 
 Seldom did I find a French teacher that could teach or even speak English. I called 
 on His Grace the Archbishop, and asked him if there could not be some improvement. 
 He said that he was looking forward to a better state of aflfairs, but at that time he 
 was not prepared to make much change, as the class of teachers necessary was not 
 easily procured, and if they were, the accommodation they would require was not 
 procurable. So matters went on as of old from year to year. In the year of, I think, 
 1886, I spoke to the Hon. John Norquay and asked him if he could not do something 
 to improve the French and Catholic schools so as to put them on a level with the 
 Protestant schools of Kildonan and St. Andrews, and other countxy Protestant schools. 
 Mr. jSorquay's answer was that the Catholic School Board had the matter entirely in 
 their own hands, and he saw no reason why their schools should not be as efficient as the 
 Protestant schools. I may here say that I don't think that 25 per cent of the French 
 youths can write their names, while I think I am safe in saying that 75 of the Protes- 
 tant natives can read and write. 
 
 When the present Provincial Government came into power, or soon after, I called 
 on Mr. Martin and asked him if he would take up the school system of Manitoba and 
 remodel it in some way that would improve them, and in particular the Catholic schools. 
 He, ]\Ir. Martin, said then that he did not think it was within the jurisdiction of the 
 Provincial Government to do so, but it rested with the Federal House, but he promised 
 me to wive the matter his consideration I afterwards spoke to Mr. Smart, Minister of 
 Public Works, in that strain. He also said he would think the matter over. So when 
 the present School Act of 1890 was spoken of, and after its adoption, I gave it my 
 humble and strongest support, and have no reason to regret the course I took, but am 
 more convinced than ever that it is the best for the country and for the Catholics in 
 particular, that they would be the greatest gainers, and would accept the School Act if 
 the French clergy would allow them to do so. 
 
 Another grievance many Catholics complain of is that our school property, instead 
 of being held by the Catholic trustees, for the people, is held in fee simple by the Super- 
 intendent General, or head of the Oblate Fathers in France, and although in Winnipeg, 
 all the cash invested belongs to the people, the Oblate Fathers always charged a good 
 rent for the Catholic schools. I may also state that about three years ago I canvassed 
 some of the members of our City School Board to find out if there might not be a com- 
 promise effected as regards our city schools. My idea was to try and introduce some- 
 thin<^ known as the Faribault system, as then and now in foi'ce in Minnesota, that is, 
 our Catholic friends would engage Catholic teachers qualified as the law requires, if our 
 City School Board would provide funds for their payment. I received reasonable en- 
 coura<^ement from the City School Board, and then waited on our clergy and made the 
 su'^f^estion as above. The idea was heartily received by Father McCarthy for himself, 
 ancTon behalf of the parish priest, then Father Fox. The former asked me to wait on 
 the Bishop and lay the matter before him, and said he had no doubt but His Grace 
 would think favourably of the scheme. I said I would not go alone, but if the priests 
 would nominate two other parishioners to go with me, I would see what could be done 
 on the lines mentioned above. The two gentlemen named by the priest, and myself, 
 visited His Grace, and to my surprise were told that it was useless to suggest any com- 
 promise, and the interview was cut short. His Grace adding that he was advised 
 by his eastern friends to accept nothing short of the repeal of the 1890 School Act, as 
 he honestly considered the constitution and bill of rights entitled him to on behalf of 
 his people. 
 
21 
 
 There were several letters passed between His Grace and myself, all on the lines as 
 described, but in the most courteous and friendly way. Soon after this, the English- 
 speaking people were granted what His Grace said, was a special favour to them, calling 
 from Boston, Mass., a very clever young Irish priest named Father Maloney. He was 
 not long in Winnipeg till he became very popular, even with the French people. The 
 schools of the city soon received his attention, and he visited them, both Protestant and 
 Catholic, and came to the conclusion at once that the Catholic people would have to do 
 one of two things, either greatly improve their own schools or send their children to the 
 public schools. " These independent opinions brought down on him the wrath of the 
 powers that then existed, and he had to leave us in a hurry, not, however, before a 
 public meeting of the parishioners was called and a committee named and appointed to 
 call on His Grace and remonstrate, and ask for Father :Maloney's retention, but His 
 Grace advanced other and stronger reasons, from his standpoint, why Father Maloney 
 should be let go. I may here say that I was one of the committee above mentioned. 
 
 About IS months ago there was a public meeting of Catholic school supporters 
 called by the trustees, I believe of a school district in the parish of St. Norbert, I 
 think all French people ; and at that, or a subsequent meeting, a resolution was carried 
 that the school districts should come under the late School Act. This, notwithstanding 
 the protest of the parish priest, would have been carried out but for the inHuence of 
 His Grace being brought to bear on the trustees and people, in fact there is scarcely a day 
 that there are not Catholics calling on me and expressing their wish that matters should 
 shape themselves so that they could send their children to the public schools. Of course, 
 they do not like to express themselves publicly lest coming into contact with the clergy. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — You said a moment ago that a resolution was carried in the 
 parish of St. Xorbert, that the school district should come under the late School Act. 
 
 Mr. O'DoNOHUE. — I meant to say the present School Act. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — How does it read in your statement ? 
 
 Mr. O'DoxoHUE. — I read it, the late School Act. 
 
 Hon. Ml'. Ouimet. — Was it written by you 1 
 
 Mr. O'DoNOiiUE.— Yes, sir. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — And it reads that way now 1 
 
 Mr. O'DoyoHUE. — It reads that way now. My intention was to say the Act of 
 1890. It was written since I left home. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — Could you produce that resolution that you referred to 
 passed by that School Board 1 
 
 Mr. O'DoxoHUE. — I do not know, the proceedings appeared in the Winnipeg papers at 
 the time. The resolution was carried at a school meeting. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — The Winnipeg papers are in the Library, perhaps you 
 
 could find it there. 
 
 Mr. ODoxoHUE. — It was a year ago last summer, as near as I can remember it 
 
 now. 
 
 Sir Adolphe Carox. — That is close enough to find out. 
 
 Mr. O'DoNOHUE. — The school matter dragged on a long time much as stated above, 
 till Father Langevin, now Bishop elect, became parish priest, when he took hold of the 
 matter in a much more vigorous manner. Every Sunday we were treated to a dose of 
 school matter from his standpoint, in the shape of petitions and processions to the 
 Government, &c. In his warm remarks from the pulpit he would call^ the Government 
 thieves and scoundrels, those of his congregation that did not fall in with his views, 
 blackguards, &c. I may here say that during my candidature for school trustee last 
 December, Father Langevin opposed me strongly, and canvassed one of the Catholics 
 that signed my nomination papers to withdraw his support from me. Notwithstanding 
 all this* 90 per cent of the Catholics in my ward voted for me, many of them taking out 
 their vehicles to help my election. I consider this very strong evidence that the bulk 
 of the Catholics are ready to accept the present School Act if left to act for themselves. 
 You will remember the election referred to was by ballot. 
 
 I may also say that two of my daughters have taught in the public schools of 
 Winnipeg and at present there is one teaching there. They both are, I think, good 
 practicarCatholics, and would resist any religious exercises offensive to the Catholic 
 
22 
 
 Church, and they always reported to me that they neither saw or heard anything, offen- 
 sive to Catliolics. In closing my remarks I wish to be understood as not referring to the 
 convent schools, whicli I have good reason for saying are all even more efficient than 
 thev are represented to be, and very many of our Protestant fiiends take advantage of 
 their usefulness for the education of their daughters. 
 
 By Mr. Enart: 
 
 Q. Do you speak French 1 — A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. And you judge of the efficiency of separate schools when you do not understand 
 what is o-oing on in them ? — A. Yes. It is not very hard to pass an opinion on the 
 majorit}* of the country schools. 
 
 By Sir Adolphe Car on : 
 
 Q. Did you write that out yourself ? — A. I wrote it out. I wrote it out yesterday 
 in the Queen's Hotel, and got it typewritten. Mr. McCarthy told me I had better 
 write it out. I did not know what I would be asked to say. That is just how it was 
 done, it was written yesterday and typewritten to-day. 
 
 By Sir Charles l\ipper : 
 
 Q. I would like to ask you how many schools you personally inspected before that 
 conversation you referred to"? — A. I was in the great bulk of the schools along the river. 
 
 Q. Can you tell us any of the schools you had particularly in mind when you 
 discussed them with Mr. Norquay in 1886 ?— A. Yes, I was in a school about four or 
 five miles east of Ste. Anne, a French school. 
 
 Q. Who was the teacher ? — A. I could not tell you that now. I was in two schools 
 in the parish of St. Norbert. 
 
 Q. Can you give the names of the teachers in any of the schools? — A. I can give 
 one of them, for the teacher came to my house several times. She felt that there ought 
 to be something done for the schools, and she knew what it was, for she lived, and 
 cooked, and slept in the school- house. That was done in more schools than one. Hei 
 name was Miss Richot. 
 
 Q. What year was that ? — A. That would be about 1887 or 188.^. 
 
 Q. I was referring to the schools that you had been in personally before 1886 1^ 
 A. I was in her school, and I was in a school at Oak Point. 
 
 Q. Was that a French school? — A. Yes. Very seldom I found any teachers that 
 could talk English. My business led me a good deal through the country. Mr.' Daly 
 knows my business. I was on the board all the time I have been there. 
 
 Q. Then, as to the percentages. When you speak of the percentage of French who 
 can read and write, and the percentage of English who can read and write, how do you 
 make out that calculation 1 — A. 1 will tell you how I come to that. I have been in the 
 agricultural implement business since I came to that country ; I take a great many 
 notes, and in addition to that, I have collected a lot of notes for persons in Ontario ; and 
 from the class of notes, and from the way they were signed, I came to that conclusion. 
 
 Q. Did you reduce that calculation to paper? For instance, did you add up the 
 number of people who could speak French ?— A. No, I did not, I compared my notes. 
 
 Q. Then practically it was a guess from your experience ?- A. I went over the 
 notes in my possession. 
 
 By Hon. Mr. Ives : 
 Q. The notes were given by elderly people, I suppose, rather than by children ? — 
 A. There were a good many young people. 
 
 Q. They were not given by school children ? — A. No. 
 
 By Sir Charles T upper : 
 Q. Can you tell us to-day about how many people you came across in selling these 
 goods, who could not read or write — within ten or twenty ? — A. No, I do not think I 
 could. 
 
23 
 
 Q. You did not keep a record 1 — A. I have had several hundred notes in my pos- 
 session, but I have not got so many just now. 
 
 Q. And it was from your experience gained in that way that you made this 
 estimate? — A. Yes. 
 
 £^/ Hon. Mr. Montague : 
 
 Q. Was this true in the case of English people, a great majority of whom had at- 
 tended school in the provinces from which they had emigrated to Manitoba ? — A. I am 
 talking of the natives only, I am talking of the half-breeds. 
 
 Q. Do you remember what was the percentage of the French 1 — A. About 25 per cent 
 of the French half-breeds and 75 per cent of the Scotch half-breeds, in a rough way. I 
 miwht be wrong a little, one way or the other, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of it at 
 all. Of course, I am speaking altogether of the natives. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Before discussing this matter, I desire to say that I think you 
 ought in fairness to allow me an opportunity of answering the affidavits which have been 
 filed here to-day. There was no ground at all to suspect, and no notice was given of 
 any intention to use affidavits ; and if this matter is to be determined upon affidavit 
 evidence, it is manifest, if there is to be fair-play, that there must be an opportunity 
 for answering those affidavits, and no such opportunity has been afforded. On the con- 
 trary, my learned friend who has used those affidavits in support of no less than four 
 arguments, and as to three of them they are based solely upon affidavits, gave f(jrmal 
 notice to the Attorney General, and that formal notice was taken from the forms which 
 are used in the courts. He winds up by saying : — 
 
 '* Take notice, that in default of anyone appearing at this time to speak on behalf 
 of the Government of Manitoba, then His Excellency the Governor General in Council 
 may proceed to hear such appeals in support." 
 
 Now, my learned friend knows perfectly well that if affidavits are to be used, a 
 notice must be given that they are to be used, and opportunity must be aflForded of seeing 
 them and answering them. The affidavits to be used are always mentioned in the 
 notice, and I hold in my hand the formal notice which was served upon the Attorney 
 General. I think you will see the fairness of my claim. I am quite prepared, of cour^-e, 
 to discuss the matter from the historical standpoint, from a knowledge that has come to 
 us all, and from a legal standpoint ; but to meet a case upon affidavits, those affidavits 
 having been carefully kept in my learned friend's possession until the last moa^ent, with- 
 out a hint being given that they would be u-^ed, would be so gross a perversion of jus- 
 tice that I do not s e how I can be forced into an argument until an opportunity is 
 afforded me of meeting those affidavits. 
 
 Hon. Mr. OuiMET. — What is the conclusion of your argument 1 Do you ask for 
 something 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — The conclusion o? my argument is that I want an opportunity of 
 answering these affidavits. That is my application. My learned friend made nine 
 arguments, four of these are based partly upon affidavits, three of them altogether upon 
 affidavits. Xow, it never entei ed into my head that this matter could be determined 
 upon affidavits. If it is to be determined upon affidavits, they cannot be produced upon 
 one side only, and of course an opportunity must be afforded me of answering these 
 affidavits by others. 
 
 Mr. EwART.— My learned friend's objection, if there is anything in it, comes 
 entirely too late. If he was going to obj'ect to these documents being read, the time for 
 him to take objection was when I put in the first one, if he wanted time to answer 
 them. Not until he heard our whole argument does he ask for an adjournment for the 
 purpose of answering these affidavits. My learned friend, however, has done exactly 
 what I have done, he his gone upon the same lines of procedure. We have brought 
 such evidence here as we thought prop'^r : he did not tell me what his evidence was gomg 
 to be, nor did I tell him what mine was going to be. If the notice had been a little 
 longer, I would have sent my learned friend copies of the affididts, out of courtesy 
 merely, but as the notice was short, I was unable to get the affidavits completed until 
 after I had arrived at Ottawa. My learned friend has got Mr. O'Donohue here, and he 
 
24 
 
 has t,'iven testimony. Jle gave it orally, we have put in our testimony by affidavit. I 
 could have got all these gentlemen here no doubt, at great expense and askt d thein to 
 make speeches and they could have liad all their testimony type-written upon foolscap, 
 and read it off. I will merely mention that JNFr. O'Donoliue has come here, not as a 
 witness for ni" at all, but on his own behalf and on behalf of those whom he i^ays he 
 represents. I think there is little doubt that Mr. O'Donohue comes here at the instance 
 of the Ixical Government : I do not think it is at all pro1)able that Mr. (J'Donohue is 
 paying his own expenses here to make the statement he has done. I do n< t think I am 
 at all wrong in suggesting that Mr, O'Donohue is here for the purpose of giving testi- 
 mony for the Pro\incial Government. Therefore, I say that my learned friend has 
 been procee ling upon ttie same lines, and he has no more rigiit to ask for an adjourn- 
 ment to answer my affidavits than I would have to ask for an adjournment to answer 
 the statements of his witness. If he makes a distinction, saying mine are affidavits, 
 and his are statements, I am content to take mine as statements and not affidavits : I 
 am content to s^y that so far as this court is concerned, they should be regarded simply 
 as statements and not as sworn documents. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — Of course, Mr. Ewart must remember that Mr. McCarthy 
 objected in the first place, not very strenuously, I admit, to the reading of these 
 athdavits. He must be permitted, however, to answer them. 
 
 Mr. Ewart. — My learned friend hardly objected, he rather presumed that he could 
 not object. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Montague. — I think Mr. McCarthy offered his objection at the time. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I certainly do not think I had any right to do more than to 
 point out as I did that it was irregular. I do not know anything about what this 
 Council will do. It seems to me if the matter was to be discussed upon public grounds, 
 as provided by Mr. Blake's Act to which reference was made, in any question of fact to 
 be tried, the reference should have been made under that Act. Without reading the 
 affidavits, I do not know how anybody can determine the matter. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — It has been suggested that we should adjourn four or five 
 minutes to consider this question. 
 
 Hon. Ml-. OuiMET. — Suppose, Mr. McCarthy, that you go on with your argument. I 
 presume you are very well cognizant of the facts upon which you are going to base that 
 argument, and at the end of your argument, permission might be given to you to file 
 affidavits. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — It would be very inconvenient to do that. If I am to be of any 
 service at all upon this case, I must base my arguments upon facts and not upon mere 
 suppositions. I do not know what is to be said of this intimation of bad faith in the 
 three arguments which have been adduced. I want to see what reply can be made, and, 
 of course, I cannot ax'gue that upon any assumption which I do not know and which I 
 have not before me. 
 
 Hon. Mr. OuiMET. — These facts have been before the public for several years. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Never did I hear of them, and I know nothing about them. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — They were discussed in the Manitoba Legislature, and they 
 wei'e discussed here, and several times within your hearing. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — All I can say is that I know nothing about these facts, and 
 never supposed any claim was to be based on then. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — I never suspected you were ignorant of all these facts. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — There are a good man}' other things that you never suspected. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — I think I have read some o!: those affidavits before. 
 
 Hon. ^Ir. Montague. — Some of them were in Mr. Ewart's speech. 
 
 The Privy Council retired for ten minutes to consult together, and returned. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — The Council has decided to request Mr. McCarthy to 
 proceed with his argument upon points of law, and upon such points of historical 
 interest as he may desire to submit : but they will give reasonable time afterwards to 
 produce affidavits in reply to those produced by Mr. Ewart. But no affidavits of any 
 new matter can be produced. Mr. Ewart can be heard upon them upon a subsequent 
 day, to be fixed at the end of the argument. 
 
25 
 
 Mr. EwART. — Allow me to say that that would throw the matter over so late that 
 it would be impossible that anything could be done this year ; and rather than that 
 should happen, I would withdraw the affidavits and rest the case upon the other 
 material. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I can not object to that course. 
 
 Sir Charles Tupper. — Then we will consider them withdrawn. 
 
 Hon. Mr. OuiMET. — Do you not wish to answer that statement of Mr, O'Donohue ? 
 
 Mr. EwART. — In my argument I shall say something about it. 
 
 Hon. Mr. OuiMET. — Then there is nothing in the way of arguing the case to- 
 morrow morning. 
 
 The Privy Council adjourned until 11 o'clock a.m. on Tuesday morning. 
 
 Affidavits referred to in Mr. Ewart's opening argument and filed as Exhibits 
 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, J, K, L, M, N and O, were subsequently withdrawn. 
 
 The Privy Council met at 1 1 o'clock a. 
 
 Ottawa, 5th March, 1895. 
 m. 
 
 Present : — Sir Mackenzie Bowell, Sir Adolphe Caron, Hon. Mr. Costigan, Sir 
 Charles Tupper, Hon. Mr. Foster, Hon. Mr. Haggart, Hon. Mr. Daly, Hon. Mr. 
 Ouimet, Hon. Mr. Ives, Hon. Mr. Dickey, and Hon. Mr. Montague. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Privy Council: Before 
 commencing my statement, perhaps you will allow me to read something in confirmation 
 of Mr. O'Donohue's statement made yesterday. Some of the members of the Council 
 asked for reference to a statement which Mr. O'Donohue said had been published, he 
 thought, in the summer of 1893. Dr. Blakely has discovered the article referred to in 
 searching the paper. I refer you to the Winnipeg Daily Tribune of the 29th June, 
 1893, from which I now read : — 
 
 " A member of St. Mary's Church complained to a Trihime man that for five 
 consecutive Sundays the only discourse from the pulpit of said church has been exclusi- 
 vely devoted to the school question, and a large number of the congregation think it is 
 about time to change the subject to some discussion not quite so stale and unprofitable. 
 He expressed the hope that Father Drummond, who is announced to take the pulpit 
 next Sunday, will preach to them on something more instructive and acceptable to the 
 congregation. Last Sunday, the 25th inst.. Rev. Father O'Dwyer, during his remarks 
 on ' Candid Catholic,' said, ' He had the proof, or could prove, that Protestantism was 
 taught in the city schools, and that the Catholic teachers in some schools were not 
 allowed the privilege of knowing anything about such teachings.' 
 
 " Our informant said that all Catholic teachers in the city know the untruthfulness 
 of Rev. Father O'Dwyer's remark. He also stated that on the Saturday, the 24th inst., 
 a meeting of the ratepayers of St. Norbert Schools (Ritchot) was held for the purpose 
 of considering the present condition of their schools, and after a full discussion of its 
 position, came to the conclusion to elect a board of trustees under the present school 
 law, accept the Government grant, and hire a qualified teacher, etc. Father Ritchot, 
 parish priest of St. Norbert, being alarmed at the apparent independence of the rate- 
 payers, despatched a messenger to inform His Grace at St. Boniface of their move for 
 freedom, and on Sunday, the 25th inst., another meeting was called, at which the 
 Bishop's message was delivered, which was that no change was the order of the church ; 
 and hence there was nothing done. But the people have become so thoroughly aroused 
 to the necessity of a change in school matters, that they have called another meeting 
 
26 
 
 for this (Tliursday) evening and the advocates of public schools are bound, if possible^ 
 to come under tlie Government school system, and in the future to give their children 
 the beneHt of the school tax which they have never enjoyed up to the present." 
 
 I ma}' say, at the outset, and for reasons which I will give before I close, that I do' 
 not come here at all on behalf of the Provincial Government recognizing this tribunal 
 as sitting in a judicial capacity. I quite concede that the judgment of the Privy 
 Council in tlie late case determines that the Governor General in Council has 
 jurisdiction to make a remedial order, and that that remedial order being made and 
 disobeyed, the Parliament of this country will have authority or jurisdiction to carry 
 that remedial order into eifect by legislation. But I will endeavour to show that 
 this tribunal is not sitting in a judicial capacity, and I desire, at the outset, to 
 have it clearly understood that the province which I represent here does not recognize 
 the Council sitting in this matter as being any more than the Council sitting in any 
 other matter, namely, as advisers of His Excellency the Governor General. Of course 
 I need not say to the members of the Council who have had more experience than I have 
 had in such matters, that it is not an unknown thing — I will not say that it is a com- 
 mon thing, but it is not unknown — for Council to hear arguments on matters which 
 they have thereafter to determine, matters relating to private affairs and sometimes, public 
 questions. I myself have appeared twice, as I recall, and perhaps oftener, before the Coun- 
 cil to argue such questions ; once with reference to a public matter, and once with refer- 
 ence to a private matter, which afterwai'ds became a public question, I appearing on behalf 
 of a private individual. Having said so much in a preliminary way, I think it will be 
 more convenient if I deal first with the argument of my learned friend Mr. Ewart, who 
 appeared here on behalf of a section of the Roman Catholic population of Manitoba — 
 because, as I am instructed, my learned friend does not represent the Roman Catholic 
 minority in any concrete or organized form. I am not at all disputing his right to 
 appear, but I want to draw your attention to the fact that, as I am instructed, and as 
 I think I shall be able to show, Mr. Ewart appears only for a section of the Roman 
 Catholic minority, and that no means have been taken to ascertain the views of that 
 minority as a body, that there is nothing to show even that he represents the majority 
 of that body, though it might be found that he spoke according to their views if a poll 
 or census of that minority had been taken. My learned friend, in the first place, dealt 
 with what he called the historical question, that is to say the bargain or treaty or com- 
 pact that was made between the government of this country and the inhabitants of 
 the prairie country prior to the passage of the Manitoba Act. My own view is — and 
 I put it before you with great deference — that you have nothing at all to do with the 
 negotiations which led up to the passage of the Manitoba Act, but the Manitoba Act 
 must speak for itself and that you have to find within the four corners of section 22 of 
 that Act all the powers that are conferred upon the Governor in Council or upon the Parlia- 
 ment of Canada. But in one sense possibly it may be pertinent to the argument, because, as 
 I have already been pointing out, you are not sitting here in a judicial capacity, and 
 therefore are not bound by the same strict rules of construction as a court of law would 
 be. It may therefore be pertinent, with a view to establishing a certain line of policy 
 as advisable to be adopted, to endeavour to show as my learned friend has done, that 
 some arrangement had been made between the people of the province and the Govern- 
 ment of Canada prior to the passage of the Manitoba Act, prior to the union of that 
 territory with the Dominion ot Canada. I am sorry to say that my investigation has 
 not led me to the same conclusion by any means upon the historical matter of fact as 
 that which my learned friend has stated he has arrived at. On the contrary, I think it 
 can be demonstrated, and I desire, therefore, to make it as clear as I can, that the only 
 arrangement that was made so far as the inhabitants of that country were concerned, 
 was based upon lists of rights or bills of rights, whichever they may be called, in which 
 no reference whatever was made to the question of public schools. Now I caution the 
 Council, the members of which have no doubt had the opportunity of perusing the book 
 compiled and edited by my learned friend Mr. Ewart, not to rely wholly upon the state- 
 ments made in that publication. I am not at all imputing to my learned friend bad 
 faith, I am not imputing a desire to misrepresent ; but he has been so long bound up 
 
with the advocacy of this question that it is hardly reasonable to expect that he should 
 be always in the judicial frame of mind one ought to be in who purposes to write au 
 impartial history of events. He states in his books and he has argued here before you 
 that there were four bills of rights prepared, and in that book you will find two if not 
 three of these bills of rights given — if my memory serves me right tlie number is two. 
 My learned friend's argument is that it was the fourth bill or list of rights that 
 was handed to the delegates who were invited to visit Ottawa, and who did, in point of 
 fact, visit Ottawa for the purpose of making terms with reference to the entrance of 
 that part of the present Dominion of Canada into confederation. Now I take issue with 
 my learned friend with regard to what is called the fourth list or bill of rights as being 
 the document that was entrusted to these delegates. On the contrary, I think I shall 
 be able to satisfy you by the clearest possible testimony — so far as one can have 
 testimony upon a matter of that kind, the testimony of history — that the bills 
 of rights that were prepared, so far as we know or so far as we can learn, by persons 
 who professed to be the representatives of the people, did not contain any reference what- 
 ever to the question of separate schools, contained no demand that the school system 
 should be in any way protected or in any way guarded by the Government or by the 
 authority of the Act which was to take this province into the Dominion. Now just let 
 me give you the history of this subject and let me fortify my statement with regard to 
 it as far as I po-sibly can do so by the public documents ; because, of course, 
 I am not going to rely in the slightest degree upon anything that is not common to us 
 all, such as written histories and public documents, etc., such as the members of the 
 Council would have a right to look at in forming their opinion on this question. I 
 speak with submission, and I speak subject to correction, when I say that the first 
 that was heard of this fourth bill of rights was in 1890 in a letter published 
 in the Winnipeg Free Press by the late Archbishop Tache ; that the publication 
 of that so-called fourth bill of rights which His Grace alleged had been given to the 
 delegates when they visited Ottawa was followed immediately by a letter from Mr. 
 Taylor controverting the statement, Mr. Taylor professing to know the facts of the 
 case. Following Mr. Taylor's first letter a controversy raged between Mr. Taylor on 
 one part, and another gentleman, I think Mr. Hay, on the other, and His Grace the 
 Archbishop, and that controversy I do not know ever to have been settled to the mutual 
 satisfaction of these contending parties. But, up to that time, nothing at all had been 
 heard, so far as I know, of this fourth bill of rights. Let me call your attention to 
 what did take place, according to the historical records, with reference to this matter. 
 There was a body elected in November, 1869, and in Mr. E wart's book, — and I think 
 that is not an inconvenient term — this body is called the Council of November. This 
 Council consisted of 24 members. It prepared a list of rights which is dated 16th, 
 December, 1869. I think my learned friend will agree with me and save me the trouble 
 and you the delay of my referring to it, that there was no claim of separate schools 
 made in that bill of rights. 
 Mr. EwART. — Yes. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— You will find that bill of rights at page 333. I think it was 
 on the 4th of that month that delegates were sent from Ottawa to the Red River coun- 
 try, these delegates being the Very Rev. Grand Vicar Thibault, Col. de Salaberry and Mr. 
 (now Sir) Donald A. Smith. Those delegates reached the Red River settlement. Sir 
 Donald Smith seems to have taken the principal part in the negotiations which ensued. 
 Now that council of 24— it is not important to state to you how or why— were super- 
 seded by a council which is called the Council of Forty. You will find it stated in Mr. 
 Ewart's book, at page 349, that this council of forty also prepared a bill of rights, and 
 that bill of rights was submitted to Sir Donald Smith. Sir Donald Smith made com- 
 ments upon, reported upon, that bill of rights upon his return here to the capital. That 
 bill of rights is to be found in the Sessional Papers of 1870. I think it is not to be 
 found in Mr. Ewart's book, but is included as an appendix to Sir Donald Smith's 
 report. You will find it in the Sessional Papers of 1870, No. 12 of vol. 5. Sir Donald 
 Smith states the fact of his having met this council of 40, and of the council having 
 submitted to him this bill of rights which he dealt with. At ptige 3 of the report I 
 have mentioned, you will find the following : — 
 
28 
 
 " As is generally known the result of the meeting was the appointment of forty 
 <lelegates, twenty from either side to meet on 25th January, ' with the object of con- 
 «idering the subject of Mr. Smith's commission, and to decide what would be the best 
 for the welfare of the country, ' the English as a body, and a large number of the French 
 declaring their entire satisfaction with the explanations given, and their earnest desire 
 for union with Canada. ' 
 
 He gives details of how that body was elected and continues (page 4) : 
 
 *' The delegates met on the 25th and continued in session till the 10th February. 
 On the 26th, I handed to their chairman, Judge Black, the documents read at the meet- 
 ings of the 19th and 20th January, and, on the 27th attended the convention by 
 appointment. I was received with much cordiality, by all the delegates, explained to 
 them the views of the Canadian government, and gave assurances that on entering 
 ■Confederation, they would be secured in the possession of all rights, privileges and 
 immunities enjoyed by British subjects in other parts of the Dominion ; but, on being 
 reijuested by Mr. Kiel to give an opinion regarding a certain 'list of rights,' prepared 
 by his party in December last, I declined to do so, thinking it better that the present 
 convention should place in my hands a paper, stating their wishes, to which I should 
 ' be happy to give such answers as I believed would be in accordance with the views 
 of the Canadian Government.' The convention then set about the task of preparing a 
 ■^ list of rights ' embodying the provisions upon which they would be willing to enter 
 the confederation, While the discussion regarding this list was going on, Mr. Kiel 
 called on me and asked if the Canadian Goverment would consent to receive another 
 province. " 
 
 I pass on, for this part is not pertinent to the matter I am now dealing with. On 
 page 5, the report continues : — 
 
 "The proceedings of the convention, as reported in the Neiv Nation newspaper, on 
 the 11th and 18th February, copies of which I have had the honour of addressing to 
 you, are sufficiently exact and render it unnecessary for me here to enter into details ; 
 suffice it to say that a large majority of the delegates expressed entire satisfaction with 
 the answers to their ' list of rights,' and profess confidence in the Canadian Government, 
 to which I invited them to send delegates, with the view of effecting a speedy transfer 
 •of the territory to the Dominion, an invitation received with acclamation and unanim- 
 ously accepted, as will appear by resolution hereto annexed, along with the list of 
 rights and my answer to the same. The delegates named were John Black, Esq., 
 recorder, the Rev. Mr. Ritchot, and Mr. Alfred H. Scott — a good deal of opposition 
 having been offered to the election of the last named of the three. 
 
 "The proceedings of the convention came to a close on the 10th February by 
 nomination of a provisional government, in the formation of which several delegates 
 declined to take any part. Governor MacTavish, Dr. Cowan, and two or three other 
 persons were then released, and the Hudson's Bay Company's officers again allowed to 
 come and go at pleasure, but I was still confined to the fort : Riel, as he expressly 
 stated to Judge Black, being apprehensive of my influence with the people in the 
 approaching election." 
 
 All I am quoting for is to show you the nature of the appendix, the list of rights. 
 That document contains nineteen articles, but amongst them is not to be found any 
 refei-ence to the question of separate schools, though I think there is some reference to 
 the question of education. There is one article to which I may draw your attention 
 and which provides " that there should be no interference by the Dominion Parliament, 
 in tlie local affairs of this territory other than is allowed'in any of the provinces in the 
 confederation ; and that this territory shall have and enjoy in all respects, the same 
 privileges, advances, and aids in meeting the public expenses of this territory as the 
 confederated provinces have and enjoy." 
 
 The only reference that is made to education is in paragraph 9. 
 
 " That while the North-west remains a territory, the sum of $25,000 (twenty-five 
 thousand dollars) a year be appropriated for schools, roads and bridges. 
 
29 
 
 Now, shortly after, the unfortunate incident 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — Did you state who had sent Sir Donald Smith to the territory ?' 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes. The Government here at Ottawa. He was sent with 
 Col. de Salaberry and the Very Rev. Grand Vicar Thibault ; but the others do not seem 
 to have taken part in the negotiations and did not make reports. Sir Donald Smith seems 
 to have borne the burden of the negotiations then carried on with tho.se who, at the 
 time, represented the Red River Settlement. Now that meeting with Sir Donald Smith 
 is referred to in Mr. Begg's recent history, from which I find my learned friend has 
 quoted in his work. You will find it referred to at page 59 of the first volume, but 
 it does not add anything to what I have stated. Of course I have quoted from the 
 original document as published in the Sessional Papers, and the history is, of course, 
 based upon — -or purports to be — -that original document. These delegates were to have 
 left on 10th February, but, unfortunately, the murder of Thomas Scott intervened, and 
 aftairs were in a dreadful condition as we can easily imagine, and the delegates did not 
 leave at the time intended. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey. — Did these transactions take place before the murder 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — The murder took place upon the 4th of March. The Council 
 was disbanded and a new election took place on the 26th February, so now we have 
 three different bodies — the Council of November which met in December : the Council 
 of 40, which met Sir Donald Smith, and the Council elected on the 26th February. On 
 the 4th March the unhappy incident took place to which I have referred, and this assembly 
 which was elected, met on 4 th March and continued to 26 th March. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — There were twenty-four members in that body. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I am prepared to accept my learned friend's statement as regard 
 to that. What appears in Mr. E wart's book is that the list of rights shown to Sir 
 Donald Smith was not the list of rights which was sent to Ottawa and formed the basis 
 of the negotiations here. It was intended that that list of rights should be taken by the 
 delegates who were then appointed to come to Ottawa, but my learned friend's argument, 
 and the statement in his books is that they did not leave for Ottawa — as I believe the 
 fact to be — on 10th February as intended, that they did not leave until after the meet- 
 ing of the new elected body of twenty-four ; that it was not until about the end of the 
 month — the 26th or 27th — that they left. So you will see that upon the main facts we 
 are agreed. Now, upon the 26th or 27th March the main bill of rights was prepared, 
 and it appears from the history — though I do not find the record of it anywhere else 
 than in this only history we have of it, that it was this third bill of rights which was 
 handed to the delegates who came here to Ottawa, and which formed the sole instruc- 
 tions from the provisional council — because by this time Riel had organized a so-called 
 government and provisional council. You will find that His Excellency the Governor 
 General at the time, as well as his responsible advisers, refused to recognize this pro- 
 visional gov-ernment — refused to read or look at, formally or officially, this third bill of 
 rights which the delegates brought. It also appears in some of the statements, at all 
 events from the report made by the Rev. Mr. Ritchot, upon his return to the territories, 
 that they were told that they might advocate what was stated in this bill of rights, but 
 the Dominion Government could not recognize the authority of the provisional govern- 
 ment and look at this bill of rights. This bill of rights — which, as I say, contained na 
 reference to separate schools — is the one which Mr. Ewart in his book calls bill of rights 
 No. 3, and you will find it set out at page 365, where it appears in parallel column with 
 the one which is called bill of rights No. 4. Now it was bill of rights No. 3 that was 
 taken as stated by the historian Begg — whose fairness I do not think my learned friend 
 impugns and you will find it in volume one at page 476. This was handed to the dele- 
 gates with the following letter : — 
 
 "Sir, The President of the Provisional Government of Assiniboia, (formerly 
 
 Rupert's Land an;l the North-west), in council, do hereby authorize and delegate you to 
 proceed to the city of Ottawa, and lay before the Dominion Government the accom- 
 panying list of propositions and conditions as the terms upon which the people of 
 Assiniboia will consent to enter confederation with the other provinces of the Dom- 
 
30 
 
 inion. You ■will also herewith receive a letter of instructions, which will be your guide 
 in the execution of this counuission. 
 
 " Signed this twenty-second day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand 
 eight hundred and seventy. 
 
 By order, 
 
 " Thomas Bunn, 
 
 " Secretary of State." 
 
 Nothinsr could be more formal than this. And here is the letter of instruction 
 accompanying the same : 
 
 '« Sir, — Inclosed with this letter you will receive jour commission and also a copy 
 of the conditions and terms upon which the people of this country will consent to enter 
 into the Confederation of Canada. You will please proceed with convenient speed to 
 the citv of Ottawa, Canada, and on arriving there you will in company with the other 
 delegates, put yourself immediately in communication with the Dominion Government 
 on the subject of your commission. You ^^ ill please observe with regard to the articles 
 numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 15, 17, 19 and 20, you are left at liberty in concert with your 
 fellow commissioners to exercise your discretion ; but bear in mind that, as you carry 
 with you the full confidence of this people, it is expected that in the exercise of this 
 liberty, you will do your utmost to secure their rights and privileges, which have 
 hitherto been ignored. 
 
 " With reference to the remaining articles, I am directed to inform you that they 
 are peremptory. I have further to inform you that you are not empowered to conclude 
 finally any arrangements with the Canadian Government, but that any negotiations 
 entered into between you and the said government must first have the approval of and 
 be ratified by the Provisional Government before Assiniboia will become a pro\ince of 
 confederation." 
 
 Then follows the list of rights which is called No. 3, and which does not contain 
 any reference to separate schools. The i aragraph referring to separate schools is to be 
 found in the document called bill of rights No. 4, the seventh section or paragraph. So, 
 I think, I establish, so far as anything of that kind can be established, by hi>torical 
 reference, that, up to this time at all events, no documents had been sent by the people 
 of the territories making any demand with regard to separate schools. Now the dele- 
 gates came to Ottawa. If you want to follow the question further you will find the facts 
 in the evidence included in the Journals of 1874. I dare say the President (Sir Mac- 
 kenzie Bowell) will remember — I think he was in public life at the time — the inquiry 
 brought out by reason of the assertion that was made that there had been an agi-eement 
 for amnesty. I think that was the primary cause of this commission, and the evidence 
 collected will be found in the Journals of 1874, Vol. 8. Sir John Macdonald's evidence 
 to which I shall briefly refer you is at page 103, though I do not refer to it altogether. 
 He says : — 
 
 " Sir George Cartier and I had been appointed, I think, by Order in Council, to 
 represent the government in dealing with these delegates. 
 
 " Judge Black and Father Ritchot met Sir George and myself in Sir George's house. 
 Mr. Scott was absent from some accidental cause. They presented themselves as dele- 
 gates appointed at a meeting of fehe people at Winnipeg. They presented a resolution 
 or resolutions passed at that meeting. 
 
 "Judge Black took me aside and stated that they had received and brought with 
 them an authority from Kiel as chief of the Provisional Government to act on behalf of 
 that Provisional Government, and also a certain claim or bill of rights, prepared by that 
 government. He asked me what was to be done with the authority and the ' bill of 
 rights.' I told him they had better not be produced as the Governor General could not 
 recognize the legal existence of the Provisional Government and would not treat with 
 them as such. I stated, however, that the claims asserted in the last mentioned bill of 
 rights could be pressed by the delegates, and would be considered on their own merits." 
 
 Tliis is still dealing with the bill of rights No. 3. I think I am right in my state- 
 ment that these were the only lists or bills of rights heard of until 1890 — and I was 
 
 » 
 
31 
 
 not pretending to be very familiar with the history of Manitoba, for the history has not 
 been very detailed, and I can only state that that is the conclusion I have arrived at 
 from what I have seen, and leave it to the better judgment of the Council to say whether 
 I am right or wrong. Then, in 1890, when an attempt was made to abolish the separate 
 schools, and only then, was the claims set up that there was a fourth bill of rights, 
 that being the bill of rights which appears in Mr. Ewart's book as bill of rights No. 
 4, which was stated to have been changed or altered, not by the Council, as I under- 
 stand the Archbishop's letter, not by this body of twenty-four people who prepared bill 
 of rights No. 3 
 
 Mr. EwART. — No. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Tn what do you wish to correct me 1 
 
 Mr. EwART. — ^The Assembly of twenty-four did not prepare bill of rights No. 3. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— Who did ? 
 
 Mr. EwART. — The Executive Council did. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — It may be so. I do not know and I do not care. But I say 
 that what is claimed is that this bill of rights, before it was handed to these delegates, 
 was changed or altered by some person, we do not know how, at least I have not seen 
 any satisfactory statement, and it depends very much upon Father Ritchot's statement, 
 in contradiction of the official documents of the time and all we know with regard to it 
 officially. Now I have here a letter that was written on the 17th January, 1890, by Mr. 
 James Taylor, and perhaps my learned friend can tell better than I can who Mr. Taylor 
 is. I believe he had the custody of some document in relation to this matter. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — I never heard of that. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Mr. Taylor first wrote a letter on this subject, but unfortunately 
 those issues of the Winnipeg paper containing it are not on the file which commences 
 with the 13th of January instead of 1st January. But you will find first a letter from 
 His Grace the Archbishop and subsequently a letter from Mr. Taylor to His Grace and 
 from that the correspondence goes on. I will read you — and it is sufficient for the 
 purpose I have in hand — the letter of the 17th January, 1890, and copied from the 
 newspaper, I think, of the 18th of that month 
 
 " To His Grace Archbishop Tache, of St. Boniface. 
 
 " Reverend and Dear Sir, — Your letter of the 13th inst., addressed to me through 
 the columns of the Free Press, has been read with very deep interest. 
 
 " Referring again to our bill of rights, I have to say that the copies in my posses- 
 sion are not essays that were prepared and afterwards rejected by the Provisional Gov- 
 ernment, but they are authentic copies of the bill of rights that was handed by Mr. 
 Bunn to the delegates and carried by them to Ottawa in March, 1870." 
 
 That is what Mr. Begg accepts as the true copy. 
 
 " Your Grace kindly states that the ' Executives of Government — legal or illegal — 
 do not always publish their actions, and it is very seldom that the instructions to 
 delegates are made public' It happens that in this case the bill of rights was published 
 and was issued from Government House, Fort Garry, in March, 1870. And it is the 
 very same bill of rights that was handed by Mr. Bunn to the delegates. It diflfers, 
 however, from your Grace's bill in the clauses already noticed. I may state that the 
 late Hon. A. G. B. Bannatyne, who was a member of the Provisional Government, 
 showed me on one occasion a printed copy of the bill handed to the delegates, which 
 was exactly the same as the one filed away by Mr. Bunn. " 
 
 Mr. Bunn was at this time dead, I understand, but these documents were found 
 among his papers. 
 
 *' I may also state that Mr. Bannatyne directed the Hon. John Norquay as to 
 where he would find the authentic copy of the bill of rights that had been handed to 
 the delegates. Mr. Norquay was so thoroughly convinced of the authenticity of the 
 document that before making his memorable budget speech of 1884 he wrote to me as 
 follows ; — 
 
32 
 
 "'March 19, 1884. 
 
 *' ' My Dear Taylor, — "Will you kindly send me the old bill of rights, or a copy, as 
 presonted by Black, Scott and llitchot ? I want to refer to it this afternoon in my 
 speech. 
 
 " ' Yours truly, 
 
 " 'John Norquay.' 
 
 " In his budg«^t speech of 1884, Mr. Norquay dwelt particularly upon clauses one (1) 
 and eleven (11) in our bill of rights, and also quoted from other records that were 
 furnished to him from our archives. Allow me to say — and I do so with all respect — 
 that Your Grace did not condenm the language of the documents used by Mr. Norquay 
 on that occasion. I admit that Mr. Bunn may have said : ' I do not know where the 
 record of the proceedings of the Provisional Government is,' but Mr. Bunn could also 
 have added with truthfulness that the record was somewhere in the parishes of St. 
 Clement's and St. Andrew's. 
 
 " Now with regard to the capacity in which the delegates were received at Ottawa, 
 Your Grace states that ' the delegates insisted upon a written acknowledgment of their 
 oiKcial position, and that objections were made, but on the 26th of March, 1870, the 
 promised letter was given to the delegates by the ministers.' Your Grace must be 
 aware that upon this occasion the delegates were not received as the delegates from the 
 president of the Provisional Government, but, on the contrary, were received as delegates 
 from the people of the North-west. The following is a copy of the letter showing in 
 what capacity they were received by the Federal Government : " — 
 
 This letter is among the public documents. 
 
 " 'Ottawa, 26th April, 1870. 
 
 " ' Gentlemkn, — I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 22nd 
 instant, stating that as delegates from the North-west to the Government of the Domi- 
 nion of Canada you are desirous of having an early audience with the Government, and 
 am to inform in reply that the Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George E. Cartier 
 have been authorized by the government to confer with you on the subject of your 
 mission and will be i-eady to receive you at 1 1 o'clock. 
 
 " ' I have the honour to be, gentlemen, 
 
 " ' Your most obedient servant, 
 
 " ' Joseph Howe. 
 " ' To the Rev. N. Ritchot, Ptre., 
 " 'J. Black, Esq., 
 " ' Alfred Scott, Esq.' 
 
 " Your Grace does not state why the delegates did not report from time to time the 
 arrangements they were making with the Federal Government. That not done, I 
 maintain they were not loyal to our cause. I further maintain that they were unfaith- 
 ful to the people of the North-west, when they allowed our bill of rights to be altered at 
 Ottawa without our knowledge and consent ? " 
 
 That is the charge — that the bill of rights was altered and amended here. The 
 Ijill of rights they were sent with was bill of rights No. 3. It was altered here, as 
 this gentleman states, and you will see the reason why : — 
 
 " They were solemnly warned that they were carrying with th^m the terms upon 
 which the people of this country would enter the Confederation, and were told not to 
 conclude finally any arrangements with the Canadian Government without first referring 
 any conclusions arrived at to the Provisioral Government. They concluded arrange- 
 ments at Ottawa that have never been satisfactory to the people of Manitoba and the 
 North-west, and the Federal Government, after taking advantage of us through our 
 delegates to Ottawa in 1870, have treated us during the last twenty years more like 
 serfs than like British subjects. They claim at the Dominion capital that on account 
 of the arrangements entered into in. 1870 (not with our consent) that we have been 
 
33 
 
 very fairly treated. I must say, however, that the Rev. Father Ritchot was not 
 altogether silent. He told the Provisional Government of his presence at Ottawa — of 
 the progress he was making, and of the idea of sending an expedition to this country. 
 The last telegram sent was to Mr. Lepine, and read as follows : — 
 
 '•'Ottawa, 10th May, 1870. 
 *' * To Mr. Maxime Lepine. 
 
 " ' Our affairs settled, and satisfactory. "Will start next Tuesday. 
 
 '"N. J. Ritchot.' 
 
 "I hold the copy of Mr. Bunn's letter of the 23rd June, 1870, sent to Rev. Father 
 Ritchot, asking him to report the result of his mission to Canada, and find it to be 
 correct. He was the only delegate who made a report to the Provisional Government. 
 The quotations published by Your Grace from the Xeiv Nation, bearing date the 24th 
 June, 1870, are only the views that were held at the time by the editor of that journal. 
 
 " The report of Rev. Father Ritchot was made after the following manner : — " 
 
 This you will find in the paper, the Xew Xation, which was in the Library. I saw 
 it, but I did not think it worth while to bring it up. The report was a verbal one, and 
 appeared to be addressed by Father Ritchot to the Assembly, Riel being in the chair. 
 Mr. Taylor's letter goes on : 
 
 " In the Legislative Assembly of Assiniboia, on the 24th June, 1870, Mr. Riel, the 
 president, took the chair at 4 o'clock p.m. Rev. Mr. Ritchot then addressed the House 
 in French, which was translated into English by the president. The report is a lengthy 
 one, and I will only give those portions of it that refer to the capacity in which the 
 delegates were received at Ottawa, and how our bill of rights was tampered with tliere." 
 
 The evidence of it being tampered with first appears in this statement of Fa -her 
 . Ritchot. 
 
 " Rev. Father Ritchot said : ' We w^ere received as delegates from the North-west 
 and privately, when we had to treat with the Canadian ministry, due respect was paid 
 to the commission given us by the provisional government, &c.' 
 
 " ' As soon as we were recognized as delegates the ministry at Ottawa made out a 
 list themselves which they proposed to place before parliament, and submitted it to the 
 delegates. But we said we will have nothing to do with your list. You are not to 
 propose the terms of treaty to us. We are sent here with certain instructions and you 
 must hear us. We produced our list of rights, but they told us that as ministers they 
 could not take the responsibility of introducing a bill into parliament ; which would 
 embrace all the articles specified in the list. They then drew up another list, quite 
 different from that sent by the people of the North-west. They did it on their own 
 responsibility, and for this reason, that if our list had been presented to parliament it 
 would have been lost, and what would have been the issue as far as we were con- 
 cerned ? It would be hard to tell. The list drawn up by the ministry was sub- 
 mitted to us as delegates and the Govei'nor General asked us if some arrangement 
 
 might not be come to hj which instead of having two lists there would be but one 
 
 and said that if it were impossible to make the two lists agree it would be necessary for 
 him to receive and treat with the delegation in the name of England. Again we found 
 provision made that even if we could not come to an understanding with the Gov- 
 ernor General, a special agent had been sent out by the English Government to treat with 
 us. I refer to Sir Clinton Murdock. In reply to the Governor General we said that 
 we would not then decide finally, but hoped that an agreement might be made between 
 ministers and delegates which would bring the ministerial list nearer to that of the 
 people of the North-west and enable both parties to agree on it. This was done. An 
 understanding was arrived at and another list was formed from the two first named. 
 We put that list into the hands of competent men — lawyers — in order to get a thor- 
 oughly reliable opinion concerning its merits. We desii'ed to be clear as to whether the 
 proposed measure was one which we could reasonably accept and which Canada could 
 reasonably offer. Those we submitted the measure to were men from different provinces 
 of the Dominion — men who sympathized with us — and they agreed that it would be to 
 our advantage to accept it.' " 
 3 
 
34 
 
 1 ihink iluit is all I need trouble you witli, thou^'h the whole letter is here. How- 
 ■ever, I may quote a part of Mr. Taylor's letter in \\ iiicli he said : — 
 
 "Your Grace will, I am sure, agree with me when I say that when delegates from 
 the people of the North-west found that upon their arrival at Ottawa ministers were 
 not inclined to deal with them according to our wishes — they should have reported the 
 facts to the people of Red Rivei-. If the Governor General who informed them of his 
 intention to deal with them in the name of England, had also shown a disposition to be 
 unfair, then the delegates, before leaving Ottawa, would have been perfectly justified in 
 inviting the Mritish Ambassador, Sir Clinton Murdoch, to come to Fort Garry, where 
 the people of Red River would have been pleased to deal with him. 
 
 " If this course had been pursued by the delegates, then the desire of Sir F. Rogers, 
 the Urder Secretary of the Colonies, would have been fulfilled, viz., 'That troops 
 should not be employed in forcing the sovereignty of Canada on the population of Red 
 River should they refuse to admit it.' " 
 
 I will just add one further statement and then I am done with that part; and that 
 is, that I think, if I may be pardoned for saying so, that you will do wisely to adopt the 
 advice of the Privy Council and to pay attention merely to what is to be found in the 
 Act of Parliament. Lord Her chel in delivering the judgment of that body at pages 
 272 and 27.''{ states emphatically that the terms agreed upon, so far as education is con- 
 cerned, must be taken to be embodied in the 22nd section of the Act of 1870. Further 
 on he uses these words : 
 
 " It is true that the construction put by this board upon the 1st subsection 
 reduced within very nairow limits the protection afforded by the .subsection in respect 
 of denominational schools. It may be that those who wei^e acting on behalf of the Roman 
 Catholic community in Manitoba, and those who either framed or assented to the word- 
 ing of that enactment were under the impression that its scope was wider and that it 
 aflbrded protection greater than their Lordships held to be the case. But such consider- 
 ations cannot properly influence the judgment of those who have judicially to interpret 
 a statute. The question is not what might be supposed to have been intended, but what 
 has ^been said. More complete effect might in some cases be given to the intentions of 
 the legislature if violence wei-e done to the language in which their legislation has taken 
 shape, but such a course would on the whole be quite as likely to defeat as to further 
 the object which was in view." 
 
 So that I submit that what you have to deal with is the language of the section by 
 which the jurisdiction is conferred, and that travelling outside of that and being influ- 
 enced by considerations of what took place, after this lapse of time, would be to tread 
 upon very dangerous ground indeed. 
 
 Sir Charles Hicbeut Tuppei^. — Would not that argument be stronger if your 
 position was that we were acting in a judicial capacity? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I said so. I said that it would be a matter binding upon a court 
 of law, but as you were acting not in a judicial capacity, it is a matter of policy which 
 it has been for my learned friend to urge and for me to meet. Dealing with it in that way 
 the question of fact must arise as to whether bill of rights No. 4 was ever brought 
 here or not, and there being no trial of that question of fact, you will plainly see how 
 difficult it would be to come to a conclusion with regard to it either one way or another. 
 On that question all the oflicial papers seem to be one way and the statement of the 
 Rev. Father Ritchot in the other direction. Now that brings me naturally enough — 
 because I think it would be fitting for me if I follow the events chronologically 
 — to the abolition of the Senate, which is a matter of history. But as 
 that happened some years after the passage of the Act it may be fitting 
 if I inquire as to the manner in which, and the principles upon which this question is 
 to be determined by the Council of His Excellency the Governor General. There are, 
 as I undei'stand it, two views and perhaps three, presented with regard to that matter. 
 One is that you are sitting as a court of law and that the matter is to be determined as 
 a question of law would be determined in a court. Another is that the question has 
 been disposed of by the judgment of the Privy Council and that you are only here to 
 obey the mandate of the highest tribunal of the Empire. The third view is that you 
 
35 
 
 are to deal with the matter upon its merits and that is a view, I am very glad to say, 
 which was pressed upon you yesterday by my learned friend, ]Mr. Ewart. It is upon the 
 merits that he invokes your interference and it is upon the merits that I projjose to 
 ask you to leave matters as they are. Now I utterly deny, in the first place, that there 
 is a word to be found in the judgment, or that there could by any possibility be anything 
 found in the judgment which could be treated as having dealt with and disposed of this 
 matter. What the Privy Council were asked to do was to say — (which was 
 undoubtedly a matter of constitutional law) — whether the Governor in Council 
 had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the minority, which, 
 in the section, is called the appeal. What the Privy Council has to determine is that 
 there is a jurisdiction to entertain that complaint; but you are to deal with it as a 
 matter which the Privy Coun' il was not asked to determine and whicli, as I would 
 point out, some of the Lords of the Privy Council said very emphatically they would 
 not advise upon because it was not a matter for theui to consider, so that the matter 
 must be dealt with by this Council upon its responsibility in its ordinary capacity. Now 
 let me draw your attention to the questions which arose in the case before the Judicial 
 Committee of the Privy Council. What we have to deal with is subsection 2 of section 
 22 of the Act of 1870. That has been held to be a substantive section. May I sum- 
 marize what the Privy Council have determined ? They have determined that the 
 corresponding clause of the Britisli North America Act, section 93, has nothing to do 
 with it. They have determined that in this matter of elucation you have to look for a 
 statement of the constitutional rights of the province to clause 22 of the Manitoba 
 Act. They have determined that subsection 2 of that section is not ancillary, 
 is not for the purpose of giving effect to the prohibition contained in subsection 1, but 
 is a substantive clause, which gives a right in no sense dependent upon the preceding 
 subsection 1. Now this subsection 2 provides : 
 
 " An appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any act or decision 
 of the legislature of the province. . . .affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant 
 or Ptoman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to education." 
 
 These are the words which confer the jurisdiction. The Judicial Committee has 
 determined that the circumstances which exist in this case do give the right to the 
 Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects to appeal to the Governor General in 
 Council against the Act of 1890, passed by the Legislature of Manitoba. I refer you to 
 the record of the questions which you will find more conveniently perhaps in the 
 commencement of the judgment of the Lord Chancellor, at page 268. The first question 
 is as follows : — 
 
 "Is the appeal referred to in the said memorials and petitions and asserted thereby 
 such an appeal as is admissible by subsection 3 of section 93 of the British North 
 America Act of 1867, or by subsection 2 of section 22 of Manitoba Act, 33 Vic. (1870), 
 <!hap. 3, Canada 1 " 
 
 The answer to that question is that this is an appeal permitted by the Manitoba 
 Act, but not by the British North America Act. The second question is : — 
 
 " Are the grounds set forth in the petitions and memorials such as may be the 
 subject of appeal under the authority of the subsections already referred to or either 
 of them 1 " 
 
 The answer to that is : Yes ; they are. The third question is : — 
 
 " Does the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the cases of 
 Barrett v. the City of Winnipeg, and Logan v. the City of Winnipeg, dispose of or 
 conclude the application for redress based on the contention that the rights of the 
 Roman Catholic minority, which accrued to them after the union under the statutes of 
 the province have been interfered with by the two statutes of 1890 complained of in 
 the said petitions and memorials 1 " 
 
 The answer is that these judgments do not conclude the application. The fourth 
 question is : — 
 
 "Does subsection 3 of section 93 of the British North America Act of 1867 
 apply to Manitoba 1 " 
 ^1 
 
36 
 
 That is already included in question 1, and of course the answer is : No. The next 
 question is : — 
 
 " Has His Excellency the Governor General in Council jiower to make the declara- 
 tions or remedial orders which are asked for in the said nienioiials and petitions, assuming 
 the material facts to he as stated therein, or has His Excellency the Governor General 
 in Council any otlier jurisdiction in the premises?" 
 
 I will just for a moment pass over and return to it again. The next question is — 
 " (6.) Did the Act of Manitoba relating to education passed prior to the session of 
 1S90 confer on or continue to the minority 'a right or privilege in relation to education ' 
 within the meaning of subsection 2 of section 22 of the Manitoba Act, or establish a 
 system of separate or dissentient schools 'within the meaning of suVjscction 3 of section 
 93 of the British North America Act of 1867,' if said section 93 be found applicable to 
 Manitoba ; and if .'^o, did the two Acts of 1890 complained of, or either of them, affect 
 any right or privilege of the minority in such a manner that an appeal will lie there- 
 under to the Governor General in Council 1 " 
 
 The answer to that question is : Yes. In other words the question was whether 
 the rights acquired subsequent to the union by virtue of the Separate School Act passed 
 in 1871, and continued in force until 1890, had been interfered with so as to give cause 
 of complaint or appeal, and their Lordships held that they had. Here the majority of 
 the Supreme Court of Canada held that there could not be any legal complaint as to 
 rights and privileges being taken away by competent legislative tribunal, in other 
 words, that the legislature which had the power to confer the right had the power to 
 take it away, and that if it were taken away complaint could not be made in the ordinary 
 way. Instances of this ai-e familiar. For example, if a law was passed depriving municipa- 
 lities of the power of issuing liquor licenses, it would be looked upon as a very grievous 
 matter by the present license holders, but they could not get redress except by agitation or 
 the repeal of the law. If the present system of protection were done away with those 
 who now enjoy the benefits of that system would be injured, but they would have no 
 ri'dit to redress except by way of agitation to get the law restored. The Supreme Court 
 held that the Separate School Law of 1871, being a matter which the legislature had the 
 right to pass, they had the right to repeal it. That w-as held in the Barrett case, but it was 
 also held neverthelesss by the Privy Council, that the taking away, in 1890, of the lights 
 given in 1871, did constitute a grievance which gave the minority the right to seek 
 redress in the way that they are now doing 1 What I am coming to, and what I hold 
 is, tliat it is perfectly plain that the course which is to be taken by this Council has not 
 been determined by the judgment ; that you are not sitting here obeying the mandate 
 of the c urt ; that you may li ear the appeal or not, that no court has directed tl at you 
 must hear the appeal, and that hearing it, no court can direct what course his Excel- 
 lency the Governor General should take in the matter. 
 
 Hon. Mr. DiCKRY. — Do I understand you to contend that it would have been con- 
 stitutionally open to this Council to have refused to hear the appeal 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes ; and I am going to give you the best authority on that 
 subject, an authority which will be accepted by this body above every other, that of Sir 
 John Mricdonald. Yuu will remember the introduction of Mr. Blake's resolution on the 
 subject of leierring such questions as are here ir;volvod to the courts. Tho terms of Mr. 
 Blake's resolutions were as follows : — 
 
 " It is expedient to provide means whereby on solemn occasions touching the exer- 
 cise of the power of disallowance, or of the appellate power as to educational legisla- 
 tion, importai\t questions of law or fact may be referred by the executive to a high 
 judicial tribunal for hearing and consideration in such mode that the authorities and 
 parties interested may be represented, and that a reasoned opinion may be obtained for 
 the information of the executive." 
 
 This was moved by INIr. Blake on going into the Committee of Supply and was 
 accepted by the whole House, and the following year the Government brought down a 
 bill embodying the object of the resolution. Mr. Blake made a careful speech explain- 
 in*^ what he desired to effect by means of his resolution. I gather that the object was, 
 in%ertain cases, instead of asking the Minister of Justice what the law upon the subject 
 
37 
 
 was — as his opinion might be open to question of being influenced by party considera- 
 tion — the Council should have the power to have the opinion of a high court of law 
 on the subject, and therefore be in a position to act upon it without danger of their pro- 
 ceeding being criticized upon this ground. In speaking on the subject, Sir John Mac- 
 donald said : — 
 
 " When I first read the hon. gentleman's resolution, it occurred to me, as I daresay 
 it occurred to many hon. gentlemen who hear me now, that it was an advance towards 
 the American system, and proposed to transfer the responsibility of the ministry of the 
 day to a judicial tribunal ; but on scanning the resolution in its c.irefuUy prepared terms 
 that impression was dissipated, and I saw that the principal object of the resolution, as I 
 read it, is that the question submitted l)y the Executive to the judicial tribunal should 
 be enforced, sustained and presented to parliament, to the public and to the crown, by 
 the fact of this legal decision having been given * * Of course my hon. friend in his reso- 
 lution has guarded against the supposition that such a decision is binding on the execu- 
 tive. It is expressly stated that such a decision is only for the information of the gov- 
 ernment. The executive is not relieved from any responsibility because of any answer 
 being given by the tribunal. If the executive were to be relieved of any responsibility 
 I should consider that a fatal block in the proposition of my hon. friend. I believe in 
 responsible government ; I believe in the responsibility of the executive. But the 
 answer of the tribunal will be simply for the information of the government. The gov- 
 ernment may dissent from that decision, and it may be their duty to do so, if they 
 differ from the conclusion to which the court has come * * I do not think that there can 
 be any doubt as to the meaning of the motion of my hon. friend. I think it is so ex- 
 plicit in its terms that no questions can arise as to what its meaning is, and if there 
 were any doubts as to its meaning — there are none in my own mind — those doubts would 
 be removed by the illusive speech of my hon. friend." 
 
 Hon. Mr. Foster. — ^Vhat are you quoting from 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — From Hansard. Now that is going, of course, a very long way. 
 But, undoubtedly, it is sound constitutional law. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey. — You would say that this decision does decide that there is a 
 right of appeal, but not that that appeal must be heard 1 The point that struck me 
 was that the decision gives an absolute right to somebody. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes, but the question is as to working it out under our constitu- 
 tional system. If this Council decides not to hear the appeal how are they to be forced 
 
 to do so ■? ... 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey. — Of course there is no means of forcing that action, but there is 
 still an absolute right on the part of somebody to appeal. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Of course. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey. — I understand you to say that there is no correlative duty on 
 our part to hear the appeal 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes. Somebody has the right to appeal, but we have not the duty 
 to enforce it. I say that is going a long way, because they have obtained a solemn decision 
 of the highest tribunal, but there is a constitutional power with this Council to say, not- 
 withstanding the decision of a court of law upon this point, that they will not act upon 
 that opinion. And in favour of that view, we have the opinion of Sir John Macdonald, 
 than whom no higher authority can be quoted. 
 
 Sir Chas. H. Tupper. —Was not more said as to the object of the legislation providing 
 for the reference ? Besides the object of getting advice for the Executive was there 
 not the purpose of removing these troublesome questions from the arena of politics as 
 much as possible 1 That is the impression remaining upon my mind. _ _ 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— Speaking from memory I think %vhat Mr. Blake was driving at 
 was that these questions were very troublesome and that whatever decision was come 
 to with regard to them, some of those interested would say that the decision was influ- 
 enced by partisan motives. That might be overcome to a greater or less extent Ijy a 
 reference to a judicial tribunal as to whether there was power of interference or not. 
 If it had not been for Sir John Macdonald's speech, I should have thought that more 
 
38 
 
 was intended. But no doubt it was contemplated that if reference was made and answer 
 was given that tlie Council had the power to grant redress, in 99 cases out 
 of 100 they would hardly have set up their own views against it. But I am 
 saying that the responsibility rests here ; that whatever you do you are respon- 
 sible in your ordinary capacity. But that, of course, is only one question. The 
 hearing of the application is one thing; the disposal of it is another. Now no 
 other question was asked of the Priv}' Council than those I read ; but there was 
 one as to the jiower of the government to grant this remedial legislation, the answer 
 to which T did not read. There may be a power and still you may decide — and I trust 
 and believe that looking at this question in a statesmanlike manner you will decide — to 
 leave this matter as it is. T desire to show that the decision leaves the matter for 
 you to exercise your power without deciding the way in which you are to exercise it. 
 Let me read what was said by their Loi'dshijis of the Privy Council in the course of the 
 argument. You will find some pretty strong expressions used in favour of the view I 
 present to you. In the first place, Mr. Blake, in the course of his argument — page 62 
 — is addressed by the Lord Chancellor :— 
 
 "The (juestion seems to mo to be this : If you are right in saying that the abolitioa 
 of a system of denominational education, which was created by a post-union legislation 
 is within the 2nd section of the Manitoba act and the 3rd subsection of the other if it apply, 
 then you say there is a case for the jurisdiction of the Governor General, and that is 
 all we have to decide." 
 
 And Mr. Blake I'eplies : — 
 
 " That is all your Lordships have to decide. What remedy he shall pui-pose to 
 apply is quite a different thing." 
 
 Then Mr. Ewart at page 183, says : — 
 
 " Before closing I would like to say a word or two as to what we are seeking. As 
 it has ah'eady been remarked, we are not asking for any declaration as to the extent 
 of the relief to be given by the Governor General. We mei'ely ask that it should be 
 held that he has jurisdiction to hear our prayer, and to grant us some relief if he 
 thinks proper to do so." 
 
 I do not at all mean to say that Mr. Ewart is saying now to the contrary. He 
 put it fairly upon the grounds of his clients' rights, that is upon the manner in which 
 you think to dispose of it in accordance with the principles which regulate our system 
 of government. I would refer you also to Lord Watson's statement at page 180. This 
 is in the course of Mr. Ewart's argument : 
 
 " The power given of appeal to the Government, and upon request of the Governor 
 to the Legislature of Canada, seems to be wholly discretionary in both. 
 
 " Mr. EwAKT. — No doubt. 
 
 " Lord Watson. — Both in the Governor and in the Legislature. 
 
 " Mr. Ewart.— Yes." 
 
 Again at page 192, when the other side is arguing. I may explain that the point 
 they were making, Mr. Cozens-Hardy speaking, was that subsection 2 of section 22 of 
 the Manitoba Act had reference to subsection 1, and that it was in reference to rights 
 in subsection 1 that the appeal was given in subsection 2, the protection given by sub- 
 section 1 being protected against infringement not only by act of Parliament but by any 
 provincial authority, so that if the advisory school board did something regarded as 
 objectionable there would be an appeal from the advisory board to the Governor General 
 in Council. But their Lordships held that this was not what was meant in the section, 
 but that subsection 2 is a substantive section. It is with reference to that that Lord 
 Watson makes the remark : — 
 
 " It does not seem very probable prima facie that there should be a reference given 
 to the Governor whether an act which this statute declares to be ultra vires shall be 
 retained on the statute-book or shall be modified." 
 
 What he means is to ask how he is to declare in favour of there being any discre- 
 tion if the act is ultra vires under subsection 1. At page 193 Lord Watson says : 
 
39 
 
 " I appi^ehend that the appeal to the Governor is an appeal to the Governor's dis- 
 cretion. It is a political administrative appeal, and not a judicial appeal in any proper 
 sense of the term, and in the same way after he has decided the same latitude of dis- 
 cretion is given to the Dominion Parliament. They may legislate or not as they think 
 fit." 
 
 Could any words be more definite or precise ? 
 
 Hon. Mr. DiCKKY. — Lord Watson is drawing a distinction between a judicial appeal 
 on the question of ultra vii'es and an appeal on the other ground. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — At page 258, in the course of Mr. Haldane's argument on the 
 same point, he says : — 
 
 " I do not think it is any moi-e technical or unsubstantial than the functions of 
 your Lordship, who often have to declare that an act is ultra vires. The Governor 
 General would give his decision. 
 
 "Lord McNaghten. — We are a judicial body and he is not sitting as a judicial 
 body." 
 
 Then at page 121, Lord Watson, speaking of the principles upon which th® 
 Governor General in Council is to decide, speaks as you will see in the following 
 quotation : — 
 
 " Mr. Haldane. — All we say is that your Lordships must look at the kind of Act 
 which is complained of in order to see whether the conditions of the appeal to the Gov- 
 ernor General have arisen. 
 
 " Lord Watson. — I am prepared to advise the Governor General and decide on the 
 meaning of this clause, but I am not prepared to relieve him of the duty of considering 
 how far he ought to interfere." 
 
 Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper.— But as a matter of fact the Privy Council did go 
 a little further than Lord Watson said he was prepared to go. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — In what way? 
 
 S r C. H. Tupper. — May it not be argued that they did consider how far we might 
 interfere and suggested how we might remove these grievances by pursuing a certain 
 
 course ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I will not close my argument without referring to that point. In 
 the first place it would be inoperative, and, in any case, taken altogether, I think it 
 does not bear that meaning. There is another part in which Lord Macnaghten says 
 that the suggestion that the Governor General in Council should be a court of appeal 
 on matters of law is a startling one, but I do not know that I can find it at the moment. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey. — I think at page 221 you will find it. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— That is what I refer to, thank you. I will read the passage : — 
 
 "The Lord Chancellor. — What the judge did would be the interpretation of the 
 law intra vires. 
 
 " Mr. Haldane.— Yes. 
 
 " The Lord Chancellor.— Then was the Governor General in Council to decide that 
 the judge had misinterpreted the law 1 
 
 " Mr. Haldane. — Yes. 
 
 " The Lord Chancellor.— That is rather starthng 1 ■ ■ e 
 
 "Lord McNaghten.— A court of appeal on matters of law from the decision of a 
 
 competent judge ■? • • i i. i • u 
 
 " Mr. Haldane.— A court of appeal from a decision of a provincial court, wincn 
 
 was the only court which could give judgment. 
 
 "Lord McNaghten. — It is a most startling suggestion." 
 
 Now let me give you a clause to which the Minister of Justice referred a minute 
 ago. It is at the foot of page 285. Having decided the main question, the Lord 
 Chancellor goes on : 
 
 " For the reasons we have given their Lordships are of opinion that the 2nd subsection 
 of section 22 of the Manitoba Act is the governing enactment and that the appeal to the 
 Governor General in Council was admissible by virtue of that enactment on the uroun.ls 
 et fort*h in the memorials and petitions, inasmuch as the Act of 1890 affected rights or 
 
 s 
 
40 
 
 privileges of the Roman Catholic minority in relation to education within the meaning 
 of that subsection." 
 
 Now we come to the point the Minister of Justice referred to : — 
 
 " The further question is submitted whether the Governor General in Council has 
 the power to make tlic declarations or remedial orders asked for in tlie memorials or 
 petitions, or has any other jurisdiction in the premises. Their Loidships had decided 
 that the Governor General in Council has jurisdiction and that the appeal is well 
 founded, but the jjarticular course to be pursued must be determined by the authorities 
 to whom it must be committed by the statute. It is not for this tribunal to intimate 
 the precise steps to be taken." 
 
 He then goes on to say : — 
 
 " It is certainly not essential- 
 
 Sir CiiAS. H. TUPPER. — That is what I refen-ed to. 
 
 ]\[r. McCarthy. — " It is certainly not essential that the statutes repealed by the 
 Act ot 1890 should be re-enacted, or that the precise provisions of these statutes should 
 again be made law. The system of education embodied in the Act of 1890 no doubt 
 connnends itself to, and adequately supplies, the wants of the great majority of the 
 inhabitants of the province. All legitimate ground of complaint would be I'emoved if 
 that system were supplemented by provisions which would remove the grievance upon 
 which the appeal is founded, and were modified as far as it might be necessary to 
 give effect to these provisions." 
 
 No doubt it would, but the judgment does not say that you are to do it. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey. — They contemplated some action. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.-— But it is an obiter. 
 
 Sir Chas. H. Tupper. — I did not mention the point to refute your position as to 
 whether we had the absolute duty to pei'form, but merely to point out that Lord 
 Watson's position was not acted upon when be said that he would not give a suggestion. 
 There is a very marked suggestion there as to what we could do, and, perhaps, as some 
 would argue a suggestion as to what we should do. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Possibly that observation is warranted by what Lord Herschell 
 has said. But the question was not asked what you should do, but whether you have 
 jurisdiction. The Privy Council, if they venture to instruct this body, were stepping 
 beyond their jurisdiction. 
 
 Hon. Mr. CuRRAN. — They said the rights of the minority had been affected? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— -Yes ; that is the ground of appeal ; that I am not seeking to 
 deny. The question is how it is to be redressed if redressed at all ? I do not know if it 
 is necessary to fortify my ground any further, but I will call attention to one point. If 
 this were a judicial body I should expect to see His Excellency here. If, on the con- 
 trary, this is an ordinaiy matter of administration, I would not expect His Excellency to 
 be present. In other words the Privy Council here is the same as the Cabinet in 
 England, and in England the Cabinet sits apart from the Queen, but advises her in mat- 
 ters or policy. But in England when the Privy Council sits Her Majesty is present, 
 and in the same way, if this Council is sitting as a judicial body the Governor General 
 should be present in person. Another question is as to how remedial action is to be 
 carried out. You will make a remedial order. I. do not quite agree with my learned 
 friend that you are to frame an Act of Parliament for the Legislature of Manitoba. Your 
 duty would he well performed, in case remedial action was to be taken, if you passed 
 the remedial order and left the Legislature of Manitoba to put that in the form they 
 saw fit. That oi-der would be an Order in Council upon the report, I suppose, of a 
 committee or of the whole Council and approved of by the Governor Genei'al in Council 
 in the ordinary way. Now, under our system, for such an action there must be Minis- 
 terial responsil)ility. With reference to that matter I would refer to Sir William R. 
 Anson's work, " Law and Custom of the Constitution," page 43 of part 2. Then if you 
 would look at Mr. Todd's work you would find the subject of ministerial responsibility 
 dealt with. I refer to the work " Parliamentary Government in the British Colonies," 
 2nd edition prepared by Mr. Todd's son, he says : — 
 
41 
 
 n 
 
 The responsibility of the local administration, for all acts of Government is 
 absolute and unqualified. But it is essentially a responsibility to the legislature, and 
 especially to the popular chamber thereof, — whilst the responsibility of the Governor is 
 solely to the crown. It is indispensable to the welfare and good government of the 
 colonies that these separate responsibilities should never be allowed to clash, and the 
 best guarantee against the occurrence of such an event is to be found in the continued 
 existence of the most cordial and unreserved harmony and co-operation between the 
 Governor and his advisers." 
 
 I would cite from the same book at page 128 : 
 
 " Ministers cannot relieve themselves from the responsibility of advising as execu- 
 tive councillors : nor is a Governor free to act without or against ministerial advice, in 
 cases not involving the rights or prerogatives of the crown or imperial interests." 
 
 At page 814, he summarizes as follows : — 
 
 "The general conclusions annved at in the preceding chapter, after a careful investi- 
 gation of the several questions therein discussed, may be briefly epitonjized as follows : — 
 
 " 1. The position of a governor in a colony possessing representative institutions, 
 with ' responsible government ' is that of a local constitutional sovereign. Whatever 
 other powers may be conferred upon him by the law of the particular colony, he is by 
 virtue of his commission and instructions from the crown, the representative of the 
 Queen in this part of her dominions, who is herself the source of all executive authority 
 therein. He has his responsible ministers, who advise him upon all acts of executive 
 government and in all legislative matters. The identity of aim and the mutual co-oper- 
 ation in endeavour which must invariably subsist between the representative of the 
 crown and his constitutional advisers is a pledge and assurance to the people that they 
 enjoy the full benefit and security which the monarchical system is capable of affording 
 in our colonial system, combined with the advantages of ministerial control and respon- 
 sibility." 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — Your object in reading that is to show that we should 
 be responsible politically as an executive 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — ^We do not deny that. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Then I need not take up further time. My object is to show 
 that you cannot be acting judicially. If you were, it would be a monstrous thing to 
 hold you responsible for an error in judgment. "We know that judges are not and that 
 they commit errors in judgment, otherwise there would not be the reversal of their 
 decisions in appeal. 
 
 Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. — You claim that we are still a political body 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes ; and it is upon political considerations the matter must be 
 determined. After what the president has said, I need not go on with my argument 
 by which I had intended to show that all judicial functions had been withdrawn from 
 the crown under our system, and properly withdrawn, thus taking away a prerogative 
 which the crown claimed to exercise. The exception to that rule is the Judicial 
 Committee of the Privy Council. If you care to see how that was brought about you 
 will see it referred to in the work I have mentioned, " Law and Custom of the Consti- 
 tution,"' pages 442 and 443. 
 
 " When the Long Parliament, the Court of Star Chamber, had restrained the juris- 
 diction of the council, it did no more than take away the powers conferred by the statute 
 of Henry YIL, and forbid the action of council, which had extended to matters cogniz- 
 able by the Courts of Common Law. 
 
 " But the King in Council was still the report of the suitor who could not obtain 
 justice in one of the^dependencies, and the act which took away the original jurisdiction 
 of the King in Council at home did not touch petitions from the adjacent island or 
 the plantation." 
 
 Appeals were thus allowed from the colonies to the crown, which were dealt with 
 by an open committee of the Privy Council, which advised the crown as to the order to 
 be made in each case. But the Act of 1833 conferred judicial powers upon a certain 
 
42 
 
 portion of the Privy Council in En<,d;ui(l, and it is upon that act that the authority of 
 the Judicial Conunittee of the Privy Council rests. 
 
 Sir Charlks Hihuert Tuppek. — ^Take the case of the Railway Committee of the 
 Privy Council, that is governed by special statute and often in connection with these 
 cases theie are thrown upon us from time to time what you would call i/uasi judicial 
 duties, which we have to perform very much as judges would have to do, except that 
 we are politically responsible for all the conclusions at which we arrive. 
 
 Mr. McCahtiiv. — T think that in the Railway Committee the powers are partly 
 judicial and partly administrative and that you would not be responsible as ministers 
 for the conclusions reached. If you were to trace that back, as I have had occasion to 
 do, you will find that the difficulty arose in England that the judicial bodies were found 
 utterly incompetent to adjudicate in railway disputes. The jurisdiction was first, you 
 will remember, in the Common Pleas in England, and that was found so unsatisfactory 
 that the jurisdiction was taken away and vested in a body and called the railway com- 
 missioners. In this country when the trouble first arose in a small way between rail- 
 way companies and their customers, or between railway companies themselves, it 
 was not thought advisable to establish a new body to deal with the-e matters ; but the 
 jurisdiction was not conferred upon the courts, but a committee of the Privy Council 
 was appointed, whose jurisdiction has-been from time to time enlarged, and finally, in 
 the last Railway Act of 1889, I think 
 
 Hon. Mr. Daly.— 1.-88. 
 
 Mr. McCARTiiY,^these powers were much enlarged. It was thought better to 
 enlarge the powers of the committee than to appoint railway commissioners. I should 
 think it unfair to hold that a minister was responsible to Parliament for his decisions in 
 that committee. There is another matter that has a bearing on this — the Minister of 
 Agriculture had certain powers under the law relating to patents. I believe that the 
 courts have held that the Minister of Agriculture in these matters is not acting judici- 
 ally, but he exercises a quasi judicial function. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Angers. — That is transferred now to the Exchequer Court. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I am speaking of the matter as it used to be. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — Such functions are certainly exercised in the Customs 
 Department. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey. — How about the pardoning power 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — That is a prerogative of the Crown and must be exercised upon 
 the responsibility of the ministers. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey.— But the function is purely judicial. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Not purely. Take, for instance, the case of the Irisli pi'isoners 
 in England, for whose release many are pressing. They have been found guilty over 
 and over again, and the Home Secretary says that they were properly convicted. But he 
 is still urged to pardon them, upon grounds for which he will be held responsible. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey. — Would it not be difficult to make a definition of the word 
 "judicial," which would not include such functions as that exex'cised by the Minister of 
 Justice in relation to the release of prisoners 1 I sun quite willing to accept the 
 responsibility, but I think we should all understand that the act we perform is a judicial 
 one. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I think there would be the difficulty pointed out. But, in the 
 case of the Minister of Justice, after the law has decided there still remains the question 
 of policy which it is for him to decide. 
 
 Sir Chas. Hibbert Tuppkr. — Would you go so far as to say that the main con- 
 sideration in a matter of this kind should be the political effect of our action and not 
 the actual merits and rights of it ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — That is undoubtedly my position. That is a duty you have to 
 exercise. Let me crystallize it. The Privy Council have determined that there is a 
 grievance ; they have determined that there is jurisdiction in the Governor General to 
 pass a remedial order. If that order is to be passed, ex dehito justitifc, there is an end 
 of the matter. Why all this cei'emony, why all this talk 1 
 
 Hon. Mr. Curran. — It may be necessary to hear why justice should not be done. 
 But there is a grievance. 
 
43 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I am not going to say that there is not a grievance ; I am pre- 
 cluded from that by the judgment. 
 
 Sir Chas. Hibbert Tupper. — The question that occurs to me right or wrong, is 
 this : — Granting all you say as to our political responsibility and as to our power to do 
 one thing or another, does not the Act, in its nature contemplate that we shall ajiproach 
 the question, not as a political or party body, not that we shall merely go through the 
 form of an inquiry on the appeal made to us, but that we shall, to the Vjest of our ability, 
 deal with the merits of the case, being responsible, to Parliament, nevertheless, for our 
 action on the merits. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — The moment you do that, you have to see to it that you have the 
 confidence of a party majority, for we are governed under the party system. But I have a 
 good deal to say about that and I do not want to anticipate that part of my argument. 
 I hope to show that you are to deal with it as a matter of policy, but not at all to say 
 that you have not jurisdiction. 
 
 Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. — Under your contention, we should call a 
 party caucus when this appeal is made and see whether it. would be wise to grant a 
 remedial order or refuse it 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I will answer you in another way. Would it be said to be a 
 matter to be dealt with judicially when one oi" the Council, by no means an uninflu- 
 ential member, has already pledged himself that this remedy shall be granted or he will 
 resign his seat 1 
 
 Hon. :\Ir. OuiMET. — Perhaps I may change my opinion, if you are going to give me 
 a proper definition of what is political conscience and what is individual conscience. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. —You are recorded, and that in a government organ, to have s dd : 
 
 " Will the Federal Government have a session or will they have a general election 1 
 He could not give them a definite reply at this time, and he could tell them that there 
 were many important questions under consideration and especially the question which 
 interested all true patriots, I refer to the Manitoba school question. It was a duty that 
 the Government owed to the electors to say wliat they would do in the presence of such 
 an important question. They could not say as yet exactly what would be done. It was 
 a constitutional question, and there had been a difiiculty. Mr. Ouimet said that the 
 Conservative leaders had been perfectly sincere in the line of conduct they had followed 
 in the question, and it was also in conformity with the resolution as submitted to the 
 House of Commons in 1890 by Mr. Blake himself. Mr. Ouimet said he was one of 
 those who had demanded that justice should be given to the minority. They had taken 
 the appeal to England at their own expense " 
 
 I understand that he was one of the parties who subscribed money to take the 
 appeal to England. If so his acting now in a judicial capacity would be an anomaly. 
 My clients would be compelled to come for a decision before one who was interested m 
 
 the matter. . 
 
 Hon. Mr. OciMET. We wanted to find out what the law was. That it would not 
 
 be useless according to your opinion, surely, for you have said we did not know much 
 law. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy : — 
 
 " They had taken the appeal to England at their own expense and they ha\e been 
 successful. The appeal of the minority had not only been maintained, but had been 
 solemnly confirmed. The judgment had once for all decided that not only had the 
 majority in Manitoba th^ right to have schools of their own choice, but that nobody had 
 the right to deprive the majority of their schools." 
 
 I have endeavoured to show that it did not decide anything of the kinci 
 
 " The course now open to the minority was to demand the re-establishment of the 
 separate schools which they formerly enjoyed. Mr. Ouimet said^ that there was 
 unanimity amongst the members of the Government on this question. 
 
 That was before the argument. i ■ .• 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet.— Unanimity in what '—in a determination to do justice. 
 
44 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — " A time had been fixed for the advocate of the minority to 
 plead their wants and to show what remedial legislation should be passed. The 
 Cabinet would be called upon to act in accordance with the judgment of the Prixy 
 Council. As soon as the case was heard a decision will be rendered, and Mr. Ouiniet 
 added, that if that decision was not in accordance with the constitution, there would be 
 but one thing for them to do, and that was for them to retire from the Government." 
 
 I do not know what that means. 
 
 8ir Ch.vklks Hibueut Tupi'KK. — You would not want him to remain in a govern- 
 ment that had taken unconstitutional action 1 
 
 ]Mr. McCahtiiv. — He says further: 
 
 ''The (lovernment was not afraid to make known its policy and there would be no 
 alternative before its policy would be defined. The government would go before the 
 electors with a definite programme, and if he was a member of the governuient that 
 progrannne would mean the perfect execution of the judgment rendered by the Privy 
 Council.' 
 
 Hon. Mr. OuiMET — That is right. 
 
 The Council adjourned until 2.30 p.m. 
 
 AFTER RECESS. 
 
 The Council resumed at 2.30 p.m. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Referring, and as I trust only for a short time longer, to the 
 point that was still under discussion when the adjournment took place, I want to point 
 out what the position must necessarily be upon any action being taken by the Council. 
 If the Council has no discretion at all — as to that I have said all I propose to say — of 
 course there is no necessity of any argument or of any inquiry ; the order goes as of 
 right. If the Council has discretion, then I take it that that discretion is one which 
 would not be justly implemented by the simple passage of a remedial order. If the Council 
 come to the conclusion to advise His Excellency to pass a remedial order, they do in eflect 
 say to their followers, and say to the country, that they are prepared to advise Parlia- 
 ment to carry out that remedial order if necessary, and to support it through Parliament. 
 That I think demonstrates that the order being made, and a party government pledges its 
 party to its adoption by such party, so far as the party can be bounrl by the act of the Gov- 
 ernment — the Government is bound in honour and bound injustice to the minority who 
 are claiming it, to see that that order is afterwards carried into law in case the province 
 declines to obey it. Now, the moment that is done, it enters the field, indeed it has 
 already entered the field, of Dominion politics. It has become a question as to whether 
 it ought or ought not to be done. If it is not done, the Government take the responsi- 
 bility of saying, we won't interfere ; and they antagonize a certain section of the com- 
 munity, not merely the minority in Manitoba, but a very large and important section of 
 the community in the Dominion. If the Government say there ought to be a remedial 
 order passed, then they antagonize another section who differ from them ; and therefore 
 it appears to me it becomes, in every sense in which it can be viewed, a question of 
 poll ics, and a quetion of moment to the Dominion at large, into which field of politics 
 it has entered. I do not know that I can better put what I mean than in the language 
 of the Hon. Mr. Pelletier, who delivered a very carefully prepared sjDeech on tliis ques- 
 tion, and who, I think, has put it, from his standpoint, in a very fair manner. He com-' 
 mences by saying : — 
 
 " It is time, however, for us to ask if this question should not be decided before 
 rather than after the elections. If the elections take place before the qnestion is 
 settled, or before tangible measures are taken to guarantee us the settlement, the 
 question presents itself, namely, what attitude those should take who hold before and 
 
45 
 
 above all that justice should prevail, and that the question of finance, administration, 
 protection, or of free trade should be subordinate to the great cause we have at heart. 
 Two political parties will ask your support. What, therefore, is the position of each 
 party on this question ?" 
 
 Then he goes on to criticize the conduct and the course of the leader of the opposition. 
 He points out that Mr. Laurier declares that he would only settle the school question 
 in case the schools were Protestant : that if he is entrusted with power by the elec- 
 torate he will grant remedial orders : and he draws from that the conclusion, whether 
 rightly or wrongly, that if the schools are neutral, then Mr. Laurier would not interfere. 
 
 But he comes now to the powers that be, and he says : — 
 
 " We will see now what is to be thought of the present Ottawa Government. Let 
 me teli you, in the first place, that if Mr. Laurier is obliged to have a policy clear and 
 defined on this question, the Government hf<s likewise obligations and elementary 
 responsibilities. Mr. Laurier is obliged to speak, and the Government is obliged to act, 
 and if the Government does not do its duty, it must not be relieved of the consequences 
 which such want of action would entail." 
 
 Further on he says : 
 
 " We, however, have not come to this in the province of Quebec, this classic land 
 of true liberty and real grandeur ; but if, on the one side, we are just, if we wish to 
 continue to be so, we have the right to ask the same measure of justice and equity for 
 the sections of country where our people are in the minority, and we are obliged to 
 insist on this point independently of all political attachment and of all pxrty interest. 
 The Federal Government has no right to be frightened by the hydra of fanaticism ; and 
 even if it were to succumb for not having done its duty, the Ministry should not flinch 
 before the possibility of a defeat, which would be surrounded by a veritable halo which 
 would be more glorious than a victory obtained by trampling under foot the most sacred 
 rights. 
 
 " Therefore, let us consider the duty of the present hour. If the Federal elections 
 are brought on before the settlement of the school question, or before the Government 
 gives tangible proof that the question is going to be settled, they will do no more than 
 Mr. Laurier . they will go no further than he in thus hiding themselves behind a 
 culpable ostentation. 1 am not one of those who believe that this question is one that 
 can be settled at the wink of an eye. I am aware that there is a regular procedure to 
 follow. I am aware that it is necessary that the interested party should plead their 
 appeal before the Executive Council. I know that the Greenway Government must be 
 placed en demeure to act, and that the Federal Government can only take action after 
 this is done ; but that which we have a right to ask is that if the dissolution of the 
 House is to take place, it should be preceded by an efi'ective action, engaging the 
 Government in a formal manner. The Ministers cannot make, each in their own pro- 
 vinces, contradictory declarations necessitated by the exigencies of the situation. I have, 
 however, confidence in the promises and engagements of our Ministers. I cannot forget 
 that at a moment when, after the last decision of the Supreme Court, everybody 
 believed the grand cause for ever lost, it was they who united on one document the 
 names of twenty persons who undertook to pay the judicial expenses in order to take 
 the case before the Privy Council. I know also that they paid their own money for this 
 wood cause. I know also that the twenty persons whose names are upon this historic 
 document have paid out up to the present time the sum of 89,000, in order that the 
 (grievances of the Manitoba minority might be taken to the foot of the throne. I know 
 that upon this document there are the names of men who expect no political reward, 
 the names of venerable priests who have affixed their names through a religious spirit 
 and in the public interests. I have also confidence that Ministers who have such a 
 splendid act as this to thfir credit will not come before us with false electoral promises. 
 Individual promises, however, are not always possible to execute. What the Catholics 
 wish is that the question may be settled by a law, if there be a session, and if there is 
 no session, by an Order in Council, sanctioned by the representative of Her Majesty, 
 and consequently binding on all the Ministers and on the party, and submitting the 
 
46 
 
 question directly to the people. If the Government takes this course it will merit the 
 entire contidence of the public, and if not it will be unworthy of it." 
 
 Now, I do not think that at all an unfair view from the standpoint from which 
 'Ml. IVlit'tier spoke. He, of course, is desirous of seeing this remedial order made, and 
 he puts it to the Government that they should be compelled to take a stand upon the 
 subject and declare themselves in a tangible manner before the election, and to commit 
 themselves anil their party to the passage, not merely of a remedial order, but to subse- 
 quent legislation which might follow upon it and without which, of course, it would be 
 mere waste paper. You are not, sir, unmindful of the fact that a considerable portion 
 of the press of the province of Quebec are clamouring for a session : they are insisting 
 not merely that a remedial order shall be passed, but that by this present Parliament 
 legislation should be passed. All that goes to show that this question has entered the 
 field of politics, and can only be dealt with as any other matter of politics is to be dealt 
 with. Let me add to my quotation from the judgment, a reference which had escaped 
 me, and which a friend has been kind enough to point out, and which, perhaps, is even 
 more pertinent than any I have read before. I quote from page 32 of the Order in 
 Council under which the reference was made : — 
 
 " The remedy, therefore, which is sought is against Acts which are intra vires of 
 the Provincial Legislature. His argument is also that the appeal does not ask your 
 Excellency to interfere with any rights or powers of the legislature of Manitoba, inas- 
 much as the power to legislate on the subject of education has only been conferred on 
 that legislature with the distinct reservation that your Excellency in Council shall have 
 power to make remedial orders against any such legislation which infringes on rights 
 acquired after the union by any Protestant or Roman Catholic minority in relation to 
 separate or dissentient schools. Upon the various questions which arise on those petitions, 
 the sub-committee do not feel called upon to express an opinion." 
 
 That was your own sub-committee, composed of the late Sir John Thompson, and, 
 I think, of the Minister of the Interior and yourself, and Mr. Chapleau. 
 
 " And so far as they are aware no opinion has been expressed on any previous 
 occasion in this case, or any other of a like kind by your Excellency's Government, or 
 any other government of Canada. Indeed, no application of a parallel character l)as 
 been made since the establishment of the Dominion. The application comes before your 
 Excellency in a manner differing from applications which are ordinarily made under 
 the constitution to your Excellency in Council." 
 
 Now this is the point that was criticized. 
 
 "In the opinion of the sub-committee the application is not to be dealt with at 
 present as a matter of political character or involving political action on the part of 
 your Excellency's advisers." 
 
 That was the opinion of the sub-committee. Then, Mr. Blake criticized that as 
 follows : — 
 
 " Your Lordships will observe the phrase ' at present,' on the preliminary 
 question which is a question whether thei'e are grounds to entertain an 
 appeal, the committee thought they were going to act judicially, but very properly 
 they added the words ' at present ' because it is quite obvious that when they enter 
 upon the sphere of action of entertaining an appeal, their functions must be political, 
 of expediency and of discretion, just as much as the functions which in the last resort 
 upon their recommendation are assigned to the Parliament of Canada itself, of course a 
 political body. 
 
 " If the recommendation of His Excellency in Council is not obeyed by the local 
 authorities, there devolves upon the Parliament of Canada the right to legislate to the 
 extent that is necessary to achieve redress, warranted by the recommendation of his 
 Excellency in Council. Both these transactions, the prior substantive transaction of 
 deciding on the action of the Governor in Council, and the action of the Parliament in 
 Canada, are, of course, not judicial but political." 
 
 Then there is another passage at page 26 : 
 
 " The Lord Chancellor. — It is not before us what should be declai-ed, is it ? 
 
47 
 
 " Mr. Blake. — No, what is before your Lordships is whether there is a case for 
 appeal. 
 
 " The Lord Chancellor. — What is before us is the functions of the Governor 
 General. 
 
 " Mr. Blake. — Yes, and not the methods in which he shall exercise them — not the 
 discretion which he shall use, but whether a case has arisen on these facts on which he 
 has jurisdiction to intervene. That is all that is before your Lordships." 
 
 Now there is a well known rule that if a court of law goes beyond what is necessary 
 for the decision of a case, the decision is not binding, it is what is called obiter. They 
 have no more right to affect the interests or rights of parties by going beyond the ques- 
 tion itself, than a mere stranger has. The court is limited in its decision, and this has 
 a binding character only so long as it is confined to the questions which were submitted. 
 For these reasons, therefore, I submit with confidence, that this question does not come 
 before you as one settled and determined by anything the Privy Council has said ; that this 
 question does not come before you to be dealt with judicially, and you are not sitting here 
 judicially ; that this question does not come before you to be disposed of as any other ques- 
 tion which comes before the Council, and on which the Council has to advise the Governor, 
 upon the responsibility of the Council, as the ministers of the Government, and upon 
 their responsibility to Parliament and to the people whom Parliament represents. Now 
 that being so — as I will assume, for the sake of my further argument, that it is so — what 
 is the question ? Perhaps, however, before I come to that, I might as well clear up 
 those other small matters which have been introduced into the argument, and then I 
 will not have to interrupt the course of the discussion b}' any irrelevant observations 
 further on. I refer to . the suggestion — the argument, as my learned friend calls it — 
 that when the Legislative Council was abolished in Manitoba the minority in that pro- 
 ^nce had the pledge of the majority that their rights would not be interfered with. 
 Now let us see what took place. My learned friend has referred you to two or three 
 passages to be found in his book from speeches made by Mr. Davis, who was then 
 premier, by Mr. Norquay, and I think by Mr. Luxton. I may have to say a word 
 about these speeches, though I hardly think they are of sufficient consequence to justify 
 me in taking up your time, but I want to point out to you the account we get of the 
 abolition of the Legislative Council in Mr. Begg's volume. From that book I gather 
 that Mr. Davis came to power, pledged to the abolition of the Legislative Council, that 
 he first attempted to carry that out, and a bill passed through the Lower Chamber, but 
 in the Upper Chamber it was rejected, the Legislative Council refusing to be a party to 
 its own abolition. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Montague — There is no record of that. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy — I find that here on page 197 of the second volume of Begg's 
 history. What I have not seen is the statement that he pledged himself, but I assume 
 that he gave a pledge. Then the history goes on to state : — 
 
 " About this time also, at the request of Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, a delegation 
 from' the Local Government, composed of Hon. R. A. Davis and Hon. Joseph Royal, 
 visited Ottawa in reference to obtaining better terms for the province. The result of 
 this mission was a readjustment of the financial relations between the Dominion and 
 the pi'ovince, by which the subsidy of the latter was increased, until 1881, to s90,000, 
 per annum ; and in addition, a number of accounts standing between the Federal and 
 Provincial Governments were satisfactorily adjusted, practically wiping out a debt of 
 $120,000, which Manitoba owed the Dominion, and leaving the province with a clean 
 sheet to continue anew on its increased subsidy." 
 
 I refer to that because I noticed with surprise that Mr. Blake said in his argument 
 before the Privy Council that he had to do with the abolition of the Senate. Mr. 
 Haldane, not having known of the change, was speaking of the two Houses, and Mr. 
 Blake said, one House : and then, upon some conversation taking place, he said he had 
 to do with the abolition. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — It was on the advice of Mr. Mackenzie and his govern- 
 ment. , 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes. Then the book goes on to say: — 
 
48 
 
 " On Jiinuarv 18th, 1876, the second session of the second Parliament of Manitoba 
 was (ipt'iiod, and tlie most iiii])oi(aiit m<^asui-e passed was the al)olition of the Lei!;ishitive 
 Council. The bill, as it will bu remendx'ied, had been defeated at the previous session 
 by the casting vote of the Speaker, Hon. J. H. O'Donell, but on the present occasion 
 the go\ernment prepai-ed for an emer<,'ency of this kind, by arranging beforehand with 
 a majority of the inoml>ers comprising the Council to vote themselves out of office. The 
 vote in the Couiuil for abolition stood as follows: Hon. Messrs. MacKay, Tnkster, 
 Gunn, and Ogletree voted for it, and Hon. Messrs. Hamelin, Dauphinais and O'Donell 
 against it." 
 
 So the whole number voted either for or against, the French members voting 
 against it, and the four gentlemen bearing English and Scotch n;imes, having been 
 provided for in advance, voted for the abolition of the Legislative Council. It is not 
 pretended that there was any 1) irgain or arrangement made by any person who had 
 authority, that on account of that vote, or notwithstanding that, the rights guaranteed to 
 the French minority should he preserved. But I will only use this argument : Is it 
 possible for any gentleman, even for the First Minister, or for any other member, to pledge 
 a legislative body, and if so, for how long ? They may speak for themselves, l)ut they have 
 no riglit to pledge posterity. They have no right to speak for anybody else but them- 
 selves, and they have no power to bind the legislature in any way. But, I think, if you 
 read the language which has been cited to you by my leai-ned friend, of Mr. Davis, Mr. 
 Luxton and i\Ir. Norquay, you will find that what they were speaking of and thinking 
 of, was not the separate school question at all, but it was the French language. I think 
 it was a year later when the question arose as to the abolition of the separate school 
 systepi, and so far as I know, and so far as I can gather from my investigation of 
 history, there had been nothing said at all after this, nothing said in the press about 
 changing the school system. So I submit that, looking at the facts as I could get 
 them, the province wanted to get an increased indemnity, and the Dominion authorities 
 said. Before we give you more money we want to see that you are not going to waste 
 it on this legislative council. Under these circumstances, it would be carrying any 
 statement that might be made by these gentlemen, a great length, to pretend that they 
 could bind either Protestant-;, or Catholics, or anybody else. They had no mandate to 
 make any promise as to what they might do, either on behalf of that Parliament or any 
 subsequent Parliament. Then, I am instructed to-day by the Attorney General, and 
 that is all I propose to say about it — that the alleged agreement between Mr. Greenway 
 and the Archbishop has been repeatedly denied. I am not denying it now, but it has 
 been repeatedly denied, and I gather from the statement read yesterday that it had 
 been denied. Then, as to these statements that are alleged to have been made at St. 
 Francois Xavier by Mr. Joseph Martin, — I do not know whether they have been denied 
 or not — but if Mr. Joseph ^lartin or any other member of the Manitoba Legislature 
 made any such statements, they had no authority to bind the Liberal party. The 
 Liberal party at that time had a platform in which there was nothing said one way 
 or the other as to the question of schools, or the question of language ; and if these 
 gentlemen did in that constituency make any such statement, they could only speak 
 for themselves. They were not authorized or justified in any way to speak on behalf of 
 the Liberal party of whom they were representatives on that occasion. I think Mr. 
 (ireenway's statem"nt was denied, and the other statements, if made, were certainly not 
 statements which the party felt that they were bound by in the slightest degree. Now, 
 then, coming to the question of abolition. Without troubling you with extracts from 
 the book of the Privy Council, let me summarize the views of their Lordships, which 
 I fully adopt for the purposes of my argument. It was stated over and over again to the 
 counsel who were arguing, and I think admitted by them, and it seems to me to be the 
 only possible view that can be taken of this jurisdiction, that the power to deal with 
 schools was given to the provinces ; that power is said to be exclusive in the first 
 section : — 
 
 " In and for the provinces the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation 
 to education." 
 
49 
 
 That, if stated alone, would give them absolute and unqualified power. But it does 
 not stand alone ; it saj's : — 
 
 " Subject and according to the following provisions : " — 
 
 The first limitation of that power is to be found in that subsection which the^ 
 Privy Council have determined has no meaning, because there were no facts to which it 
 was to be applied. Then, they were not to make any school law which would prejudi- 
 cially affect any rights or privileges with respect to denominational schools which any 
 class of persons, not mereley Roman Catholics, or Protestants, but any class of persons, 
 Church of England, ^lethodists or Presbyterians, had at the time of union. It has 
 been tound now, as a fact, and announced as a settled judgment of law, that there were 
 no rights or privileges which any class of persons enjoyed prior to the union, and there- 
 fore, that might as well be wi-itten out of the section. It cannot be of any application 
 so far as one can see at present, but it has been held, and this is a further limitation, 
 that if a right or privilege which the minority enjoyed after the union is taken away 
 by the acts of the legislature, there may be, under these circumstances, jurisdiction 
 in the Parliament of Canada to pass a law to remedy that grievance ; so that in that 
 event the power is for a time concurrent in both legislatures. Up to the time 
 of the complaint being made to the Governor in Council, the power is absolute and 
 unlimited, section one being eliminated, in the legislature of the province. From the 
 time that the jurisdiction of the Governor in Council is invoked and the time the 
 remedial order is passed, the province still has the power, and still remains with the power 
 from the time that order is disobeyed. If that event should happen, and we have 
 reason to know from what was said at the opening the other day that that event is 
 likely to happen, then there would be concurrent legislative powers until the Pailiament 
 of Canada exercised its legislative power. I think Sir John Thompson spoke of it in 
 his speech as parallel legislative power. I do not know whether my expression or his 
 is the happier, but I think you understand what I mean ; in other words, the legislature 
 of Manitoba might, this session, refuse to pass remedial legislation, and then there 
 would be authority, in the Parliament of Canada to pass it, and until the Parliament of 
 Canada passes it, there woidd still be power in the legislature to pass it. They might 
 repent and pass it the next session if they please, or even the same session. They might 
 not deal with the matter until this Parliament dealt with it. So that this power and 
 authority, which I understand you may, under certain circumstances, exercise, is a 
 power and authority which, under the events which have happened, may arise, and if it 
 does arise, it is a legislative authority to be exercised like any of the other legislative 
 authorities conferred by section 91 of the B. N. A. Act. Speaking generally with 
 reo-ard to the scope of the constitution, we know that the powers conferred 
 by the legislation are absolute and sovereign, that is, when they act within their 
 jurisdiction, and subject, of course, to the veto, which we are all subject to. 
 The leo-islative acts by the Governor General in Council and the Parliament- 
 ary Acts of this Parliament are only subject to the Queen in Council, and 
 subject to that, their authority is absolute. There is no over-lapping. The single 
 exception, I think, is in the matter of agriculture. There in an alisolute jurisdiction in 
 the one or in the other, and where they act within their jurisdiction, they are sovereign. 
 But this jurisdiction may be, as I pointed out, for a time concurrent; but the 
 moment the Canadian Parliament act, the authority passes away from the local for all 
 time : and as I pointed out to you, the Dominion authority have an opportunity of 
 repealing its own legislation. What I want now to point out is this : that this being a 
 legislative power, conferred under these circumstances, and existing under these 
 circumstances in the Parliament of Canada, it has to be exercised just as any other 
 power would be. The Government are now bound, for instance, to come down with a 
 bill ; the Government, in matters of this moment, would be bound, after passing a 
 remedial order, t<ycome down with a bill and carry that order into effect. What I ask 
 now is, there being with regard to this province, under these circumstances, a right in 
 this Government — because if the Govei-nment refuses to act, and thinks it is wiser to 
 leave the province to manage her own affairs, then, of course, the question can never 
 arise but there being the right in this Government to set this jurisdiction in motion, 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 what considerations should actuate the Government, before they come to an affirmative 
 conclusion and grant the prayer of the petition which has been presented here 1 What 
 are you asked to do ? It is impossible to tlisi,fiiise it fi-oni ourselves after the draft bill 
 whicli has been submitted to you as the demand of the minority— you are asked to pass 
 a separate school law for the province of Manitoba. You d,re asked to repeal their 
 Public School Act to that extent. The two cannot stand together ; and with all defer- 
 ence be it said, it shows how little the Lord Chancellor understood the question when 
 he seemed to think that an act to supplement an act of this kind, might be passed without 
 interfering with the Public School Act. This Public School Act, of course, stands now 
 as a "enenil law throughout the pi-ovince. The proposed legislation would enable a 
 neiirhbourhood of Roman Catholics to take themselves out from under the control of the 
 public school law, and to bring themselves within the control of the separate school 
 enactment. The Parliament of Canada, at the instance of the Government ot Canada, 
 is to be asked, and is now being asked, to change the school law of the province and to 
 establish a system of separate schools in that province. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Haggart. — Are we for ever invested with that authority ? Could we 
 
 repeal that ? , . , . , ' . , , mi 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. I think not. I think this is legislation arf A ot\ i he moment 
 
 you exercise this power, you have nothing more to do with it in Parliament, except in 
 
 case you have made a mistake and have not gone far enough. But as for repealing it, 
 
 I think it is gone. , , ^ j -i. 
 
 Sir Adolpiie Carox. — You could not restrict the power, but you could extend it. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— I do not think you can go further. The Governor sanctions 
 whatever remedial order he thinks Parliament can carry out. But suppose Parliament 
 fails to carry out to the full extent the remedial order at one session, they might the 
 next session, so as to make eflective the Governor General's order. But once they do 
 that, so far as I have been able to understand the Act, there would be no i-ower to 
 repeal, certainly not in the local, certainly not in the Dominion, because it is legislation 
 ad hoc for that purpose, and that is what we call the execution of a power. Now, 
 I say with all earnestness, that this is a matter that must be carefully considered. 
 Here you act in this hasty manner. I do not intend to make any disrespectful allu-ion. 
 but the judgment had hardly reached the province of Manitoba, before the Ministers of 
 that province have had time to consider its effects and to weigh the arguments which 
 are to be found in it, and the new position which is created by it, when they are called 
 upon to appear here, as it were to defend their system, which, when you have heard 
 this history, you will find has not been hastily adopted by them, but has been deliber- 
 ately adopted, and still more deliberately adhered to. Now, the Pari lament of Canada 
 has no right to interfere in schools, in educational matters, which, of all others, it will 
 be admitted, are purely local concerns. There is an observation of one of the law 
 lords that education is a purely local concern. At page 218 Lord Watson says :— " It 
 is a matter purely local." In that matter purely local, you are called upon now, not 
 merely to override, but to coerce a great province of the Dominion, in respect to a 
 system which this province has in its wisdom adopted ; and if I were seized, as I ought 
 to be, as fully as the Attorney General is, who has charge of this matter in the province, 
 of the merits, and all the arguments, and the reason which induced the Government 
 to adopt, and' which induced the people to support, the public school system, I think I 
 would be able to give you a very good reason why the people thought fit to abolish sep- 
 arate schools and to adopt the public school system. Let me point out to you in the 
 first place that you have to determine, and according to my learned friend s view, you 
 have f'ot to determine it as an abstract proposition, that the separate school system is 
 to be'preferred to the public school system. In my learned friend's whole contention 
 there is not one circumstance that he has given you as to the condition of the province 
 when the public school system was adopted. He tells us that there is a minority, as 
 there are in all the provinces, of either Catholics or Protestants, and that there 
 is a jurisdiction, which is not now in question. He has told you what 
 the separate system of schools is, he has given you arguments in favour of that system. 
 I join issue with him at once, and I ask you to look at it as he presents it. He says that 
 because the separate school system is to be preferred, you should pass this remedial order. 
 
51 
 
 I say that the separate school system is not to be preferred, that you should not there- 
 fore pass this remedial order. I say that that would be a proper conclusion to come to 
 if the matter were open and unembarrassed by the decision that the province has arrived 
 at ; but it is still more impossible to arrive at that conclusion, when you are sittin-r in 
 appeal upon an act of the legislature, unless you have more than the simple fact diat 
 one is separate and one is public. Now there is not a gentleman sitting in the Council 
 who has not made up his mind on the merits of the two systems. The question is not 
 new to us here. I do not think there is a man in public life that has not a definite view 
 upon that question. Therefore, it does appear to me to be a waste of your valuable 
 time for me to argue in favour of the public school system as against the separate school 
 system. I should never convince those who believe in separate schools as the proper 
 system, and I do not need to convince those who do not. I believe there are men sit- 
 ting at that board, who, if they have not changed their opinion lately, are as firmly 
 convinced that separate schools are against the interests of the people of this country, as 
 the humble individual who now addresses you. So that it is not necessary for me 
 to go into that question, and to tell you that separate schools are contrary 
 to our system in this country, where no religion is recognized by the law, 
 where^ we have no state religion, if you except the province of Quebec, where 
 there is a quasi state church — where we have no state religion, and where all 
 religions are open, and free, and equal before the law. I say that under these ciicum- 
 stances it is not necessary to repeat the stale and hackneyed argument which has been 
 presented so frequently, and which you all know so well, that the state ought not to 
 lend its assistance to the propagation of the dogmas of any particular religion or of any 
 particular church. According to our theory, the state owes to its people the f^ift of 
 elementary education. Those who have no children have to bear their taxes as well as 
 those who have. Those who choose to send their children to a private school have 
 nevertheless to bear their taxes, although they get no benefit therefrom. The state itself, in 
 the interests of the public at large, has decided that the children of the people should be 
 educated, and to enforce their education and insist upon it, they not merely provide means 
 but they make attendance at school compulsory. Now, if the system of separate schools is 
 to be preferred, and if this Council concludes that it is better to adopt that as its view, I do 
 not think that any argument I can present will affect that result. I am only here to 
 protest in the name of the Government of Manitoba against the adoption of that principle. 
 But I think I can point out to this Honourable Council that no aflBrmative decision 
 can be arrived at in this case, without this Council laying down the proposition that of 
 the two systems, the separate and national, they prefer the separate system. Now, in 
 this matter, you are legislating not for this Dominion. This will be a local law. You 
 remember that in the old days laws were frequently passed to aifect merely Upper or 
 Lower Canada. We had two systems of jurisdiction, as it were, although the Parlia- 
 ment was one. This is a law which will affect merely the province of Manitoba, and 
 aff'ect it in a matter of purely local concern. It can only be passed, I submit, by the 
 Council after having arrived at the conclusion that as between the separate school 
 system and the public or national system, the separate school system is preferable ; and 
 not only that, but you restore the separate system which has been abolished. I say 
 there are no circumstances affecting Manitoba which make it an exception to the "eneral 
 rule. A man might say : Well, speaking generally, the separate school system is not to 
 be preferred, the public school system is better, but looking at the peculiar circumstances 
 of the province of Manitoba, that forms an exception. But I think I shall be able to 
 establish, by facts which you have not yet heard, that there are no exceptional circum- 
 stances which require that the school system should be separate. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — Would it be asking too much of you to give us a definition of 
 what constitutes national or public schools, and separate schools, in your opinion 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I intended to do that. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — Do you mean in your argument to say that if a man 
 refused to vote for the abolition of separate schools, he would necessarily approve of 
 separate schools ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — You have no power to abolish them in Ontario, and there is no 
 nse in voting if you have not the power. 
 
52 
 
 Sir INIackenzie Bowell — We know they have not the power, but the question has 
 been raised. 
 
 Mr. McC.MJTHY. — Yes, I think I was one of those who raised it, but in view of 
 petitioning the Imperial Purlianient, and only in that sense. No person ever dreamed 
 of attempting to vote for the repeal of separate schools in Ontario at present. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — Do you mean that any person refusing to sign that peti- 
 tion, would prefer separate schools ? 
 
 Mr. ^IcCahtiiy. — A law affecting any of our provinces ought not to be interfered 
 with unless the legislative body of that province has asked for its repeal, and conse- 
 (juentlv, unless this Parliament has concurred ; in other words, the Imperial Parliament 
 wouKl not interfere with the British North America Act, unless, for instance, the (Jntario 
 Legislature asked for the repeal of the clause which imposed separate schools upon that 
 province, and the Parliament of Canada coincided with that request. The only question 
 that arises here is, is it wise, is it proper, to set on foot an agitation with a view of elect- 
 ing gentlemen to the Legislative Assembly who would adopt that petition ? 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — Then those who would vote against that proposition 
 would affirm the principle of separate schools, according to your argument. 
 
 Mr. McCahthv. — Not necessarily. I leave things as they ai-e. We have got the 
 public school system in Manitoba, and the question is, is this Council going to re- 
 establish separate schools ? My argument is that they cannot re-establish separate schools 
 unless they are convinced that the separate school system is preferable to the public 
 school system, or a national school system, as to which I promised the Minister of Public 
 Works that I would give a definition before I am done. 
 
 Sir Charles H. Tupper. — The Privy Council make a reference to what was actually 
 contemplated by this Parliament at the time of the passage of that Act, that is to say, 
 they take it that it was practically certain there would be a separate school system there, 
 as the parties were equally balanced, as they put it. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — That is what gave rise to the jurisdiction. 
 
 Sir Charles H. Tupper. — I would s ly that is a declaration on the part of the 
 Canadian Parliament providing for that contingency, and in favour of that system of 
 separate schools. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy'. — What the Canadian Parliament has provided for is what the 
 Canadian Parliament has said. But what they said was that if they intended to 
 accomplish anything by the first section, they utterly failed to do so. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — It often occurs that the intention of Parliament is not 
 carried out by the wording of the Act. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Lord Herschel has expressed the same opinion. I think the 
 draughtsman who drew up this particular legislation was not very well versed in the 
 business. 
 
 Sir Charles H. Tupper. — The parliament who originally passed that Act contem- 
 plated and endorsed a system of separate schools for Manitoba, just as we would be 
 doing by a remedial order of this kind, for protecting that system would be endorsing 
 it. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — That may or may not be so. It is quite evident, I think, from 
 the absence of a provision as to separate schools, that parliament did not think fit at 
 the time to say that there should be separate schools. NotMng would have been simpler 
 than tor p irliament to have enacted that in the province of Manitoba there shall be 
 separate schools, just as this parliament has more than once provided with regard lothe 
 North-west. That could have been done, and that would have been siu'.ple. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — There is n>) declaration in the British Noi'th America 
 Act, becau-e at that time the province of Manitoba did not exist. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ives. — If yuur view as to our declaring in favour of separate schools, if this 
 remediil order is given, is correct, then you would hold that the question upon which 
 the appeal is based, is this : the Catholics say common schools or national schools are 
 the law, but we think separate schools would be preferable, and we ask you to give us 
 separate schools. Now, I do not understand that to be the petition at all. They say : 
 We have a right to separate schools, we have been deprived of that right, and we want 
 them restored. 
 
53 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I understand that, but I am done with part of the question. I 
 pointed out that they are saying they have a right to the separate schools. 
 
 Hon. ]\Ir. IvKS. — I understood you to say that anybody who favoured referring the 
 matter to Parliament, must necessarily declare in favour of separ ite schools. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — No, I say this Council cannot come to the conclusion to give 
 this remedial order for separate schools without putting as your major premise that you 
 approve of separate schools as against national schools. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — It is to that declaration that I take objection. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I am not asking you to give judgment in my favour on the spot. 
 All I am asking you to do is to listen to me. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Boavell. — I will endeavour to do so. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I do not mean to say that you have not a perfect right to object 
 to it. 
 
 Sir Charles H. Tupper. — Do you object to my interposing the question with refer- 
 ence to the decision, to which I wished to call your attention, at the time the Manitoba 
 Act was passed. On page 276, in the judgment of the Privy Council, I read this — 
 
 " These who were stipulating for the provisions of section 22 as a condition of the 
 union, and those who gave their legislative assent to the act by which it was brought 
 about, had in view the perils then apprehended. The immediate adoption by the legis- 
 lature of an educational system obnoxious either to Catholics or Protestants, would not 
 be contemplated as possible. As has been already stated, the Roman Catholics in the 
 province were about equal in number. It was impossible at that time for either party 
 to obtain legislative sanction to a scheme of education obnoxious to the other. The 
 establishment of a system of public education in which both parties would concur was 
 probably then in immediate prospect. The legislature of Manitoba first met on loth 
 March, 1871. On the 3rd of May following, the Educational Act of 1871 received the 
 royal assent, but the future was uncertain. Either Roman Catholics or Protestants 
 might become the preponderating power in the legislature, and it might be under such 
 conditions for the minority to prevent the creation of the public cost of schools which 
 though acceptable to the majority could only be taken advantage of by the minority of 
 the terms of sacrificing their cherished convictions. The change to a Roman Catholic 
 system of public schools would have been rer!:arded with as much distaste by the Pro- 
 ■f^estants of the pro\ince as the change to an unsectarian system was by the Catholics." 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — That, of course, is not law, it is merely a historical reference. Of 
 course, that is an endeavour on the part of the Lord Chancellor to find a rea.son for this 
 extraordinary legislation. It may be I am wrong, but it does not bind anybody. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey. — I understand you to say that in your view that section of the 
 Manitoba Act should not, under any circumstances, be given effect to. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — That is my view, speaking here on behalf of the province of 
 Manitoba. Speaking elsewhere, I should say it should never have been invoked in any 
 province at all. Circumstances, of course, change very much, and what might have 
 been thought feasible in 1871 is impossible in 1895. It does not follow that because 
 there is power, it ought to be exercised, any more than because there is power to expend 
 public money, it should be expended. Now, let me draw your attention to the fact that 
 every province of the Dominion that has been free, has deliberately adopted the public 
 school system. This is a circumstance that is not lightly to be disregarded in view of 
 this appeal to the central body. We know that in New Brunswick the public school 
 system has been adopted. Early after confederation the province passed a public 
 school law, and you are all familiar with the struggle that was made against that law, 
 and the attempt that was made to induce the central body here to veto it. But the 
 New Brunswick law remains to this day a public school act. I do not know whether 
 Nova Scotia preceded or followed New Brunswick in her legislation in this respect, but 
 she, too, has a public school act. Prince Edward Island fqllowed, and there again there 
 was a struggle. Petitions were presented, questions debated, and the future rendered 
 dismal by the possibilities that were conjuied up if the law was not repealed. Let me 
 quote the language in the report of the Executive Council of Prince Edward Island : — 
 
54 
 
 % 
 
 " The "reat principle that the public money was not to be appropriated for the 
 purpose of teaching sectarian dogma or creeds, is one which a large majority of the 
 people of this province value very highly, and which they will not surrender without a 
 stru<Tgle commensurate to the importance they attach to the principle itself." 
 
 Then we have British Columbia adopting a public school system. Now, all of us 
 who come from Ontario, know that there is a great deal of unrest by reason of the 
 limited authority that tlie legislature of that great province has to deal with the subject 
 of schools ; and 1 venture to say, as a proof of the evil of that kind of interference, that 
 there is more disquietude, there is more heart-burning, there is more bitterness in the 
 province to-day on account of the restriction on the legislature in that respect, and the 
 compulsory adoption of separate schools in the constitution, than there is in any other 
 pros ince in the Dominion. In the provinces that are free, we are told, and it is the 
 best possible argument that can be urged, that so tolerant are the majority, so willing 
 are they to vield rights which could not be legally claimed, that, to adopt the language 
 of my learned friend, we wink at infractions of the public school law so that it becomes 
 almost a separate school system. And they do it willingly. But it is one tihing to 
 compel people to do a thing, and it is another thing to leave it to their free choice. It 
 is a strong argument in favour of allowing the people of Manitoba to work out their 
 own salvation without interference. 
 
 Hon. Mr. CosTlGAN. — You speak of excitement in Ontario about their being com- 
 pelled to retain separate schools. Would that apply to Quebec also, as the same condi- 
 tion of things exists there ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I am not so familiar with the politics of Quebec, therefore I am 
 not speaking of it I was comparing Ontario with the other English provinces of which 
 I have more knowledge. I do not desire to include the province of Quebec in that 
 category. On this question I am disposed to adopt the arguments of Dr. J. M. King, 
 in a lecture which I find reproduced in Mr. Ewart's compilation. It is only a repetition 
 of what has been said in favour of a national school system as against a separate school 
 system, and giving objections to the latter system. If you will look at pages 189 to 19.3 
 in Mr. Ewart's book on the Manitoba school question, you will find Dr. King's argu- 
 ments i-eproduced. I will read a summary of them : — 
 
 " First, it is in direct violation of the principle of the separation of church and 
 state. It is unneces<;ary, indeed it would be quite irrelevant to argue this principle 
 here. It is that on which, rightly or wrongly, the state with us is constituted. I do 
 not understand it to mean that the state may not have regard to religious considerations, 
 such as it shows when it enforces the observance of the Sabbath rest, or that it may 
 not employ religious considerations, such as it shows when it enforces the observance of 
 the Sabbath rest, or that it may not employ religious sanctions, as it does when, in its 
 courts of law, it administers an oath in the name of God ; but I do understand it to mean 
 that the state is neither to give materiil aid to the operations of the church in any of 
 its branches, nor to interfere with its liberties."' 
 
 Mr. Dickey. — That would include exemptions from taxation. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes, it does. The Baptists have gone the length of saying that 
 they aie willing to give up exemptions. Then he points out what, of course, we know : — 
 " Now, when the right of taxation, and in addition, grants of money are given by 
 the state to schools, in which distinctive doctrines and rites of any church, whethei* 
 Protestant or Catholic, are taught, schools which, while giving instruction in secular 
 branches ar.^ used at the same time to extend the influence, if not to increase the 
 membership of that church, then the principle of the separation of church and state 
 is violated almost as much as if the officiating minister or priest were taken into the pay 
 of the state, and the violation (I say it with all ' frankness, but without any feeling of 
 hostility to any class), is not more easily borne, than it is mainly in the interest of a 
 single section of the church. "-The public school is surely meant to be the school of the 
 state by Avhich it is supported. It does not exist to initiate the youth of the province 
 into the details of Christian doctrine, or to prepare them for communion. Its main, if 
 not indeed its sole aim is to make good citizens ; intelligent, capable, law-abiding 
 citizens. But undtr our present system, schools exist and are maintained by the state 
 which are church schools in everything but in name, which are in fact, proselytising 
 
55 
 
 agencies. Their establishment in the early history of the province is an inconsistency 
 •which is not, perhaps, difficult to explain, but their perpetuation can scarcely fail to be 
 felt by the majority of the inhabitants as a misappropriation of public funds and an injus- 
 tice to a large section of the community." 
 
 Then, he argues next that the system of separate or sectarian schools operate^ 
 injuriously on the well-being of the state, and that argument I have endeavoured to 
 adopt in the strongest possible way. I do not think anything can be more mischievous 
 to that community, in which we all ought to be interested, than the perpetuation from 
 its early history of a system dividing tlie people into antagonistic and positively hostile 
 bands, on account of their relii;ious faith. Dr. King goes on to say : — - 
 
 " It occasions a line of cleavage in society, the highest interests of which demands 
 that it should, as far as possible, be one. It perpetuates distinctions, and almost neces- 
 sarily gives rise to st^ntiments which are at once a reproach and a peril. I do not think the 
 religious dirterences between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant churches, small or un- 
 important. As a Protestant, sincerely and firmly believing our faith to be more scriptural, 
 I could not wish these difterences to be thought of little account, but surely it is possible 
 for the one party and the other to maintain steadfastly their respective beliefs without 
 cherishing sentiments of distrust and hostility to the manifest injury of the public weal." 
 
 • He adds at page 191: 
 "The system itself of separate or sectarian schools appears to be incapable of justi- 
 fication on any ground of right principle or even of wise experience. I do not expect 
 to see any permanent contentment in relation to the question while the system is main- 
 tained. The conviction will continue to be deeply and generally cherished, that the 
 equities of the situation have been disregarded, and that the interests of the state have 
 been sacrificed to meet the requirements of the Church of Rome." 
 
 Further down at page 192, he says : — 
 
 " The claims of our French speaking Roman Catholic brethren should be fairly and, 
 if possible, even generously considered. They were early in this western land. They 
 have done much and at great cost — cost not of money only, but of toil and suffering 
 from the native races. But this claim tlie claim to teach the distinctive doctrines and 
 rites of their church in schools sustained by public moneys — is one,S have no hesitation, 
 in saying, and as entertaining much regard for some among us by whom it is made, I 
 say it with regret, w hich the state ou^ht not to concede, should not feel itself at liberty 
 to concede. It is a privilege which, under the system proposed, is not granted to any 
 other church. No other desires to have the opportunity to teach the distinctive doc- 
 trines of Presbyterianism, or Methodism, or even of Protestantism, in the pubhc 
 schools, or if any cherish such a wish, it would be very properly denied them. There is 
 no room therefore to speak of injustice to a class who happen to be in the minority, 
 when exactly the same privileges are granted to them which are granted to other classes 
 of the community. If it is a matter of conscience with the Roman Catholic Church (it 
 is obviously not with all its members) that the whole body of the faith as held by it, 
 should be taught even to the youth in attendance on school and in the day school. I 
 see nothing else for it than that they should establish and support from voluntary con- 
 tributions, the schools in which such teaching is to be given. But it were surely far 
 better that our Roman Catholic fellow citizens should unite with us in securing a 
 distinct recognition of our common Christianity within the public schools, leaving what 
 is distinctive, and what many on the one side and on the other feel to be very impor- 
 tant, to be taught to the children in the Sabbath school, or in the church, or better 
 still, in the home." 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — How do you explain the principle that it is unjust that public 
 money should be used for the religious education of the people 1 I suppose because it is 
 not fair that the Presbyterians, for instance, should be taxed to educate the Baptists or 
 
 any other sects 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — The clergymen of my church are anxious for separate schools. 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — I do not know why they should not have them. 
 Mr. McCartuy. — Then you break up the whole system. 
 
56 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Rowell. — In Ontaiio, under certain circumstances, if there are a 
 sutlicient nuniljcr of Church of England people living in a neighbourhood where the 
 niajority are Roman Catholics, they can form a separate school. 
 
 Mr. McCahtiiy. — A Protestant school, but not a Church of England school. The 
 Archbisliop of ^Manitoba, who is an Aberdeen man, I believe, is very much imbued with 
 the principles which prevail in England, wliere they are fighting strenuously for church 
 schools. Where tlieie is an established church, church schools would be logical, but in 
 this country there is no established church, and you remember well the long struggle we 
 had with regard to the clergy reserves, whicli was owing in fact to the jealous and 
 hostile feeling that existed in the other Protestant denominations, as well as in the 
 Catholic denomination, against the public lands of the province being used for the 
 support of Church of England schools, although they had been set apart to the Church 
 of England and the Church of Scotland, by King George ill. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — I remember that when I was a boy writing for a news- 
 paper, I used to write against the secularization of the Clergy Reserves. 
 
 Mr. McCahthy. — I can say that on that question I never changed my opinion, 
 because from my boyhood I was in favour of the secularization of the clergy reserves. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — Your are a church man and I was not. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I am satisfied, speaking as a churchman, that my church has been 
 better ofi" and enjoyed a higher position in tlie ranks of her fellow churches, because she 
 stands alone and has no unfair privileges over her sister churches, as she had when 
 she used those lands which were set apart by King George for her benefit. Now, let us 
 look at this question as regards the province of Manitoba. Remember you are asked 
 now to set in motion machinery by which a local law can be made for Manitoba, and by 
 which separate schools may be given to Manitoba. If that is to be given simply as a 
 matter of right, and because at one period there were separate schools there, then there 
 is no argument about it. If that is to be given on consideration of advantages or disadvan- 
 tages, of expediency, or inexpediency, or of the wisdom of the measure as applied to that 
 province, — and I humbly submit those are considerations which should prevail, — then 
 you muet take into account the circumstances of the province, and if you are in favour of 
 separate schools, see whether it does not form an exception ; and if you are against 
 separate schools, conclude simply that there is no reason why they should be imposed on 
 that province. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ives. — Is it your opinion that the school Act of 1871, in so far as it created 
 separate schools for the Roman Catholics, has become, by the interpretation that has 
 been given it by the Privy Council, a part of the constitution of Manitoba 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy- — No, clearly not. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ives. — You do not take that view. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Clearly not. They hold that the act of 1890 was not a good 
 law : they hold that because the act of 1890 took away privileges which the Roman 
 Catholic minority had by the School Act of 1871, that therefore they had a right to 
 come here and complain, and call upon you to give them that school law back again. So, 
 if you do not interfere, the Act of 1890 i-emains efFective^law. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Haggart. — Is there any limitation to the remedy that we may order ? 
 
 Mr. ^IcCarthy. — I suppose, judging by an expression that fell from one of their 
 Lordships, it would be merely to restore rights that had been taken away. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Haggart. — Suppose we made changes in excess of the old law, what 
 would be the effect ? 
 
 Mr. jNIcCarthy. — That might be investigated in the courts, every law is subject to 
 that. That was not understood when this Act was passed in 1871, and probably that 
 gave rise to this extraordinary question, because it was not recognized that laws could 
 be declared ulti-a vires by the court. That was well understood on the American side 
 where they have a paper constitution, but we had not a paper constitution, and no law 
 was declared ultra vires until after Confederation, and after the passage of this Act. That 
 "would be a reason, probably, why this appeal was given to the Governor in Council. 
 Now, let me remind you that this change in the law was not made hastily. I am glad 
 to find in this history of Mr. Begg that within a short time after the law, in 1871, the 
 question was raised, not by politicians, but by the people. On page 201 he says : — 
 
57 
 
 " An agitation now commenced in the pro\ance on the school question and the 
 following is the platform that was set down by a portion of the Protestant section of 
 the community : 
 
 1st. The abolition of the board of education, and the creation of a department of 
 education with a cabinet Minister for a head. 
 
 2nd. The establishment of a purely non-sectarian system of public schools. 
 
 3rd. The compulsory use of English text books in all public schoo s. 
 
 4th. All public schools to be subject to the same rules and regulations. 
 
 5th. The appointment of one or more inspectors. 
 
 6th. The establishment, as soon as practicable, of a training school for teachers." 
 
 I need not trouble you with reading the rest. You will see what was afterwards 
 embodied in the act of 1890. Now that was there in 1876, 5 years after the separate 
 schools had been introduced. A section of the people commenced to agitate for a repeal 
 of the separate school law, which they did not succeed in carrying out until 1890, 14 
 years after, so it cannot be said that the matter has been done hastily. Let me read 
 you an extract from Mr. Hill's history also, to show that the question was up in the legis- 
 lature long before it was treated as a government measure. At page 601, in Hill's 
 History of Manitoba, he says : — 
 
 " Shortly afterwards John Torquay became Minister of Public Works, and Dr. 
 Baird, Speaker of the House. The first session was naturally a long one, and all its 
 members zealous. The government invited amendments to their measures, which were 
 cheerfully furnished, and committees, after spending a month on a Queen's Bench and 
 School Act, were ruthlessly wakened up at the close of the session, to find that the gov- 
 ernment had only done this as a blind, and passed their own bills over the heads of 
 those who desired so much different. The Opposition were worsted, and their ideas of 
 public schools buried — not however, for ever, as the session for 1890 has shown." 
 
 iSTow, Mr. Norquay was Minister of Public Works during the days when Mr. 
 Archibald was Lieutenant-Governor of the province. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey. — He was appointed in 1874, and served two terms. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — At all events, this shows that it was not a hasty act on their 
 part. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Daly. — Have you anything to show that there was any agitation between 
 the period that quotation refers to, and 1889? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — No, I have not. The que-^tion was first raised in 1876. This 
 history states that the agitation was kept up, but it was not adopted by any political 
 party. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Daly. — I never heard of that. 
 
 Mi\ jNIcCarthy. — Now Dr. Bryce, who was a member of the school board, and 
 speaking therefore with knowledge, has written an article on the Manitoba School Ques- 
 tion, which was published in the Canadian Magazine and also on page 283 of Mr. Ewart's 
 book : — 
 
 " In conclusion the writer is of opinion that the people of Manitoba have followed 
 a wiser and more patriotic course than that suggested by Mr. Ewart, with his lax and 
 unphilosophic plans of so-called toleration. The problem facing Manitoba was unique. 
 The province was made up of people of many nations, its speech is polyglot, with the 
 majority English-speaking : it has eight or ten thousand Icelanders, it has fifteen thou- 
 sand German speaking Mennonites; it has some ten ortwelve thousand French speaking half 
 breeds and Quebecers ; it has considerable numbers of Polish Jews : it has many Hunga- 
 rians and Finlauders ; it has a Gaelic-speaking Crofter settlement. The Icelanders peti- 
 tioned the education board, of which the writer is a member, for liberty to have the 
 Lutherans prepare their candidates for confirmation in the school; the Mennonites, with 
 singular tenacity, have demanded separate religious schools." 
 
 I do not know what their religion is. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Daly. — It is the Lutheran religion. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Now, 5'ou will see it becomes a very important matter. Here 
 were fifteen thousand people who were demanding separate religious schools, who had 
 never come into the school system, and declined to come into it. Remember that at 
 
58 
 
 that time there was no power to tax, so that a man who was neither a Protestant 
 or a Cathohc, wjvs exempt from taxation, and the Mennonites notwithstanding all the 
 inducements, steadfastly refused to come into the school system, demanding that they 
 should have separate religious schools. Mr. Bryce goes on : — 
 
 " The French had their Catholic schools, and their spirit may be seen when their 
 late superintendent. Senator Bernier, refused to consent to a Protestant being a member 
 of a French Canadian society. Many of tlie other foreigners are absolutely careless 
 about education. What could patriotic Manitobans do ? — They were faced with the 
 prospect of whole masses of the population growing up illiterate. The Mennonites who 
 came from Russia are more ignorant to-day as a people than when they came from 
 llussia 18 years a'40. Yes, British Manitoba has been a better foster-mother of igno- 
 rance than half-civilized Russia had been. The only hope for the province was to fall 
 back on the essential rights of the province, and provide one public school for every 
 locality and have a vigorous effort made to rear up a homogeneous Canadian people. It 
 has required nerve on the part of the people to do this, but the first step has been 
 taken, and in the mind of most there is the conviction that the battle has been won." 
 
 Now, just bear that in mind when you come to deal with the question as it other- 
 wise presents itself. It was not merely a que-tion between the English speaking major- 
 ity and the French Canadians, or Roman Catholic minority. That was not the only 
 difficulty that beset the Manitoba Legislature. They had all these various bodies of 
 foreigners which had been induced to settle in the country, and who are, so far as I 
 know, making good citizens, and therefore their settlement is to be encouraged. The 
 legislature had the education of these people and these difficulties to look after, and in 
 addition, the difficulties with which we in the older provinces are familiar, and to which 
 I need not more particularly advert. Then, let me say something on the question of popu- 
 lation, because it is impossible to disregard the question of majority. The minority 
 does not rule, according to our system. The minority is not to be deprived of 
 rights, but the ordinary way for the minority to obtain their rights is by 
 agitation, and by appealing to what I think can always be appealed to 
 whei e rights are invaded, and that is the good sense and fair-mindedness of the 
 majority, no matter of whom that majority may be composed. That is our system, be 
 it right or be it wrong. Now let us see how that stands here. In the first place, who 
 does my learned friend appear for 1 Looking at the record I find none of the French 
 names on the petition that is presented here, and for whom my learned friend appears. 
 Looking at the petition, page 20 of the case that was referred to the Privy Council, the 
 names are. His (Jrace the Archbishop of St. Boniface, the Bishop of d'Anemour, Joseph 
 Messier, Priest of St. Boniface ; T. A. Bernier, J. Dubuc, L. A. Prudhomme, M. A. 
 Girard, A. A. LaRiviere, M.P., James E. Prendergast, M.P.P., Roger Marion, M.P.P., 
 and four thousand other names. On page 24 the members of the Executive Committee 
 of the National Congress are all French names. Then the third one, which is on page 
 31, contains also the same French names. The petitioners that appear on this docu- 
 ment are not those whose names I find upon the face of the petition. These people — I 
 say it with no disrespect, because they have rights, no matter where they live — the most 
 of them live in the one district of Provencher in which the bulk of the French people 
 are settled. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — It is one of your grounds for objecting because they are only 
 Frenchmen. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — That would be a good ground, but it is not the ground I am put- 
 ting forward here. I mention these things because we had here a representative of the 
 Irish Catholics, who came on behalf of himself and those who sympathize with him. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Currax. — Has he any credentials of any kind? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — You have heard what he said yesterday. I do not represent him 
 in any sense. He told you yesterday that he was a public school trustee, that he was a 
 member of the Roman Catholic Church, and in full communion with the church, and as 
 such he has a I'ight to be heard, I suppose, just as much as even a Frenchman. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Angers. —And he told us his two daughters were teaching. 
 
59 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Now, I say it is significant in this regard, that if the proportion 
 of Catholics, small in itself, is yet to be cut down by any considerable number of them 
 who are satisfied with the system, it i-educes, in my opinion, the ground upon which 
 the minority might claim indulgence, because it is an indulgence, at the hands of this 
 Council. Now, let me deal with the question of population, but, first, I may dtay 
 the attention of the Council to this fact. At the time, Manitoba was set apart as a 
 province, the population was said to be 12,000. Of these, 5,000 were French half- 
 breeds, 5,000 were Scotch half-breeds, and 2,000 where what were called Canadians in 
 those days, or whites in the older provinces. The population of the R(xl River settle- 
 ment in 1870 was composed of about 2,000 whites, 5,000 English half-breeds and 5,000 
 French half-breeds, or Metis. There was another division into 3 parts, English, French 
 and Canadians. There was a cross division into three parties, viz., the English, the 
 French and the Canadians. Here is a citation from Begg's history, describing the 
 population at that time : 
 
 " The French half-breed, called also Metis, and formerly Bois-Brule, is an athletic, 
 rather good-looking, lively, excitable, easy going being. Fond of a fast pony, fond of 
 merry making, free-hearted, open-handed, yet indolent and improvident, he is a marked 
 feature of border life. Being excitable, he can be roused to acts of revenge, of bravery 
 and daring. The Metis, if a friend, is true, and cannot in too many ways oblige you. 
 Louis Kiel was undoubtedly the embodiment of the spririt of unrest and insubordination 
 in his race." 
 
 Then he says of the English half-breeds : — 
 
 " As different as is the patient roadster from the wild mustang, is the English- 
 speaking half-breed from the Metis." 
 
 So apparently the population included five thousand of the wild mustang and five 
 thousand of the patient roadster. And the Canadians were two thousand pioneers 
 who had gone into the country at that early day. Now these twelve thousand people 
 . passed a separate school law and if they had not done so the schools Act of 1890, which 
 is now in question, would not have been passed, and this question could not have arisen 
 until a separate school law had been passed. Gentlemen forget that the complaint is 
 that because these ten thousand half-breeds chose to pass a separate school law the 
 150,000 or 200,000 people, — T believe that is about the estimate of the population 
 of Manitoba now,— who are not the least intelligent of the sons of the older provinces, 
 must never pass a law to alter that. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — Were these five thousand English half-breeds all Pro- 
 testants 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — No; some were Catholics. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Daly. They were not all half-breeds, I fancy, but included other natives 
 
 — the Selkirk colonists. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. I do not pretend to know. But Mr. Ewart quoted that and 
 
 used it in the Privy Council as a correct statement. I believe you quoted from Begg? 
 
 Mr. Ewart. — Yes. r^ ^ ^■ 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— I understood that some of the English halt-breeds were O.itholics, 
 and so that majority was obtained. It is trifling almost with the free people of Mani- 
 toba to tell them that because 10,000 half-breeds passed a separate school law in 18/1 
 the province was for ever bound down to that svstem. Now according to the last 
 census there was a population in Manitoba of 152,506, of wnom 20,.)/ 1 were 
 
 Roman Catholics. /-, i i- i *• 
 
 Hon Mr Ives.— Before you leave that point, as the Roman Catholic population 
 was very small and confined to Provencher the disturbance would be relatively very 
 
 small if a separate school system were in force. 
 
 Mr McCarthy.— If you were to pass a remedial Ikw for Provencher .' 
 
 Hon Mr Ives —I mean so long as the Roman Catholic population is comparatively 
 small and confined to one part of the province the disturbance caused by a separate 
 school system would be much less than it would be in Ontario, where the Catholics are 
 scattered all over the province. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Of course, that necessarily follows. 
 
60 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet.— Remedial legislation would apply only to a small minority. 
 
 Mr. .McCautmy. — Of course, you can do that if you like, I suppose. Your remedial 
 legislation might be only for a district. So long as you do not grant too much in 
 excess you can grant anything less you see fit. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimkt — This legislation would not concern the majority in any way? 
 
 Mr. MrC.MiTiiY. — That depends upon what you call concerning them. If the 
 majority are concerned in having the Catholics identified with themselves, if they are 
 concerned in having these Catholics cease to be French and English. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — "Would that be the object? 
 
 Mr. McC.\KTiiY. — Undoubtedl}^, I think that would be a great object, and I think 
 the object. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — That they may cease to remain French and Catholic. 
 
 Mr. McCahthy. — Let them remain Catholic but not French. That is the object — 
 as ]Mr. Bryce stated it — to make the people homogeneous. In the one district of 
 Provencher you have 9,896 Catholics, or nearly half the Catholics in the whole province. 
 Leaving Provencher out of the question you have a population of 131,000 Protestants 
 and 11,000 Catholics, or ninety-one to nine. And this great province with its 64,000 
 square miles — and let me call attention to the fact that this is larger by 14,000 square 
 miles than New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island taken together, 
 this province undoubtedly is destined to be one of the greatest provinces in the Dominion 
 and already a great factor in the wealth of the Dominion, is the subject to be dealt 
 with. And it seems to me that you assume a great responsibility if you interfere with 
 laws that the local legislature have adopted. I have taken up the census and I find 
 that it is only in the following census subdistricts that there are more than 200 Roman 
 Catholics leaving Provencher for the moment out of the question : — 
 
 Lisgar. — Assiniboia, 390 ; Belcourt, 826 ; St. Francis Xavier, 699 ; St. Laurent, 
 989. 
 
 Marquette. — Elm River, 267; Portage la Pr-irie, 211; Riding Mountain, 243 ; 
 
 Rosedale, 336. 
 
 Selkirk.— Brandon City, 201 ; Bremda, 209; Lome, 1,180; Sifton, 500. 
 
 So that we have here but twelve out of seventy-three districts in which there are 
 more Catholics than 200 outside this one constituency (for Dominion purposes) of 
 Provencher. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Daly. — That must be the census of 1881. There was no municipality of 
 Bremda in 1891. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — It may be a mistake in the name. But I took the figures down 
 and directed them to be copied ; but even if the name is wrong the numbers are right. 
 Look at the population of the province as it has grown. I take it first as to the number 
 of Catholics and next as to the number of French. We are told that in 1871 there 
 were 12,000 people, of whom the minority were Catholics. In 1881 the total population 
 was 65,954, of whom 12,246 were Catholics, or about eighteen per cent. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — But they had grown 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — But the other had grown ten hundred per cent. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — From immigration. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — In 1885 the population had grown to 108,640, of whom 14,4.31, 
 or 13 per cent, were Roman Catholics. In 1891 the population was 152,500, Catholics 
 20,571 or 13 per cent. If you take the French separate from the Roman Catholics you 
 will find this result : — In 1871 the French were 41 per cent, that is assuming that my 
 learned friend's figures are correct. In 1891 there were 9,949, being 15 per cent of the 
 population. In the census of 1885 for the first time there were separate columns for 
 the enumeration for Half-breeds and French, showing 6,821 — Quebeckers I suppose they 
 would be called— and 4,869 Half-breeds, in all 11,190, or ten per cent. In 1891 the 
 number was 11,102, or 7 per cent. So that the Roman Cathohc population was 20,000, 
 of whom 11,000 were French, most of them in one district, as to whom the system 
 enforced — I fancy I am not mistaking it — was practically the Quebec system of 
 schools, the French language being taught by teachers who did not understand the 
 English language. There were 15,000 Mennonites, speaking their own tongue, demand- 
 -ng a separate system of schools, and as far as I can see, with just as much right to 
 
61 
 
 have the public money appropriated to their schools as the French. There was a large 
 body of Icelanders, with whom there seems to have been difficulty according to the 
 passage I have read from Mr. Bryce. Other elements were coming in to fill up the 
 province. The desire of the Provincial Legislature was to do away with illiteracy 
 among the people, to make the people Manitobans and Canadians, not French or Men- 
 nonites, not Poles or Polish Jews. And so this system of schools was adopted. Was 
 that unwise so that it should be over-ruled, and replaced with a system inimical to the 
 public interest 1 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey. — If you are through with the figures respecting the French, 
 may I ask if, with regard to the Mennonites, Poles and so on, you agree with the 
 intimation of the Privy Council that no rights for them are established under this 
 judgment 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Of course ; I am only dealing with the question of schools. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey. — Arguing it on the grounds of expediency 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— Yes. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey. — -Do you admit that these minorities are in a different position? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes ; they have no right to come here and complain — there is 
 no doubt about that. I wish to say, and it cannot be too often repeated, that in the 
 distribution of legislative powers between the Dominion and the provinces the subject 
 of education is assigned to the provinces, and that for wise and good reason. The fact 
 that this body is invested with power to over-rule and to impose a law upon the pro- 
 vince, does not preclude the Council from consideration what would be the wisest and 
 best for the people of Manitoba. You are not, I hope, going to restrain or degrade the 
 province of Manitoba to satisfy the province of Quebec ? You are dealing with the rights 
 of the people under legislative authority given you for the benefit of the pf ople to be gov- 
 erned and not for the benefit of anybody else. Therefore, it becomes a very serious matter 
 as it appears to me, when you are asked to rej^eal a law that has been solemnly adopted. 
 I desire to recall to your recollection a case of dealing with the power of disallowance 
 on the question of education. I wish to fortify my position with reference to the earlier 
 records. The reports and the history will show that everything there was against any 
 interference with the question of education. How was it that the parliamentary 
 majority made up at one time of those on one side of the House and at another time of 
 those on the other side of the House, expressed themselves as opposed to interfering 
 with a law regulating education. Some, perhaps, will say that it was because of a 
 dislike to interfere with provincial rights, but that will not answer, at all events, com- 
 pletely ; because men in public life, who had no scruple at all upon the abstract ques- 
 tion of provincial rights joined in these resolutions, and none more heartily than the 
 president himself (Sir Mackenzie Bowell), against any interference with the subject of 
 educatioia. Was it that the subject was felt to be a delicate one to interfere in ? Was it 
 that the matter was so purely one of local concern 1 I will only give you the facts and 
 allow you, gentlemen, who are as competent as I am and more so, to draw a proper 
 deduction. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries brought this question up in 1872 and 
 pressed it forward. His resolution you will find at page 35 of the Journals of 1872. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell,— That is the New Brunswick case. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes. 
 
 Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. — It came up several sessions. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes ; I am going to trace the resolutions to show the delibera- 
 tion with which the matter was handled, and that, notwithstanding the strong regret 
 expressed by the majority in Parliament that the law had been passed, yet a tremen- 
 dous majority thought it best not to interfere. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — That refers to a province in which they had neither by 
 law nor usage any rights in sejjarate schools. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — It dealt with a case in which the province had the right to pass 
 the law. 
 
 Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. — There had been no separate schools at any time. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — At that time it was a disputed point whether the rights of 
 Roman Catholics had been interfered with. It was settled by the Privy Council after- 
 wards that the Act was not a violation of the terms of the British North America Act. 
 
62 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — But here you are dealing with a case in which the Privy 
 Council says that riL,'lits have been interfered with. 
 
 Mr. McCaki'uv. — I am guiiij; to try and ajiply the case I give. 
 
 Hon. Mr. CosTir.AN. — If you quote the resolution to show the strong feeling of 
 parliament and the delicacy felt in dealing with the x'ights of the provinces, you should 
 also, hefore you leave it, refer to the vote of 1873. 
 
 Mr. ;McCahtmv. — I am going to. At this time Sir John Macdonald's government 
 was in power, of which government you were a supporter. I am going to show it was 
 received then and also to show that it was disposed of when Mr. Mackenzie was in 
 power 
 
 If there is no chance of my getting through perhaps this will be a convenient place 
 to break oft'. 
 
 The Council adjourned until 11 a.m to-morrow. 
 
 Ottawa, March 6, 1895. 
 
 The Privy Council met at 11 o'clock a.m. 
 
 Present : — Sir Mackenzie Bowell, Sir Adolphe Caron, Hon. Mr. Costigan, Sir Charles 
 Hibbert Tupper, Hon. Mr. Foster, Hon. Mr. Haggart, Hon. Mr. Ouimet, Hon. Mr. 
 Daly, Hon. Mr. Angers, Hon. Mr. Ives, and Hon. Mr. Dickey. 
 
 Mr. ^McCarthy. — I find that the Minister of the Interior was in error in saying 
 that there was not a census sub-district of Brenda in his constituency, Selkirk. I do 
 not know whether it still exists under that name, but you will find in the census from 
 which I took the figures which I quoted, that there is a census sub-district known as 
 Brenda. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Daly. — There was a place of that name. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I mean that it was in the census as I gave it when I quoted the 
 figures, showing the number of Roman Catholics in the several districts in which they 
 numbered over 200. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Daly. — The reason I raised the question about it was that the munici- 
 pality has been wiped out and I did not know but that you were quoting from the 
 census before 1891, when the municipality existed. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I do not know whether these census sub-districts are intended to 
 be municipalities or not. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Daly. — They are. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Then, of course, that adds to the force of my contention. If 
 these are municipalities, you will see how impossible it would be for 200 people, scat- 
 tered over a large township, to organize for the formation of schools of any efficiency. 
 I gave you the diff"erent sub-districts, 12 out of 73, which have more than 200 Roman 
 Catholic population. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Daly. — You must make a distinction between townships and municipal- 
 ities. A township has only 36 sections. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — What size is a municipality ? 
 
 Hon. Mr. Daly. — Some have six townships and some nine. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — That makes it still larger and still adds to the force of my 
 argument. 
 
 Sir ]\[ackexzie Bowell. — May not this be a village 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — When there is a village it is quoted as such. For instance 
 Morden is a village and is so marked ; Virden is a village and it is so marked. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Mr. President, if you will permit me to retrace my steps a little, 
 I think, upon reHection, that I can take a course which will shorten my argument and 
 avoid repetition to a certain extent. I had partly dealt with the system of education and 
 
63 
 
 had endeavoured to point out that the first question for the consideration of this board, 
 — if I may be allowed to apply to this Council the name which is applied to the Judicial 
 Committee — is the general question of separate as against national schools. I am not 
 going to weary you with a repetition of what I said yesterday upon that point. 1 was 
 asked by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Ouimet) and promised to give to-day 
 a definition of what I meant l)y national schools, and it is pei-liaps as fitting that I 
 should give that now as at any other stage of the discussion. When I spoke of national 
 schools I meant schools common to and enforcible upon the whole people. That would be 
 a national system of education, and it might possibly be combined with a denominational 
 system if the people were all agreed. Of course that can practically never be in this 
 country ; we can never have national schools, which are at the same time denominational 
 schools. Applying my observations to the purpose before us I meant a system of national 
 schools which can reasonably and fairly be accepted by . the people as a whole, and I 
 will submit that a non-sectarian or even a secular system if that was thought preferable, 
 might be dealt with and treated as a system of national education. Contrasted with that 
 is the system including what wei'e known as separate schools, but what were in reality 
 nothing more or less than church schools — Roman Catholic church schools. They are 
 called separate schools, because that was the term used in connection with the agitation 
 raised in the province of Ontario, but, as a matter of fact, the}' are church schools. We 
 know that in England — or perhaps we do not know, but we might know, the fact being 
 public — that there are church schools in existence belonging to the State Church, which 
 had been in existence as parish or church schools long before Mr. Forster introduced his 
 Educational Act, and which were connected more or less directly with the educational 
 system of the country. But it is impossible for us to base our system upon that of 
 England, because there there is a State Church which we know is attacked by a very 
 large proportion of the population, and upon which the present government are now 
 opening an attack in the principality of Wales, where the church is, perhaps less defen- 
 sible upon any ground than amongst English people, because there the great majority 
 belong to what are called dissenting bodies and not to the State Church. So that you 
 have here the contrast practically between the system adopted in Manitoba — because I 
 am quite willing to accept that as an example of national schools under the non-sectarian 
 system of education on the one hand, with the church school system on the other hand. 
 So that if you will understand me as speaking of a national system of schools as meaning 
 a non-sectarian system of schools, such as we have in Ontario and Manitoba — because 
 they are practically identical — and if you will understand the system that is contended 
 for by my leai'ned friend as a separate or church school system, I think there can be no 
 difficultv in our following the different lines of thought which these .systems suggest. 
 Now, in addition to what I said with reference to the benefit flowing from the national 
 system of schools, a school system that is accepted by the bulk of the people and which is 
 fairly open to all the people, I think that if you will consult the educational statistics 
 of the world you will find that illiteracy prevails in those countries where church schools 
 are the rule and that there is a freedom from illileracy where the schools are separate 
 from and not under the control of the Church, but under the control of the State and 
 carried on upon non-sectarian lines. I invite the attention of the board to that state- 
 3xient — I think it will be found throughout the continent of Europe that those countries 
 where the Church have most control — take Italy for example — illiteracy is far more 
 prevalent (the disproportion is in some cases enormous) than it is in Protestant states, 
 not because one is Protestant and the other is Catholic, but because in the Pro- 
 testant states, speaking generally, the system of education is national, non-sectarian 
 or secular as it may be ; the chief object of education in the other countries 
 beino- not education but the teaching of the doctrines and tenets of their religion. 
 So that any legislative body that has been charged with the responsibility 
 of determinino- whether the schools should be national or church schools has 
 been compelled to reach the conclusion that national schools are the better of the 
 two. I invite your attention to the system of schools in Switzerland, and also to the 
 system in Belgium, where, although the great majority of the people ai-e Roman Catho- 
 lics, the schools are non-sectarian or secular. In Italy you will find that the result of 
 their school system was to leave the people in a hopeless state of ignoi-ance until the 
 
G4 
 
 late change. Relntively you Mill liiul the same thing in Ireland as compared with 
 Scotland or England. T \\ ill lay before you a few statistics which I have not had time 
 to verify myself, but which have Ijecn compiled with care and which I believe to be 
 reliable. These figures, 1 think, will show that my observations are warranted by the 
 facts. 
 
 Sir CiiAS. HiHUEKT TUPPER. — Ts your view based at all upon the extent of religiou 
 taught in the schools or upon the fact of religion being taught at all? 
 
 ]Mr. ^IcC.vivTiiY. — It is not based upon the question of religion being taught at all, 
 but upon the result of church teaching as distinguished from secular teaching. 
 
 Sir CnAS. Hiubert Tupper. — So your observations are not directed to any form of 
 religion ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I do not desire to speak in disrespectful terms of any form of 
 religion. That has not been my practice hitherto, and I certainly shall not adopt that 
 rule in speaking here for the province of Manitoba. 
 
 Sir CiiAs. HiHUERT Tupper. — I hope that my question did not suggest that. But 
 let me follow it with a further question : Do you approve of banishing all religion from 
 the schools 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Speaking for myself, of course I do not. 
 
 Sir Chas. Hibbert Tupper. — But speaking as in this argument? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I understand that the province of Manitoba does not approve of 
 banishing religion from the schools, that the great majority of the people of Manitoba 
 think that the schools ought not be secular. 
 
 Sir Chas. Hibbert Tupper. — So it is a question of the extent to which religion 
 is introduced ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — A question of extent as you say, but also a question whether that 
 ought to be regulated and managed by the State or i*egulated and managed by the Church, 
 There are the two antagonistic systems, and the question is which is the most bene- 
 ficial in achieving the object which the State has in view, the education of the people. 
 The State is not concerned in the teaching of any form of religion, but it is concerned 
 in making capable and intelligent citizens, and in gi-ving them sufficient education to 
 attain that result. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey. — What do you think are the guarantees in the state school of 
 the greater efficiency 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I cannot tell you. I have not been able to devote time to that 
 subject and during this argument I have regretted that the province had not time to 
 send an educationist who could speak as an expert in these matters. I only speak of 
 results. I cannot give the reasons for the results, but I find it universally the case 
 that in schools that are under control of the Church, the people are not educated so well 
 or so generally as in those countries in which the schools are wholly under State con- 
 trol. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey. — Do these statistics that you quote show in any way the degree 
 or extent of control or inspection 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — No, you have to study the system itself for that. If you take the 
 statistics I have here you will find the I'esults they show to be very stinking indeed. 
 
 Hon. Mr. OuiMET. — According to your own knowledge or any opinion that you 
 may have, is the system which now prevails in Manitoba wholly secular ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — No. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — What kind of religious teaching is given 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I am going to deal with that. My learned friend did deal with 
 it and it will be my duty to attempt to remove the misapprehension which might follow 
 what he said. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — I think you indicated a belief that no public money ought to 
 be paid for the propagation of any religious dogma. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — That is the distinction ; if you will pardon me. What the 
 people of Manitoba say is that they are not justified in paying for the propagation of 
 the Methodist faith as it differs from the Presbyterian or Roman Catholic ; they are not 
 justified in spreading the doctrines of the Presbyterian chux'ch, the Church of England 
 or any other ; but, as God is believed in by the great majority of the people of thi 
 
65 
 
 country, as there are some principles common in great degree to all the churches — of 
 coui'se the agnostics would differ wholly, the Jews cannot accept our religion, and so on — 
 but so far as religious truth is held in common by the great bulk of the people, we will 
 permit a form of prayer which can be used by all or nearly all. But even this is done 
 with the safeguard of a conscience clause which permits any parent who objects to any 
 form of religious exercise to withdraw his child while that exercise is being engaged in. 
 Your view, if I may be permitted to say so, — of course I have no means of knowing it 
 otherwise than it has been publicly expressed — is that the teaching of your own religion^ 
 that is the Roman Catholic faith, in schools supported by public money, is quite justified. 
 But, if so, the Presbyterians would have a right to demand a separate school in the same 
 way for the teaching of his religion, the same with my own church, the same with the 
 Methodist, and so on. But if all our exclusive rights are acknowledged in that way it 
 is impossible that a separate school system can exist, and therefore, we must forego the 
 observance of our extreme rights and agree upon something common to us all, and what 
 I hope to establish before I am done is that the Roman Catholics have shown by expe- 
 rience and practice they can and do accept the system now prevailing in ]Manitoba, 
 and that they can and do accept it in preference to their own system, the educational 
 facilities being better than in the church schools. 1 will show that that is the practical 
 result, and I may say that that is a result authorized by His Holiness of Rome himself. 
 So that the attempt of this minority in Manitoba who oppose this system is to be more 
 Catholic than the Pope. Xow to give you the figures to which I refer. As I say, they 
 were not compiled by myself, but I have taken th'-m on the assurance of the Attorney 
 General, whom I represent, that they have been compiled with, care and are to be relied 
 upon : — 
 
 " The census of the United States for 1880 showed that out of its total population 
 over 10 years of age only 9-4 per cent were unable to w^rite. In Victoria, in 1881, 92^ 
 per cent of the population fifteen years of age aiid over could both read and write, and 
 only 3^ per cent were entirely illiterate. In England during the year 1890 only 7-2 
 per cent of the males and 8-3 per cent of the femals signed by maik in the marriage 
 register. In Scotland only 4-30 of the males and 7-38 of the females signed by mark in 
 the marriage register in 1889. These are countries where Roman Catholicism and its 
 methods of instruction are not in the ascendant. Turn but for a moment and glance at 
 the illiteracy prevalent in countries where Roman Catholics are numerous and more or 
 less supreme. While in Scotland, in 1886, out of a total vote polled of 447,588, only 
 7,708 were ilHterate, in Ireland, in the same years, out of a total vote polled of 450,906, 
 98,404, or about 14 times as many of the voters in proportion were unable to read or 
 write. ' In Italy, w-here the Roman CathoHcs had 51 Archbishops, 223 Bishops, 53,263 
 churches and chapels, 76,560 parish priests and 28,991 religious persons to help enlighten 
 the people, no less than 53-89 per cent of the males and 7293 per cent of the females 
 were, in the vear 1881, unable to read and write. In Spain, where Roman Catholicism 
 is the established religion and Protestants dare not proclaim a church service " 
 
 That is hardly true now, for you will remember that Lord Plunk ett attempted to 
 establish a branch of the Church of Ireland and created a great deal of trouble by it — 
 
 " —where there were in 1884, 32,435 priests, 14,592 nuns, 78,564 churches, and 
 1,684 monks, 30-64 per cent of the males and 41-37 per cent of the females were not 
 even able to read when the census was taken in 1887. In Portugal and its islands, 
 where the state religion is Roman Catholicism and the Protestants do not exceed 500 
 in number, the number of illiterate inhabitants in 1878 was 3,851,774, or 82 
 per cent of the total population including children. All the above figures and many 
 more of like interest maybe found in the Stateman's Year Book of 1892 and cannot be 
 successfully challenged." 
 
 Let me add to that the statement that these separate schools in the province of 
 Manitoba —I am speaking now of the year 1890 when the Act abolishing the separate 
 school system was passed— were nothing more or less than French schools. They are 
 so spoken of to this day. The teaching was wholly in the French language, and accon - 
 in^ to Mr O'Donohue's statement which vou heard yesterday, the French teachers— with 
 perhaps such exceptions as would merely prove the rule— did not understand a word of 
 5 
 
66 
 
 English. The same difficulty therefore presented itself to the people of Manitoba that 
 four or five years ago aroused this province as it has not been aroused for many years, 
 that of a system of French schools which, contrfiiy to the School Act were being used 
 in the county adjoining the province of Quebec. In order to meet that diffi- 
 culty, as you are awai-e, Sir Oliver Mowat's government ox'dered an inspection 
 anil afterwards adopted a bilingual series by which it was hoped that English 
 would be ui-adually introduced, because it is utterly impossible tliat a Frenchman, 
 who does not understand a word of English, can teach children in the P]nglish tongue. 
 Tliat, whether successful or not, is the attempt made in the province of Ontario to deal 
 with the problem presented by the overflow of the Fiench speaking people of the 
 province of Quebec into the neighbouring counties of Ontario. Now let us see, judging 
 "irom our own statistics, what has been the result in the province of Quebec of their 
 system of teaching. I quote from the last Statistical Year Book of 1893. I beg you to 
 look at the table at page 168, where you will find proof that the province of Quebec, 
 ■whose system of teaching was in partial operation in the province of Manitoba, appears 
 to be in every respect the lowest among the provinces in the scale of education. This 
 table is pi-epared by official authority. The first are the figures showing the relative 
 standin" of the provinces as to children under ten years of age able to read. In that 
 respect the standard of the province of Quebec is the lowest. Prince Edward Island 
 is first, Ontario second, Nova Scotia third, Manitoba fourth. New Brunswick fifth" 
 the North-west Territories sixth, and Quebec seventh. In the table relating to 
 •children between ten and twenty years of age able to read, Ontario is first, Manitoba 
 second. Prince Edward Island third, Nova Scotia fourth, New Brunswick fifth, the 
 North-west Territories sixth, and Quebec seventh. I need not trouble you with all these, 
 but (generally I may say that Quebec stands seventh in the list in every one of these 
 tabulated statements except two — the table showing the pi'oportion of females between 
 ten and twenty able to read, and that showing the proportion of females between ten 
 and twenty able to write — and in these Quebec is number six, being above the North- 
 -vvest Territories, but below all the other provinces. So we see that the system which 
 partially prevailed in the province of Manitoba, but which has been changed by the 
 legislature, which was properly charged with the management of educational affairs, is 
 demonstrated to be the most inefficient that exists throughout all the provinces of 
 Canada. Now, if this Council is of the opinion — for I do not know what the opinion 
 of the Council may be, though I may have a shrewd suspicion, but not as appearing on 
 behalf of the province of Manitoba — that a system of national schools is a proper one, 
 I trust they will allow that system to continue in force in this case. I do not say that 
 it miwht not be possible, notwithstanding that national schools are better as shown by 
 'the results we have than church schools, that the church system might be better for the 
 province of Manitoba. Such a thing is possible, but if you are of that opinion, I would 
 like to know upon what ground you are going to carry that opinion to the extent of 
 
 directing because your order will be an order from the Queen's representative — the pro- 
 
 •vince of Manitoba to change its school law. If you agree that, as a general thing, separate 
 or church schools are not so efficient in promoting education as public schools, then, 
 before you can order a change in Manitoba, you must be satisfied that there is some- 
 thinw in the province of Manitoba which makes it an exception to the general rule. I 
 venture to think, with all respect, that the facts which I gave you yesterday concerning 
 the province, instead of pointing it out as an exception to the general rule, mark it out 
 as a locality in which a national system of schools, once established, ought not to be 
 interfered with by this Council. One point with reference to that. You may say : — 
 This would be all very well if this matter came before us unfettered by any local condi- 
 tion and if we felt free to advise the Crown as to what would be best for the people of 
 Manitoba. We might then say we would not interfere with the system of education 
 established. But we feel ourselves hampered, cribbed — cabined and confined if you 
 
 please by the terms of the 22nd section of tlie Manitoba Act and must look at this not 
 
 so much with a view to deciding what would be beneficial as with a view of saving the 
 susceptibilities of the minority who, perhaps, have a right, after a fashion, to expect a 
 different state of things. Now I do not know whether I made my meaning clear 
 yesterday, but I endeavoured to say that the subject of education has been given over to 
 
67 
 
 provincial control in Manitoba as in the other provinces and that all that has been given 
 to this Council or to His Excellency the Governor General in Council is, in case a 
 system of separate schools duly established were afterwards abolished to hear the 
 petition of those who felt themselves aggi'ieved and to act upon it if you thought it 
 advisable. But in h(!aring that appeal you should put yourselves in the position of the 
 legislature of Manitoba and look at the statement from their standpoint. There is 
 not'nng to show that this action on the part of the legislature of the province has been 
 actuated by bigotry. There is not a word that has been cited, there is not a word that 
 can be cited, to show that their action has not been bond fide and designed to establish 
 the system which according to their best opinion would be most in the interest of the 
 whole province. There has been no desire to wrong this minority, small as it maj' be, 
 French as it may be ; the desire has been to promote the interest and welfare of the 
 people of the province as a whole. And these considerations are just as pertinent to 
 the advisers of His Excellency as they were to the representatives of the people of the 
 province. The people of the province had this duty cast upon them in the fiist place, 
 and, while there is a technical right in the minority to come here and have the opinions 
 of the majority revised and their acts over-ruled, you can only over-rule them just as a 
 higher court over-rules the judgment of a 1 jwer — upon consideration of the case itself. 
 You must have before your mind consideration of the position of the province itself and 
 decide the case on that ground, and not to gratify the feelings of the people in any 
 other province, as I said yesterday. You must do what is best for the people of the 
 province of Manitoba. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — As between parties in an ordinary court, would you say that 
 the Court of Appeal was bound to do what was best for both parties or to stick to the 
 law ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — They must stick to the law ; I don't think there is any doubt of 
 that. But what I have pointed out to you, and I am glad that my learned friend here 
 has agreed in that, is that your decision is to be given upon the merits of the case. 
 The law as it has been interpreted by the Privy Council is that you have a right to 
 consider the case; but there is no law providing what you shall do. You are perfectly 
 free, and before you over-rule the action of the province, you must come to the conclu- 
 sion that on the mprits of the case the province is wrong. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — Have we not to come to a conclusion as to the minority 1 
 Have we not to consider their rights 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — No ; as I pointed out yesterday if that was the only question 
 there would be no object in coming here to argue the case. The position that the 
 Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Ouimet) takes is that if the system of separate 
 schools is established in Manitoba it must remain for all time. But that is not the law. 
 The law is that the separate school system having been established, the abolition of it 
 so afiects the minority that, under the law, they have a right to appeal to the Governor 
 General in Council and ask him to make an order to re-establish the system if he thinks 
 fit, and then the Parliament of Canada will have jurisdiction to deal with his order. 
 
 Hon. Mr. CuRRAN. — Then we are not bound by the constitutional rights at all ? 
 
 Mi\ McCarthy. — I am quite willing to answer my friend if I can make my mean- 
 ing any plainer, but I do not know that I can do so. You are bound by the constitu- 
 ,tion I have endeavoured to say so. But I have also endeavoured to say that the con- 
 stitution does not say that if separate schools are established they must remain. It pro- 
 vides that if separate schools are established and then abolished, those who feel that they 
 are prejudiced by that abolition may come to this Council and ask for a consideration of 
 
 their case. 
 
 Hon. Mr. CuRRAX. — And for the maintenance of their constitutional rights. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — There is no constitutional right about it. 
 
 Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. — I understood your argument to cover the idea that 
 that clause in the constitution ought not to be there and that, though it is there, it 
 ouc'ht not to be acted upon — I mean the clause under which the appeal is made. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I do not mean it in that sense. You are acting in this matter 
 and what I have contended is that you are bound to act according to good sense and 
 judgment. 
 
68 
 
 Sir C'liAKi.Ks HiUBERT TuppEH. — And that no remedial order ought to be given ? 
 
 Mr. McCahtiiv. — Just so. 
 
 Sir Charles Hihbert Tupprr. — Under any circumstances — as I understand it. 
 
 Mr. MrCARTHY. — That is a pretty big proposition. I do not think that it would 
 be necessary for uie to show that under no coiiceival)le circumstances should such a thing 
 be done. But I will say that no events in our history that I know of would justify 
 interference in such a case as this. 
 
 Sir Chahlks Hihhert Tupper. — Your position would be' the same if the large ma- 
 jority were Roman Catliolic and that majority were to bring in a system objectionable 
 to the Protestants — you would resist any remedial action ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — So long, as in the case of Manitoba, there was a conscience clause. 
 
 Sir Charles Hibuert Tupper — Then it would depend upon circumstances 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — This law could not have been passed if, in the judgment of the 
 Privy Council, the legislature had established Protestant schools. The Barrett case 
 in that event would have been decided the other wa}'. If the Act put those who did not 
 attend the schools in any unfavourable position, if it provided that no child should be 
 eligible for promotion in the public service or for appointment in the public service un- 
 less he could produce a certificate of attendance at the public schools, that decision 
 would not have been given in the Winnipeg case. But the Privy Council held that this 
 Act does not compel anybody to do anything ; it only establishes public schools which 
 all may use. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — Does your argument apply to the Confederation Act so 
 far as it affects the old provinces of Quebec and Ontario'? I refer to section 93, sub- 
 section 3, which says : — 
 
 " Where in any province a system of separate or dissentient schools exists by law at 
 the union, or is thereafter established by the legislature of the province, an appeal 
 shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any act or decision of any provincial 
 authority affecting any rights or privileges of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority 
 of the Queen's subjects in relation to education." 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — That does not provide that if separate schools are established they 
 are to be perpetual. If you will apply that it illustrates my meaning. Of the four 
 provinces that formed the Dominion at first two had separate school systems. By the 
 constitution separate schools were made perpetual in those provinces, the other provinces 
 if they chose to establish separate schools had the right to do so. If they did so they 
 would be in the same position as Manitoba occupies, and if the separate school system 
 was abolished the minority had the right to come here and complain. But the separate 
 schools were not made perpetual. In Quebec and Ontario the separate school sj'stem is 
 part of the organic law. But provinces like Nova Scotia and New Brunswick which had no 
 separate school system at the time of Confederation, might establish a system and, five 
 years afterwards, repeal it ; but if they did so the minority could do as the minority in 
 Manitoba is now doing — apply to the Dominion Executive and af terwaids to the Dominion 
 Parliament. In other words it is withdrawn — I do not know whether except to lawyers 
 I can make myself plain. The control of legislation is vested in these provinces subject 
 to this reservation — that if they establish separate schools and afterwards withdraw them, 
 the minority can come and ask the Dominion Executive and afterwards the Dominion 
 Parliament to restore them ; not because there is no right in the provinces to abolish 
 separate schools, but that that circumstance will give the Dominion authorities the right 
 to investigate the whole subject and, if necessary in their judgment, to over-rule the 
 action of the province. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — Then, I understand you that in Ontario the legislature 
 can repeal all the amendments made to the Separate Schools Act by which the separate 
 school system has been extended in our province? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes. All the advantages that have been given under the Mowat 
 administration — (putting the question in that way) — 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — That is what I mean. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy'. — If those advantages were taken away the Roman Catholic 
 minority would have the right to come here and ask to have them restored. 
 
69 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ives. — Suppose the legislature of Quebec were to abolish the dissentient 
 schools, as the Protestant schools in Quebec are called, is it your opinion that the remedy 
 of the Protestants of Quebec would be by the use of this appeal 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — No. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ives. — What would be their remedy — disallowance '? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — No ; the Act would be ultra vires, and the courts would so 
 declare it. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ives. — But if the law is bemg executed, the fact that it is bad does not 
 help the people. 
 
 Mr. Mc?Cartht. — But the law could not be enforced ; it would be %dtra vires. 
 
 Hon. Ml'. Ives. — I understand that in this judgment their Lordships say that this 
 law cannot be enforced in Manitoba. I understand that the decision goes the length of 
 saying that the law of 1890, in so far as it imposes taxes upon Roman Catholics, cannot 
 be enforced. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — No, no, you have not read it. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ives. — Yes, I have. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I beg pardon ; I withdraw that. But I think no one else would, 
 have come to that conclusion. The decision is that the law is a good law, but that this 
 Council can set in motion proceedings by which the Dominion Parliament can, to a 
 certain extent, modify it. 
 
 Hon. Mr. I\ es. — I understand you to mean that in such a case as I speak of there 
 should not be disallowance, that the minority in Quebec would not have this right of 
 appeal, and the only satisfaction the people would have would be in the fact that the 
 law would be bad law. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I &o not know what better you would liave. The law would be 
 waste paper. It would be just the same as if in Ontario we attempted to deprive the 
 minoritv of their separate schools. The Roman Catholics of Ontario cannot be deprived 
 of their separate schools, and the same is true of the dissentient schools in Quebec. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ives. — But they could pass the bill in the legislature. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — But it would not be worth the paper it was written on. 
 
 Sir Chas. Hibbert Tupper. — According to the public press the Manitoba Govern- 
 ment intend to take that stand. It is said tliat if a remedial order is passed they will 
 resist or ignore that law. Sometimes it does not much matter whether it is good law 
 or bad law, if it is still enforced. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey. — Does not that appear in the Queen's speech in opening the 
 legislature ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I have not seen the Queen's speech, but I should think the 
 Lieutenant Governor would not be allowed to say that. But I understand that the 
 position of the Manitoba Government is that they will resist by every constitutional 
 means in their power the passage of any remedial order and that they will not obey the 
 order, which is something that they have a perfect right to do. 
 
 Sir Chas. Hibbert Tupper. — I had no reference to the Queen's speech. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — Mr. Sifton, the Attorney General, is reported to have 
 
 said so. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I have here the Queen's speech. It says : 
 
 " By the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council recently pro- 
 nounced on an appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada, it has been held that an 
 appeal lies to the Governor General in Council on behalf of the minority of this province, 
 inasmuch as certain rights and privileges given by prior provincial legislation to the 
 minority in educational matters had been affected by the Public Schools Act, and that, 
 therefore, the Governor General in Council has power to make remedial order in respect 
 thereto. ' Whether or not a demand will be made by the Federal Government that that 
 act shall be modified is not yet known to my Government. But it is not the intention 
 of my Government in any way to recede from its determination to uphold the present 
 public school system, which, if left to its own operation, would in all probability soon 
 become universal throughout the province." 
 
70 
 
 No person could object to that statement. The Government of the province has £u 
 perfect riyht to take this position, and, if sustained by the Legislature, this ParUainent 
 will have jurisdiction to enforce the remedial order, if the Council think fit to make 
 any such remedial order. T am not answerable for the statements made in the press, and 
 I am not 'niin'' to make any statement on a point such as that suggested by the Minister 
 of Justice (Sir Chnrles Hibbert Tupper). 
 
 Sir CnARLKS Hiijhkht Tuppek. — I referred to the report of an interview with the 
 Attorney General <jf ^Manitoba and then only to illustrate the hypothetical position of 
 aflairs su"-"e.sted bv Mr. Ives, and to show that .sometimes it was poor satisfaction to the 
 people to know that the law is bad ; even bad law is sometimes enforced. 
 
 Mr. McC.vHTiiY. — T do not want to occupy any better position than to be .sure that 
 a law is ultra vires if I do not want to obey it. 
 
 Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. — I am not diflering from you at all, but was merely 
 illustrating the position. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I have pointed out some of the considerations, though I am afraid 
 very few of the considerations which actuated the people of ^Manitoba, and I have shown 
 that it is the will of the people of Manitoba you are asked to overrule in this matter. I 
 would now give you a history of the legislation, because, no doubt, you would desire to 
 know before you would over-rule or coerce a free legislative body exactly how its will 
 was carried out. You will remember that I stated yesterday that the agitation for the 
 abolition of the separate school system commenced, apparently, in the fall of 1876. As 
 to that agitation, I am not able to give you the facts, but in glancing over the history of 
 Manitoba I gathered that it was in 1876,— that is five years after the separate school sys- 
 tem was introduced — that the people began to agitate for a change. A section of the 
 people took hold of the question and laid down a platform, on the lines of which they 
 claimed that the change should be efifected. But it was not until 1889, so far as I know — 
 and I speak subject to correction — that any political party took the question up, and became 
 convinced that there was a majority of the people prepared to endorse the change and carry 
 it into eff"ect. In August, 1889, at a place called Clearwater, Mr. Smart, who was then a 
 member of the Greenway Government, the present Government of Manitoba, announced 
 that the Government had determined upon the policy of abolishing the separate school 
 system and establishing a public school system, with a Department of Education and a 
 Minister of Education, following in the wake of the Ontario Administration, and adopt- 
 ing the policy they had pursued. It was in the following year, 1890, that the matter 
 became a subject of legislation, and I want to point out to you the various votes that 
 took place upon it, and you will see v. ith what unanimity the question was carried. 
 The question first arose on the 10th March, and by reference to the Journals of the 
 Legislative Assembly of that date, you will see that the following motion was 
 mo^ed by Mr. Gillies, who was then the leader of the Opposition, seconded by Mr. 
 Roblin. This was on the second reading of the bill, and Mr. Gillies moved in amend- 
 ment : — 
 
 " That, whereas by section 93 of the British North America Act it is declared that 
 where in any province a system of separate or denominational schools exists by law at 
 Union, or is thereafter established by the legislature of tlie province, an appeal shall lie 
 to the Governor General in Council from any act or decision of any provincial authority 
 affecting any right or privilege of a Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the 
 Queen's sul^jects, in relation to education, with power to the Parliament of Canada to 
 make laws for the execution of the decisions of the Governor General in Council in 
 connection with such an appeal — " 
 
 You will excuse me if I do not read the intervening clauses. The resolution goes on : 
 
 " Whereas it is desirable that a uniform system of public schools should be 
 established — " 
 
 Remember this is the resolution of the leader of the Opposition — 
 
 " — wherein all the youth of the province may receive elementary education, without 
 the possibility of legislation providing for the same, being subject to repeal or revision 
 to the Parliament of Canada, or any other than the legislature of this province, which 
 alone should deal with this vital subject ; and. 
 
71 
 
 " Whereas in view of such special provision, applicable to the province of Manitoba, 
 grave doubts exist as to the validity of the legislation embodied in this bill, the effect 
 of which is practically to abolish the system of denominational, schools existing in 
 the province, at and since its formation, and it is inexpedient that such an important 
 matter should be passed by this House before its legality has been authoritatively 
 determined or the Manitoba Act so amended as to clearly provide for such abolition ; 
 
 " Therefore, be it resolved that the bill be not read a second time, but that such 
 steps be taken as will secure an amendment, by the Imperial Parliament, of the British 
 North America Act or the Manitoba Act, whereby the right of the legislature of Mani- 
 toba to deal with educational mutters in the province shall be Hrmly and clearly estab- 
 lished without appeal to the Governor General in Council or to the Parliament of 
 Canada." 
 
 This was the view of the Oppo dtion, adopting the proposed system in its broadest 
 terms but proposing delay, so that the questions of law should be settled by the repeal of 
 those clauses which appear to interfere with the free power of the legislative body. That 
 resolution ca-re to a vote and it was voted down by 30 to 5. The five who voted "yea" 
 were Messrs. Gillies, Norquay, O'Malley, Roblin and Wood, not by any means all the 
 Opposition, which consisted at that time of ten or twelve members ; — it certainly was 
 more than five. Another amendment was moved to give the bill the six months' hoist, 
 and this was voted down by 7 for to 19 against, the seven who voted "yea" being 
 Mes-^rs. Gelley, Jerome, Lagimodiere, Marion, Martin (Morris), Prendergast and Wood. 
 I do not even see Mr. Fisher's name here ? 
 
 Hon. Mr. Angers. — Does his name appear on the other side of the vote '/ 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— Xo. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — He was away sick, I believe. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — At page 91 of the Journals will be found another amendment 
 declaring that : 
 
 " Whereas the Bill before this House involves most important educational principles, 
 and most radical changes in the existing school laws ; and 
 
 " Whereas it is an essential privilege of the people to pronounce upon so important 
 a question, before it is introduced in the House through their representatives ; and 
 
 " Whereas this House is of opinion that the electorate is against the principles of 
 the Bill— 
 
 " Resolved, that it is due to the electorate that this House do not endorse the 
 principles of the said bill before the same is submitted to the said electorate." 
 
 This was voted down by 6 for to 22 against and the second reading was carried on 
 the same division reversed : Then, on the third reading of the bill at page 107 of the 
 Journals, another long resolution was moved by the French member, Mr. (Jelley — I 
 think he is French 
 
 Mr. EwART. — Yes. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — This resolution declares that whereas grave doubts exist as to the 
 constitutionality of the bill, and so on, therefore that the bill " be referred back to a 
 committee of the whole House " to make certain amendments. That was voted down 
 by 11 for to 25 against, and the bill was finally passed by 25 for to 11 against. Now, 
 I need not trouble you with the changes made in 1891-92, because there seemed to have 
 been no division on them. The changes were slight, and there was no di\-ision of the 
 House upon them. In 1892 an election took place. You will remember the objection— 
 andtherewassomeforceinit— that when this bill was brought up it wasin the thii-d session 
 of that legislature, that the subject had not been before the people at the time of the pre- 
 vious election and that an opportunity ought to have been afforded to the people to pro- 
 nounce upon it before it was dealt with by the legislature. Buttheelection came onin 1892, 
 and I say without fear of contradiction by my learned friend or anyl>ody else that the 
 great question before the people in that election was the question of the schools. Pamph- 
 lets were issued on either side and the people were instructed and educated on the ques- 
 tion. In 1893 the new House met and the matter came up for decision before it. The 
 repeal of the bill was moved in the House consisting of forty raeml)ers, as you will find 
 that in the Journals of 1893, page 97. On the vote being taken 34 voted to sustam 
 
72 
 
 the Act and only 4 against, Messrs. Fisher, Jerome, Paiv and Prendergast. Of 
 the 3t at least one was a French representative, Mr. Martin, the same gentle- 
 man I believe, whose alKdavits were read by my learned friend Mr. Ewart the 
 other day. So that in a House of 40, with 39 to vote (one being in the 
 chair), 38" did vote, and only 4 for the repeal of the bill. And it must be remembered 
 that this was after the measure had undergone the most thorough and exhaustive 
 distHission in the constituencies and after the people had pronounced upon it. All those 
 who voted for repeal wore French representatives, except Mr. Fisher, who is my learned 
 friends partner, and that is the only way I can account for his having given poisoned 
 auvl falling away from his Liberal views and the principles he formerly held. 
 
 Hon. Mr. An(;krs. — Is any one who changes his views " poisoned " ? 
 
 Mr. McC.VRTiiY. — That depends upon wliat the change is. Mr. Jerome is from 
 Carillon, which, I believe, is in Provencher. Then, Mr. Pare is from La Verandrye, 
 and he and Mr. Prendergast also, I believe, are from Provencher. And so, in the 
 whole province, except my friend — or rather my learned friend's friend, for I am 
 not acquainted with him— ]Mr. Fisher, all the representatives, except ihe three 
 representatives from the one Dominion constituency of Provencher, are in favour 
 of the law and against its repeal. And even Provencher is not unanimous, 
 for T believe that ^Ir. Martin was one of the representatives of Provencher. Then you 
 know about the bill of 1894, the disallowance of which has been urgently pressed upon 
 you. That bill was carrying out the principles of the School Act of 1890. The six 
 months' hoi-t of that bill was moved by Mr. Jerome and the vote stood 4 for to 31 
 against. So that if the deliberate opinion of the province upon the question, a question 
 which had been agitated in the province from 1876 has any weight, you have here 
 evidence of what that opinion is. I have told you the position of one political party, 
 but I have here also the Conservative platform in the election of 1892. I was astonished 
 to hear my learned friend say that he represented in this matter the Conservatives in 
 the province of Manitoba. I do not mean to say that he appeared for them, but he said he 
 spoke the opinions of the Conservatives of Manitoba and was astonished that the 
 Conservatives here should differ from those in Manitoba. He mistakes very much 
 the views of the Conservatives of Manitoba. I have here the Conservative 
 platform of 1S92 :— 
 
 The Opposition hereby declare : 
 
 1. That they are in favour of one uniform system of public schools for the province. 
 
 2. That they are ready and willing to loyally carry out the present school act — 
 should it be held Ijy the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of Great Britain to be 
 within the legislative power of the province. 
 
 3. That ui the event of such school act being held by the Judicial Committee of the 
 Privy Council of Great Britain to be beyond the legislative power of the province ; 
 then they will endeavour to secure such amendments to the " British North America 
 Act " and the " Manitoba Act " as will place educational matters wholly within the 
 legislative power of the province of Manitoba without appeal to Governor the General in 
 Council or the Parliament of Canada. 
 
 So I have given you the views of the Liberal party, of the Conservative 
 party, showing practical unanimity in the province on this question of education. 
 Another point I have brought before you and which cannot certainly have been without 
 effect, was the inefficiency of the French school system. The two kinds of schools were 
 started practically upon an equality and there was no apparent reason why one should 
 grow to be better than the other. Let me give you an example, which has been published, 
 and never contradicted, of the kind of questions put in the examination of a first class 
 teacher in the separate schools. If this is the standard required of a first class teacher, 
 we cannot be very much astonished if the scholars do not show very great advance in 
 in the path of learning. Here is part of the examination ; 
 
 " Catechism. 
 
 " (1.) What is the church ? Where is the true church ? Ought we to believe what 
 the Catholic Church teaches us, and why? 
 
73 
 
 " (2.) What is the Eucharist ? What is necessary to do to receive with beiiefit this 
 sreat sacrement 1 
 
 " (3.) What is sanctifying grace? How is it lost? 
 " (4.) Name and define the theological virtues. 
 
 " Comportment. 
 
 " (1.) How is a letter addressed, when written to a prelate, to a priest, to a pro- 
 fessional man ? How are such letters concluded 1 
 
 " (2.) In conversation, what titles do you employ in speaking to these same 
 persons 1 
 
 " History. 
 
 " (1.) Describe the defeat of the American armies near Chateauguay. 
 
 "(2.) Who was St. Thomas Becket ? What difficulty had he with Henry IT. ? 
 How did he die 1 What was the fate of Marie Stuart ? Write a short note on the Treaty 
 of Paris. Who was then Governor of Canada 1 > 
 
 " Geograj)hy. 
 
 " What is the capital of England ? " " What is the capital of Canada ? " and so on. 
 This is a fair example of the examination for first class teachers in the separate 
 schools under the old system, as I am informed, and the legislature thought 
 that the system was not working satisfactorily. These and other papers were sent as 
 examples of the efficacy of their schools by the Catholic section of the board of educa- 
 tion to the Colonial Exhibition at London in 1886. Now another point I submit to 
 you is that this system has been in force for five years, but it has not had quite a fair 
 trial. I will ask Dr. Blakely to set me right with reg u-d to the figures if I am wrong. 
 The former system was to divide the legislative grant between public and separate 
 school boards" according to the number of school children, a census of the school popu- 
 lation being required by the law to be taken. Having ascertained the sum payable to 
 the Protestant and the Catholic boards these sums were subdivided according to the 
 number of schools. And this is a point to be noted. I was surprised to learn that 
 there were no less than 1 1 separate schools in Winnipeg, but I found equal cause 
 for surprise in the fact that there we^-e 88 others. If one did not understand the sense 
 in whicli the word "schools" is understood, the figures would be misleading. There is 
 nothing unjust about it, but one must understand this point in judging of it. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie BowELL. — Is the division not made per capita ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes, between the two kinds of schools, but the subdivision is 
 according to the number of schools or classes. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Foster. — Is that true of both boards ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes; I am not suggesting that there is anything unfair about it, 
 but it is misleading if you do not understand it. This was one grant of public money. 
 But there was another grant, according to a method different from the system in Ontario. 
 The law provided that the township councils should vote !?20 per month for each school. 
 Our system in Ontario is that the trustees make up an account of what they want and 
 demand the sum. They can collect it themselves or call upon the municipal council to 
 collect what they want. In Manitoba it was township money, but the township had no 
 discretion in the matter as to the amount to be given. Until the Act of 1894 was passed, 
 in townships that were favourable to the separate school system they had been paying 
 this grant to the separate schools. The Act of 1894 was intended to do away with that 
 granting of public money to separate schools which had been continued, and to bruig 
 the school system into harmony. I use this to show that this system has enabled 
 separate schools to be carried on with public money, so that the public scliool system, 
 established under the law of 1890 has not had a fair trial, though it has been in exist- 
 ence for five years. I have put in a list of the schools in Manitoba showing the number 
 at the time of the passing of the Act. 
 
Hon. Mr. Foster. — Was there any general principle upon which they made a 
 division of classes, and was that general principle observed in the two sets of schools 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy — There is no principle common to both. It is almost impossible 
 to find out what principle was followed in the French schools, because the reports are 
 not always printed, and when printed they are in French. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — And you cannot read them. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — And, as my learned friend observes, I cannot read them. 
 
 Hon. Mr. FosTKR. — Was the division into classes merely arbitrary 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Dr. Blakely tells me that they were made up into classes accord- 
 ing to grade. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Foster. — Would that be like a department — primary, secondary and 
 
 so on 1 
 
 ]Mr. McCarthy. — Yes ; the children in one grade would be one class. ' 
 
 Hon. Mr. Foster. — That would be what we would call a form ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Foster. — Then there would be some general principle. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I am not bringing this forward to show that there was any un- 
 fairness in the division of the provincial grant, but what I have stated shows that up 
 to 1894, they were able to get public money for separate schools in those townships 
 that were favourable to separate schools — .$20 for each class. 
 
 Hon. Senator Bernier. — Twenty dollars for each school. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I am informed that it was to each class in towns and to each 
 school in the country. The list of schools that. I have put in shows that there were 91 
 French schools in receipt of public money under this system, at the time the bill was 
 
 passed. 
 
 Hon. Senator Bernier, — They should be called public schools. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — It does not make any difference what they are called. I have 
 taken the facts from the public documents and I give the names given in those official 
 papers. I am able to show also that of these schools .36 have come in under the public 
 school system. You know from what Mr. O'Donohue said what pressure the people have 
 been kept under ; but, notwithstanding the pressure exerted by their priests and reli- 
 ('ious teachers, they are coming under the public school system and many have come in 
 since this new amendment to the school law was passed. I bring this forward to show 
 that you are not dealing with the matter simply as it stood in 1890, but as it stands in 
 1895, or it may be as it will stand in 1896. The withdrawal of this $20 a month of 
 public money has forced many of the schools to come in and adopt the public system. 
 I have here the report of Mr. Young, Inspector of Public Schools. This report was 
 made at the end of 1894 and covers the whole of that year. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — Is he the inspector of French schools 1 (Report filed 
 
 Exb bit " Q. ") . V, 1 
 
 Dr. Blakely. — He is the inspector of the south-eastern division, in which the schools 
 
 are nearly all French schools. 
 
 Now, as to whether these are Protestant schools and in that sense offensive to the 
 Catholic people, so that their children cannot fairly attend them. I point out to you 
 that the law distinctly declares that they shall be non-sectarian schools, and I add to 
 that the self-evident fact that if they are not conducted upon a non-sectarian basis the 
 right of any objecting parties is to appeal to the law. The Legislature, whose acts j^ou 
 are called upon to amend, declared the schools to be non-sectarian. If through the 
 action of the advisory board or for any other reason they are not carried on as non- 
 sectarian schools, they are not carried on according to the law of the province, and any- 
 body aggrieved can appeal to the courts at much less expense than that involved m 
 sending learned counsel down here to Ottawa. The schools as established are not 
 amenable to the allegation of my learned friend. His argument was substantially that 
 the religious exercises under this Public Schools Act of 1890 are identical with those of 
 the Protestant schools under the Act of 1871, and that, if they were Protestant in 1871 
 they are Protestant still, although their prayers are adopted by the advisory board under 
 the School Act. I dispute both my learned friend's facts and his conclusions. I have 
 before me the religious exercises as they were required under the Protestant system and 
 
75 
 
 also those under the Public Schools Act of 1890. If you will permit me I will draw j^our 
 attention to the difference. In 1887 the regulations of the Protestant section of the 
 Board of Education regarding religious exercises provide : — 
 
 " 1. Every school established and in operation under the authority of the Protes- 
 tant section of the Board of Education for Manitoba shall be opened and closed daily 
 with pi-ayer and the reading of a portion of Scripture ; and it shall be the duty of the 
 teacher of each school to allot a suitable portion of each school session to this exercise 
 and to conduct the same as herein directed." 
 
 Now we come to what these exercises are to be : — 
 
 "Bible reading. The Bible shall be used as a text book in the Protestant schools 
 of Manitoba. A supply for use in each school may be obtained by the trustees, othei'- 
 wise each pupil from standard 3 upwards shall be required to provide himself with a 
 Bible in addition to his other text books." 
 
 This is not to be found in the present regulations. It is not required and not 
 permitted. 
 
 The regulations of 1887 further provide : — 
 
 " The selections for reading shall always include one or more of the lessons in the 
 authorized list given herewith, but any other selection from Scripture may, in the 
 discretion of the teacher, be read in connection with them." 
 
 This list is practically the same, with a modification to which I will draw your 
 attention in a moment, but the discretion in the second part of the section is not 
 permitted. 
 
 Sir Adolphe Carox.^ — You mean under the new regulations ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy — Yes. The third clause with regard to Bible readings in the old 
 regulations is as follows : — 
 
 " The Scripture lesson in each school shall follow the opening prayer and shall not 
 occupy more than 15 minutes daily. Until notes and questions are provided under the 
 authority of the board, the reading shall not be accompanied by commentary or 
 explanations. ' 
 
 The Scriptures permitted under the old system were as follows : — Part 1, Histo- 
 rical ; Part 2, Devotional, didactic, prophectic : Part 3, the Gospels : Part 4, the Acts of 
 the Apostles : Part 5, selections from the Epistles, and Part 6, Miscellaneous. Under the 
 present regulations the only Scripture readings permitted are Part 1, Historical, and 
 Part 2, the Gospels. Then it is provided that these S riptures may be either from the 
 English version of the Bible or from the Douay version. Now I may ask my learned friend 
 to point out what he objects to in these Scripture readings. They are less than are 
 allowed in Ontario, although we Ontario people know that the late Archbishop Lynch 
 approved of the Scripture readings and allowed the new edition popularly known as 
 the Ross Bible to be issued. I believe that this was copied from the Ross Bible, but 
 to prevent there being any possibility of complaint on the part of minority it is con- 
 ■fined to the historical part to the Gospels and the Scripture may be read from either 
 version, and I suppose they are practically identical. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — Is what is known as the Ross Bible used in the separate 
 
 schools of Ontario 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthv— No, but the reason why the Archbishop claimed the right to inter- 
 fere with the reading of the Scriptures in the public schools is that a large portion of the 
 children under his charge were attending those schools. Now let me draw your atten- 
 tion to the prayer, which is identical under the two regulations, oidy the closing prayer- 
 being now provided for. Under the old regulations it is preceded by the Lord's 
 prayer, after which it proceeds : 
 
 " Most merciful God, we yield Thee our humble and hearty thanks for Thy fatherly 
 care and preservation of us this day and for the progress which Thou hast enabled us to 
 make in useful learning ; we pray Thee to imprint upon our minds whatever good 
 instruction we have received and to bless them to the advancement of our temporal and 
 eternal welfare, and pardon, we implore Thee all that Thou hast seen amiss in our 
 thoughts, words and actions. May Thy good providence still guide and keep us during 
 
76 
 
 the approaching interval of rest and relaxation so that we may be prepared to enter on 
 the duties of t".;e morrow with new vigour both of body and mind ; and preserve us, we 
 beseech Thee, now and for ever, both outwardly in our bodies and inwardly in our souls 
 for the sake of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord. Amen." 
 
 That is the prayer together with the Lord's prayer. Now on the evidence T have 
 given you, I submit that my learned friends statement of the facts is not correct, I 
 believe that nobody could object to this form of prayer. Objection is taken to the 
 instruction given in commandments, etc. The regulation is as follows : 
 
 " To establish the habit of right-doing, instruction in moral principles must be 
 accompanied by training in moral practices. The teacher's influence and example, cur- 
 rent incidents, stories, memory gems, sentiments in the school lessons, examination of 
 moti\ es that prompt to action, didactic talks, teaching the Ten Commandments, etc., are 
 means to be employed." 
 
 All I can say, is, without entering upon the theological question as to whether the 
 commandments can be taught from the Protestant and Roman Catholic standpoints at 
 the same time, that the remedy for this is simply that of having this withdrawn if it is 
 offensive. Within the programme of studies, which also I have here, there are no less 
 that nine grades or forms. My learned friend does not object to all these, and I think 
 he could not find ground for objection except in the one he has called attention to. What 
 he said on that subject might lead you to believe that the case was merely an example of 
 the others, but I think he has given the only one to which objection can be taken that 
 is the history curriculum in the seventh grade — English, religious movements, Henry 
 VIII and Mar3\ Now he says that the history of England cannot be taught, so far as 
 that period is concerned, from the Roman Catholic standpoint and the Protestant stand- 
 point in the same school. And I will admit, with the little knowledge that I have of 
 the subject, that it is a difficult point. But the remedy is a simple one and it ought to 
 be a simple one. What we ought to be concerned with is the truth. We know 
 the difficulty of ascertaining the truth with regard to a historicil incident 
 of thirty or forty years ago ; how much more difficult to ascertain what really 
 happened in the reign of Henry VII1 1 We know that it has been the h ibit of 
 historians to write the history of that period from their own standpoint — not history 
 but a partisan statement. We also know — at least I do not pretend that I knew until 
 I was told — that the tendency has been among more recent writers to correct that fault, 
 and to have histories as near the truth as can be given. The history in use is Miss 
 Buckley's History, which up to quite a recent time has been the fairest history that has 
 been written upon this subject ; so fair th it I am informed, — ^and I speak subject to 
 contradiction if I am wrong — that it has been in use in the convent schools, which are 
 not subject to Govei'nment inspection. So we find that in the religious exercises there is 
 nothing that can be complained of. We find that in a curriculum there is only one sub- 
 ject that is objected to and with regard to that I have given an explanation. Miss 
 Buckley's history was in use in this pro^^nce up to a recent time, when the department had 
 a history prepared in which certain phrases which had been pointed out as objectionable 
 from a Roman Catholic standpoint were omitted. But all these are mere matters of 
 detail. If these points are nut arranged on a non-sectarian basis the administration 
 of the syst?m is to that extent in defiance of the law and that can be corrected. And I 
 can speak for the Education Department that they are happy to correct anything 
 of that kind and they have no desire to force upon the people of Manitoba history or re- 
 ligion in any way offensive to their religious convictions. What they desire is that the 
 whole people should be united in one system of schools and brought together in har- 
 mony. Now it is said Catholics cannot attend these schools and that if this system is 
 continued the effect will be that while the Catholics continue to pay their taxes for the 
 puVjlic schools, they will have to pay for the support of other schools which they can 
 conscientiously attend. This is set forth in clause 1 1 of the petition. Now I can 
 speak from my own knowledge and expr-rience. He e in the province of Ontario the 
 Catholics have the right to separate schools and yet the result is that more than half 
 the Roman Catholic children are attending public schools voluntarily. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — May I ask under what authority you state that? 
 
I- 
 
 7 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I suppose anything that Mr. Fisher says will be good evidence. 
 He spoke the other day in tlie, legislature, and I think lie ratlier over-stated the facts 
 when he said that far more than half attended the public schools. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — Mr. Fisher is not before us. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — He is represented — I mean he is the champion of minority in 
 Manitoba. 
 
 Sir IVIackenzie Bowell. — Do the school reports show that with regard to Ontario ? 
 
 Mr. McCARTIIY^ — They do not show it in terms, but I base the statement upon a 
 calculation which I will g ve you and which you can accept or not as you think i-ight. 
 I find that the school population in the province of Ontario — this is taken from the last 
 school report — is 595,238. This includes Catholics, Protestants and all. The Roman 
 Catholic portion of that population is 100,324. The total number not attending schools 
 is 86,000, the relative portion of which for the Ftoman Catholic schools would be 19,000, 
 leaving 81,000 to be provided with sciiool accommodation. The number attending 
 separate schools is 37,466, leaving 43,797 attending the public schools. 
 
 Hon. Mr. CuKRAN. — Have you anything to show how many Catholic children are 
 attending public scho:)ls in those places where separate schools are estabUshed ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — No, except as I am going to point out, I have not had time to 
 go into this matter minutely. The petition asserts that Roman Catholics cannot attend 
 the public schools ; I am proving that they do. 
 
 Hon. Mr. CuRRAN. — Where there are no separate schools. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey. — Will you tell me in what sense you use the word " attending." 
 Do you mean registered ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I understand this to be actual attendance. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Foster. — It must be the registered attendance. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I am not sure that I understand the Secretary of State's (]\Ir. 
 Dickey) question. I take the figures as they appear in the reports and I use the word 
 "attendance" as applying in the same way throughout. 
 
 Hun. Mr. Daly. — This represents the public schools, not the high schools or col- 
 legiate institutes ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Exactly. This is what Mr. Fisher said, speaking of the Ontario 
 school system : " Every child in the land is taught in a State school. The immense 
 majority of the Roman Catholic children go to public schools, rather preferring them 
 to separate schools. In Ontario there are 700 municipalities and in 500 of these at least 
 there are no separate schools. Separate schools have not been increasing in number, 
 except for a short time when Mr. Meredith was weak and foolish enough to join :\rr. 
 Dalton McCarthy in an attack on separate schools, which led to a boom in such schools." 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — So you see the effect of what you are doing. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. I give you the benefit of what Mr. Fisher said. I am not 
 
 ashamed of what I have done. I may give you an example of what I know niyself in 
 my own county— not my own riding, but the whole county of Simcoe The whole 
 Roman Catholic school population is 2,317. There are only three separate schools with 
 a total attendance of 221. So there is a total of more than 2,000 Roman Catholic 
 children not attending separate schools in that county. I know several townships in 
 which the Roman Catholics are in sufficient numbers to support separate scliools m effi- 
 ciency in which no such schools have been established. Now, on this question, I give 
 an authority that will be accepted by everybody among the minority in :\ranit(.l)a, 
 thou^di I do not know that the Premier will accept it. I give you the worils of the 
 Most" Rev. Francis Satolli, delegate of the Apostolic See to the United States of 
 America You may remember that this question of separate schools was brought 
 up by Archbishop Ireland, one of the ablest prelates of the church, he taking 
 a position on which his brethren differed from him. He thouuht that the 
 Roman Catholic children were falling behind in the race of life by reason of the 
 inefficiency of the educational system under which they are trained, and he said that he 
 could see no reason why the Catholic children should not attend the public schoo s. 
 That discussion resulted in Mgr. Satolli coming to this continent And here is the 
 letter in which he wrote his decrees, representing, as I understand, the Congregation of 
 the Propaganda. I got this document from the library. It bears the imprint of John 
 
78 
 
 Murphy «fe Co., printers to the Holy See, Baltimore, U.S.A. The first paragraph is a 
 general instruction : 
 
 " All euro must l)e taken to erect Catholic schools to enlarije and improve those 
 already established, and to make them equal to the public schools in teaching and in 
 discipline." • 
 
 The next section is : 
 
 " When there is no Catholic school at all " 
 
 That meets the Solicitor General's (Hon. Mr. Curran's) case. 
 " — or when the one that is available is little fitted for giving the children an education 
 in keeping with their condition, then the public schools may be attended with a safe 
 conscience, the danger of perversion being rendered remote by opportune, remedial and 
 precautionary measures, a matter that is to be left to the conscience and judgment of 
 the Ordinaries." 
 
 I pass from there to No. 5 : — 
 
 " We strictly forbid any one, whether Bishop or Priest, and this is the express 
 prohibition of the Sovereign Pontiff through the Sacred Congregation, either by act or 
 by threat to exclude from the Sacraments as unworthy, parents [who choose to send 
 their children to the public schools.] As regards the children themselves this enact- 
 ment applies with still greater force. 
 
 " G. To the Catholic Church belongs the duty and the divine right of teaching all 
 nations to believe the truth of the Gospel, and to observe whatsoever Christ commanded; in 
 her likewise is vested the divine right of instructing the young in so far as theirs is the 
 Kingdom uf Heaven ; that is to say, she holds for herself the right of teaching the truths of 
 faith and the law of morals in order to bring up youth in the habits of a Christian life. 
 Hence, absolutely and universally speaking, there is no repugnance in their learning the 
 first elements and the higher branches of the arts and the natural sciences in public 
 schools controlled by the State, whose office it is to provide, maintain and protect every- 
 thing by which its citizens are formed to moral goodness, while they live peaceably 
 together, with a sufficiency of temporal goods, under laws promulgated by civil 
 authority. 
 
 " For the rest, the provisions of the Council of Baltimore are yet in force, and, in a 
 general way, will remain so ; to wit. : ' Not only out of our paternal love do we exhort 
 Catholic parents, but we command them, by all the authority we possess, to procure a 
 truly Christian and Catholic education for the beloved otispring given them of God, 
 born again in baptism unto Christ and destined for heaven, to shield and secui'e them 
 throughout childhood and youth from the dangers of a merely worldly education, and 
 therefore to send them to parochial or other truly Catholic schools.' United with this 
 duty are the rights of parents which no civil law or authority can violate or weaken. 
 
 "12. As for those Catholic children that in great numbers are educated in the 
 public schools, where now, not without danger, they receive no religious instruction at 
 all, strenuous efforts should be made not to leave them without sufficient and seasonable 
 instruction in Catholic faith and j^ractice. We know by experience that not all our 
 Catholic children are found in our Catholic schools. Statistics show that hundreds of 
 thousands of Catholic children in the united States of America attend schools which are 
 under the control of State Boards, and in which, for that reason, teachers of every 
 denomination are engaged. ' Beyond all doubt, the one thing necessary, i.e., rel'gious 
 and moral education according to Catholic principles, is not to be treated either lightly 
 or with delay, but on the contrary with all earnestness and energy. 
 
 " The adoption of one of three plans is recommended, the choice to be made according 
 to local circumstances in the different States and various personal relations. 
 
 " The first consists in an agreement between the Bishop and the members of the 
 School Board, whereby they, in a spirit of fairness and good-will, allow the Catholic 
 children to be assembled during free time and taught the Catechism ; it would also be 
 of the greatest advantage if this plan were not confined to the primary schools, but were 
 extended likewise to ,igh schools, colleges, in the form of a free lecture. 
 
 " The second : to have a catechism class outside the public school building, and also 
 classes of higher Christian doctrine, where, at fixed times, the Catholic children would 
 
79 
 
 assemble with diliiience and pleasure induced thereto by the authority of their parents, 
 the persuasion of their pastors, and the ho2)e of praise and rewards. 
 
 " The third plan does not seem at tirst sight so suitable, but is bound up more 
 intimately with the duty of both parents and pastors. Pastors should unceasingly ui-ge 
 upon parents that most important duty, imposed both by natural and by divine law, of 
 bringing up their children in .sound muralit}' and Catholic faith. Be.'-ides, the instruc- 
 tion of children appertains to the very essence of the pastoral chari;e ; let the pastor of 
 souls say to them with the Apostle : ' My little children of whom I am in labour again 
 until Christ be formed in you.' Let him have classes of children in the parish, such as 
 have been established in Rome and many other places and even in churches in this 
 country with very happy results. 
 
 " These words I hope the pastors will take to heart. If they would do this duty in 
 their own sphere, there would not be this trouble about the state educating the childrea 
 in secular matters. 
 
 " IS or let him, with little prudence, show less love for the children that attend the 
 public schools, than for those that attend the pai'ochial ; on the contrary, stronger marks 
 of loving solicitude are to be shown them ; the Sunday school and the hour for 
 catechism should be devoted to them in a special manner, and to cultivate this field let 
 the pastor call to his aid other priests, religious, and even suitable members of the 
 laity in order that what is supremely necessary may be wanting to no child." 
 
 I do not want to have it supposed that I read only those portions that are suitable 
 for my own argument, so I lay this document before the Board in its entirety. I think 
 it will establish the fact that Catholic children can attend the pul)lic schools and the 
 allegation of a grievance in that regard in the petition is not well founded and ought 
 not to lead you to any such result as the petitioners seek by their prayer. 
 
 The Council adjourned until 2.30 p.m. 
 
 AFTER RECESS. 
 
 The Council resumed at 2.30 p.m. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I have the honour to say. in linishing the history of the question, 
 whatever mav be said as to its merits, that the matter of the threatened interference 
 has been dealt with by the local legislature during the pr'^sent session, and I have read 
 to you an extract which my learned friend kindly furnished me from the Lieutenant 
 Governor's speech at the opening of the session, and I will just supplement that by the 
 resolutions and the vote upon those resolutions with reference to this threatened inter- 
 ference. Mr. Fisher, on the House going into Committee of Ways and Means, 
 proposed : 
 
 " 1. That while this House is determined at all times to maintain to the fullest 
 extent that the constitution warrants its exclusive power to make laws with respect to 
 education, yet it recognizes that the highest judicial tribunal in the realm has recently 
 decided that 'such exclusive power is not absolute, but limited,' and that the limitation 
 was embodied in the constitution as a ' parliamentary compact,' between the Dominion 
 and the protection, amongst other things, of the rights and privileges of the Roman 
 Catholic minority in] relation to education, including rights and priWleges that were 
 acquired bv them since the union. 
 
 " 2. It has been also adjudged by the same tribunal that ' the rights and privileges' 
 of the Roman Catholic minority in relation to education, which existed prior to 1890, 
 have been affected by the Public Schools Act of that year. 
 
 " 3. The same tribunal has further decided that in the event, which is now fore- 
 shadowed of this legislature being called upon to remove the grievance in the judgment 
 
80 
 
 referred to, and in the further event of the legislature declining to do so, a case will 
 have arisen where " the parliament of Canada is authorized to legislate on the same 
 subject. 
 
 " 4. That this House is always prepared to abide by the constitution, which is the 
 safeguard of our provincial rights, and will not be a party to its violation, nor will it 
 seek to-impair the efficiency of its provisions for protecting the rights and privileges of 
 any class of Her Majesty's subjects. At the same time the House would deplore the 
 occurrence of anything calling for the exerci-ie by the Parliament of Canada of its 
 authority to legislate on the subject of education, the ultimate effect of which it is 
 impossible to foresee. 
 
 " And having regard to the suggestions of the tribunal I'eferred to that ' all legiti- 
 mate ground of complaint would be removed if the present system were supplemented 
 by provisions which would remove the grievance upon which the appeal is founded, and 
 were modified so far as might be necessary to give effect to those provisions," without a 
 repeal of the present law, this House is ready to consider the grievance referred to with 
 a view to providing reasonable relief, while maintaining, as far as possible consistent 
 with that object, the principles of the present act in their general application." 
 
 Upon that coming up a debate took place and the Attorney General moved the 
 following as an amendment : — That all words after the word "while" in the original 
 motion be struck out and the following substituted therefore : " This House loyally sub- 
 mits itself to the provisions of the constitution as interpreted by the Judicial Committee 
 of Her Majesty's Privy Council. It is hereby resolved that the exercise of appellate 
 jurisdiction by the Governor General in Council in such a way as to lead hereafter to the 
 alteration of the principles upon which the public school system of Manitoba is founded 
 will be viewed with grave apprehension. That an interference by the Federal authority 
 with the educational policy of the province is contrary to the recognized principles of 
 provincial autonomy. That this House will by all constitutional means and to the ut- 
 most extent of its power resist any steps which may be taken to attack the school system 
 established by the Public Schools Act of 1890, which is believed to be conceived and ad- 
 ministered in the highest and best interests of the whole population of Manitoba." 
 
 The amendment was carried, as appears from the report of the Manitoba Free Press, 
 28th February, by a vote of twenty-two to ten. Three gentlemen who voted, Messrs. 
 McFadden, Frame and Lyons, all stated that they considered both resolutions uncalled 
 for and voted against them. The debate, consisting of a speech by Mr. Fisher, and a 
 speech by the Attorney General, and also some shorter addresses to the House, may be 
 put in as being worthy of preservation for the history of this interesting occasion. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Foster. — That is simply a newspaper report 1 
 
 Mr McCarthy. — That is all. I think they have no other report than that. I 
 now recur to the place that I left off yesterday afternoon for the purpose, and make the 
 statement so that you will see I am not wasting time in my citations, of demonstrating 
 what is perhaps sufficiently well known, but which I cannot too strongly enforce, that 
 the deliberate will, deliberate conviction, of both of the great parties in Canada, sanc- 
 tioned Vjy public opinion of all shades and classes, is that in school matters there should 
 be no interference by the central body, and I will follow that up by pointing out to this 
 Council that the proposal that is now made to interfere is a far harsher remedy, 
 a far more drastic means of interference, far more humiliating to the province than 
 would have been the disallowance of the Act of 1890. I say it advisedly that it would 
 have been far better for the province that the Act of 1890 should be disallowed, than 
 that there should be the interference which is threatened by those proceedings. I will 
 endeavour to show you why, before I close. I was commencing to refer, yesterday, 
 to the question on the schools which first arose, namely, with regard to the New 
 Brunswick law, and I had got as far as to read certain documents, though not yet 
 reported. Mr. Costigan's resolution, which, perhaps, you will be good enough to consider 
 as read, is as follows : — 
 
 •' That it is essential to tlie peace and prosperity of the Dominion of Canada tha 
 the several religions should be followed in perfect harmony with those professing them 
 in accord with each other, and that every law passed either by this Parliament or the 
 
81 
 
 local legislature disregarding the rights and usages tolerated by one of such religions 
 is of a nature to destroy that harmony ; that the local legislature of New Brunswick 
 in its last session in 1871 adopted a law respecting common schoola prohibiting the im- 
 parting of any religious education to pupils, and that prohibition ia opposed to the senti- 
 ments of the population of the Dominion in genera' and to the religious convictions of 
 the Roman Catholic population in particular : — That the Roman Catholics of New 
 Bx'unswick, without acting unconsciously, send their children to schools established 
 under the law in question and are yet compelled like the remainder of the population 
 to pay taxes to be devoted to the maintenance of those schools : — That the said law is 
 unjust and causes much uneasiness among the Roman Catholic population in general 
 disseminated throughout the whole Dominion of Canada and that such a state of affairs 
 may prove the cause of disastrous results to all the confederate provinces, and pi-aying 
 His Excellency in consequence at the earliest possible period to disallow the said New 
 Brunswick school law." 
 
 Hon. Mr. OuiMET. — What date was that resolution 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— 1872. 
 
 Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. — You had passed that subject, had you not 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I was going to recur to it ; I would retrace my steps, as I said 
 this morning. This resolution was moved on the 20th of May and the debate was not 
 concluded. The next time the question came up was on the 22nd May, as will be 
 found at page 148 of the Votes and Proceedings, when the Hon. Mr. Gray moved in 
 amendment to leave out all the words after "Canada" in line two, and to substitute the 
 following : — 
 
 " That the constitutional rights of the several provinces should be in no way 
 impaired by the order of this Parliament ; that the law passed by the local legislature 
 of New Brianswick respecting common schools was strictly with the limits of its consti- 
 tutional powers and is amenable to be repealed or altered by the local legislature, should 
 it prove injurious or unsatisfactory in its operation ; that not having yet been in force 
 six months', and no injurious consequences to the Dominion having been shown to result 
 therefrom, this House does not deem it proper to interfere with the advice that may be 
 tendered to His Excellency the Governor General by the responsible ministers of the 
 Crown respecting the New Brunswick school law." 
 
 Hon. Mr. Chauveau moved in amendment to the said proposed amendment that 
 all the words after " that " in the original motion be expunged and the following inserted 
 in lieu thereof : '• an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she 
 will be pleased to cause an Act to be passed amending ' the British North America 
 Act 1867, ' in the sense which this House believes to have been intended at the time of 
 the passage of the said Act, by providing that eveiy religious denomination in the pro- 
 vinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia shall continue to possess all such rights, ad- 
 vantages and privileges with regard to their schools as such denominations enjoyed in 
 such province at the time of the passage of the last mentioned Act ; to the same extent 
 as if such rights, advantages and privileges had been then duly established by law." 
 
 Then I pass on to page 167, where the vote is taken on Mr. Chauveau's amendment 
 which I have just read. The vote is 34 for and 126 against, including in that vote Sir 
 John :Macdonald, Alexander Mackenzie, Mr. Blake, the leaders of all parties, and of 
 course it was lost by a large majority. ^r r> n 
 
 The question being then put on Hon. Mr. Grays proposed amendment, 3Ir. Cclby 
 moved in amendment thereto that all after the word " that" be expunged and the fol- 
 lowino- substituted in lieu thereof :— " this House regrets that the School Act recently 
 passed in New Brunswick is unsatisfactory to a portion of the inhabitants of that pro- 
 vince and hopes it may be so modified during the next session of the legislature as to 
 remove any just grounds of discontent that now exist." 
 
 That being advice to the province it was carried by a majority, 11 < to 42. i hen 
 Mr. Dorion moved that the following words be added to Mr. Colby s motion, Mr. Colby s 
 amendment having been carried : — 
 6 
 
82 
 
 " And tliis House further regrets that to aUay such well grounded discontent His 
 Excellent-y the Governor (ieneral has not been advised to disallow the School Act of 
 1871 passed by the legislature of New Brunswick." 
 
 Bringing up the disallowance quite clearly. That was voted down by a majority of 
 1 1 7 to ."Vs, and then tlie question being put on the main motion as amended, the Hon. 
 yiv. Mackenzie moved that the following words be added thereto :— 
 
 " And that this House deems it expedient that the opinion of the Law Officers of 
 the Crown in England, and if possible the opinion of the Judicial Committee of the 
 Privy Council should be obtained as to the rights of the New Brunswick Legislature to 
 make such changes in the school law as deprived the Roman Catholics of the privileges 
 they enjoyed at "the time of the Union in respect of religious education in the common 
 schools, with the view of ascertaining whether the case comes within the terms of the 4th 
 subsection of the 93rd clause of the North America Act, 1867, which authorizes the 
 Parliament of Canada to enact remedial laws for the due execution of the provisions 
 respecting education in the said Act ;" which was agreed to. 
 And here is the result of the whole : 
 
 " The question being then put on the main motion as amended, it was agreed to on 
 a division and is as follows : — 
 
 " That this House regrets that the School Act recently passed in New Brunswick is 
 unsatisfactory to a portion of the inhabitants of that province and hopes that it may 
 be so modified during the next session of the Legislature of New Brunswick, as to remove 
 any just grounds of discontent that now exist and that this House deems it expedient 
 thsit the opinion of the law officers of the Crown in England, and if possible the opinion 
 of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be obtained as to the right of the 
 New Brunswick legislature to make such changes in the school law as deprived the 
 Roman Catholics of the privileges they enjoyed at the time of the Union in respect to 
 relif^ious education in its common schools, with the view of ascertaining whether the 
 case comes within the terms of the 4th subsection of the 93rd clause of the British North 
 America Act, 1867, which authorizes the Parliament of Canada to enact remedial laws 
 for the due execution of the provisions respecting education in the said Act." 
 
 So the matter ended there for that session. 
 
 The Hon. Minister of Marine asked me what had been done in 1873. On the 14th 
 of May, the House resumed the debate on the amendment which was carried by 98 to 
 63, and amongst those who voted in the negative, was the President whom I have now 
 the honour of addressing. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — The government of that day did not act upon that 
 
 resolution. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy'. I do not know that Sir John Macdonald refused to act. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — It is the amendment we are talking about. You will 
 find it laid down in Todd more clearly. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes ; that amendment was carried by 98 to 63. 
 
 Hon. Mr. CosTiGAN. — You seem to lay great stress upon the fact that the House 
 did not express anything beyond sympathy in regard to that question. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— No, no, not sympathy. 
 
 Hon. Mr. CosTiGAN. — You had some yourself. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— Yes, but sympathy and legislative Acts are two different things. 
 Then in 1874 the Minister of Marine and Fisheries renewed his motion in the same 
 terms I think, as in 1872, but it was withdrawn. In 1875 he again brought up the reso- 
 lution, at page 188 of the Azotes and Proceedings, and this time the Privy Council had 
 determined the question. Then it was brought before them ex parte, and at the time 
 when the Minister of Marine and Fisheries brought this question up that I am now 
 referrincr to, it was in the position that it is at present, that is to say, the law was 
 understood, 'for the question came up in this way : The Minister of Marine moved the 
 resolution in 1872, at page 166, and then it is followed by the amendment of Hon. Mr. 
 Gray, and then by Hon. Mr. Chauveau's amendment in amendment, that all the words 
 after' "that" in the original motion be expunged and that an humble address be 
 presented to Her Majesty praying that she may be pleased to cause an Act 
 
83 
 
 to be passed to amend the British North America Act. That seems to be exactly what 
 Mr. Chauveau moved in 1872. Then upon that, the vote for alteration in the British 
 North America Act was 34 to 126 against, and that appeal to an alteration seems to 
 have been opposed by the leaders of both parties — I do not think the present Prime 
 Minister voted, — but Mr. Blake, Mr. Costigan, Mr. Alexander Mackenzie, Sir 
 John Macdonakl, Mr. Joly and Sir Charles Tupper voted against it. Mr. Costigan's 
 motion was brought upon the 18th of March, 1875. Mr. Costigan's motion was in the 
 same words as originally. Then, Mr. Mackenzie moved in amendment that : 
 
 " In the opinion of this House, legislation by the Parliament of the United King- 
 dom encroaching on any powers reserved to any one of the provinces by the British 
 North America Act, 1867, would be an infraction of the provincial constitutions, and 
 that it would be inexpedient and fraught with danger to the autonomy of each of the 
 provinces for this House to inWte such legislation." 
 
 Mr. Cauchon moved in amendment : — 
 
 " This House regrets that the School Act recently passed in New Brunswick is un- 
 satisfactory to a portion of the inhabitants of that province, and hopes that it may be so 
 modified during the next session of the Legislature of New Brunswick as to remove any 
 just grounds of discontent that now exist. 
 
 "That this House regrets that the hope expressed in tlie said resolution has not 
 been realized. 
 
 " That an humble Address be presented to Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen 
 embodying this resolution, and praying that Her Majesty wcn,dd be graciously pleased to 
 use her influence with the Legislature of New Brunswick to procure such a modification 
 of the said Act as shall remove such grounds of discontent." 
 
 That motion being put was lost on a division of 60 to 124. 
 
 A further debate arising, the House continued to sit until midnight. The House 
 divided on the question, resulting in, 114 yeas and 73 nays. Mr. Baby then moved 
 in amendment to the main motion as amended, that all the woi'ds after " that " be left 
 out and the following inserted in lieu thereof : 
 
 " This House regrets that the position of the Roman Catholic minority in the pro- 
 vince of New Brunswick with regard to their educational rights is such as to cause great 
 dissatisfaction to a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects in the Dominion : 
 
 " That this House is of opinion that any legislation which will restore harmony 
 among persons professing different I'eligions, and remove any feeling of uneasiness now 
 existing among any portion of Her Majesty's subjects, is greatly to be desired : 
 
 " That by resolution passed by the House of Commons on the 30th May, 1872, it was 
 regretted that the school Act recently passed in New Brunswick was unsatisfactory to 
 a portion of the inhabitants of that province." 
 
 He terminated by moving that an humble Address be presented, and so on. The 
 Speaker ruled this out of order. The question then being put on the amendment as 
 amended, it was agreed to, 121 yeas to 61 nays. The question being put on the main 
 motion as amended, it was agreed to, 119 yeas and 60 nays. Then Mr. Costigan 
 moved in amendment, that the said committee be instructed to add the following to the 
 proposed address : 
 
 " But this House reserves to itself the right to seek by Address to Her Majesty, 
 an amendment to the British North America Act, 1867 ; should the present motion 
 prove insufficient to bring about an amendment of the New Brunswick School law 
 satisfactory to the minority of that province." 
 
 The Speaker ruled that amendment out of order. Then the address was as follows : — 
 
 " That in the opinion of this House, legislation by the Parliament of the United 
 Kinf^dom encroaching on any powers reserved to any one of the provinces by the British 
 North America Act, 1867, would be an infraction of the Provincial constitution, and 
 that it would be inexpedient and fraught with danger to the autonomy of each of the 
 provinces, for this House to invite such legislation." 
 
 6i 
 
84 
 
 That on the "JOth clay of May, 1.^72, the House of Commons adopted the following 
 resolution : — 
 
 '•This House regrets that the i^chool Act recently passed in New Brunswick is 
 unsatisfactory to a portion of the inhabitants of that province, and hopes that it may 
 be so modified tlurini; the next session of the Legislature of New Brunswick, as to remove 
 any just ground of discontent that now exists ; 
 
 " That this House regrets that the hope expressed in the said resolution has not been 
 realized. That we most humbly pray that Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to 
 use the influence of Your ^Majesty with the Legislature of New Brunswick to procure 
 such a modification of the said act as shall remove such grounds of discontent." 
 
 It was ordered that the said address be engrossed. 
 
 Now, the debate that took place on that address, to be found in the Hansard for 
 1875, and more especially the speech of the then Premier and the present Premier, are 
 well worthy of consideration, I mean on this motion of jNIr. Cootigan. The substance of 
 Mr. Mackenzie's remarks is that he regretted very much the legislation of the province 
 of New Brunswick, depriving the Catholics of any portif)n of their privileges. But he 
 said this, as will be found on page 610 of the Hanmrd of 1875 : — 
 
 " But, Sir, there is a higher principle still which we have to adhei-e to, and that is 
 to preserve in their integrit}^ the principles of the constitution under which we live. If 
 any personal act of mine, if anything I could do, would assist to relieve those who believe 
 they are living under a grievance in the province of New Brunswick, that act would be 
 gladly undertal^en and zeaJously performed ; but I have no right — this House has no 
 right — to interfere with the legislation of a province when that legislation is secured by 
 an Imperial compact, to which all the parties submitted in the Act of Confederation. 
 So soon as the majority of the people of New Brunswick, so soon as the Legislature of 
 New Brunswick, shall see fit to make such arrangements as will remove the cause of 
 discontent, I am quite satisfied that province will find it to its advantage to do so. It 
 is unfortunate tliat in any province of the confederated Dominion there should be 
 any cause for complaint when precisely the same privileges are enjoyed in 
 the large and most prosperous provinces, and while 1 feel bound to move an 
 amendment to the hon. gentleman's motion which will place on record my views 
 of the Federal compact and the obligations that rest upon us in connection with it, I 
 shall, at the same time, gladly accord my support to any course which, in the opinion of 
 Parliament — if it corresponds with my own opinion — will tend in any way to further 
 the object that the minority in New Brunswick have in view, that is, to obtain the same 
 privileges and rights tliat they enjoyed at the time of entering the Union, and which 
 they supposed they were entitled to under the compact. Sir, I have no intention to 
 discuss this matter further, because I conceive that it is quite sufficient to make the 
 remarks I have offered, to indicate my own personal feelings, and to indicate the course 
 that I propose to take. I have merely to say this, whatever may be our religious pro- 
 clivities or feelings, whatever may be the feelings which actuate us in relation to local 
 grievances, it is not well that we should endanger the safety of any of the provinces in 
 relation to matters provided for in the British North America Act, which is our written 
 constitution. Sir, it must be apparent to every one that if we were to attempt violently 
 to lay hands upon that compact for the purpose of aiding a minority in New Brunswick 
 who have a grievance, no matter however just that grievance may be — and from my 
 point of view I think it is one they have a right to complain of — however much we 
 might entertain that feeling, we have no right to do anything that will violate our obli- 
 gation to defend the constitution under which we live. I may point this out to honour- 
 able gentlemen in this House and to the country, that if it were competent for this 
 House, directly or indirectly, to set aside the constitution as regards one of the smaller 
 provinces, it would be equally competent for this House to set it aside as regards the 
 privileges which the Catholics enjoy at this moment in Ontario." 
 
 Now, I point out the significance of these words, because that is just as much a 
 part of the constitutional power of disallowance which is invoked, as was the power of 
 the province of New Brunswick over the subject of education ; therefore, the language 
 must be understood with reference to the well understood principles of the constitution 
 
85 
 
 under which we live. There could have been no violation in annulling that law, the 
 violation was in interfering with the matter of education which, while it may have been 
 disallowed, was one in regard to which it would have been a grievous wrong to the 
 province, and fraught with serious consequences to the Dominion, if there had been any 
 interference. Now, I think you, Mr. Premier, took a much stronger, and safer, and 
 better gi'ound. At page 616 I find you reported as follows : — 
 
 " Mr. Bowell desired to oflFer a few remarks in explanation of the vote he was about 
 to give. He intended to vote against the amendment of the hon. uiember for Quebec 
 Centre, and for this reason : because he (Mr. Bowell) was opposed to the passage of any 
 resolution by the House that would interfere in any way " 
 
 That was the Address to the Queen. You agreed with the resolution of Mr. 
 Mackenzie saying there should be no interference, but you declined to follow the 
 addition, that which proposed to express regret that New Brunswick had not modified 
 the law, and to ask Her Majesty to use her influence with the Legislature of New 
 Brunswick to make a change. 
 
 " He was opposed to any resolution by the House which would interfere in any 
 way, directly or indirectly, with the legislation of the province of New Brunswick, or 
 any other province upon any question, and if he understood the motion aright, it was 
 similar in character to that which was proposed by the hon. member for Stanstead two 
 or three years ago, which asked the interference of the Imperial Government. If the 
 motion proposed by the Hon. First Minister, which raised a fair and square issue, had 
 been put to the House without any milk-and-water amendment, he would have had great 
 pleasure in voting for it." 
 
 That is .what you said, and you voted for the principle that the House should not 
 interfere with the legislation of New Brunswick in the school matters of that province, 
 but you would not adopt the words proposed to be added as a soothing syrup in connec- 
 tion with it, by asking the Queen to use her influence to interfere with the will of the 
 province. Now, it will be in the recollection of the hon. gentlemen of the Privy Council 
 that shortly afterwards the question of education in Prince Edward Island came up. 
 They passed a school law in that island, and the strongest efforts were made to have it 
 disallowed, when Mr. Mackenzie's Government was still in ofiice. In a blue-book con- 
 taining the school laws and other educational matters in Assiniboia, Prince Edward 
 Island, the North-west Territories and Manitoba, including the judgment of the Supreme 
 Court respecting the appeal from the minority in Manitoba, and printed by order of 
 Parliament, you will find an account of the Prince Edward Island case, when petitions 
 were presented, in substance the same as the petitions now before you. In the Minute 
 of the Executive Council, in answer to these petitions, and to which I referred the other 
 day, I find this language : — 
 
 " The great principle that the public moneys shall not be appropriated for the pur- 
 pose of teaching sectarian dogmas or creeds, is one which a large majority of the people 
 of this province value very highly, and which they will not surrender without a strug- 
 gle, commensurate with the importance they attach to the principle itself. It has been 
 the underlying principle of our educational laws for years, and though attacked in many 
 ways and from many quarters, has so far been preserved intact." 
 
 Then Mr. Laflamme, who was then Minister of Justice, went into all the complaints 
 which formed the subject-matter of the petition. His conclusions are all that I will 
 trouble you with. He considered all the objections, and finally came to this conclusion : — 
 
 "Great stress has been laid on section 15 as imposing an unjust tax upon the 
 parents neglecting or refusing to send their children to the district school, thereby caus- 
 ing a deficiency in the average attendance, and leaving absolutely to the discretion of 
 the trustees to determine the amount and to levy an assessment on the parties. 
 
 " This provision I consider to be severe and giving somewhat arbitrary power to 
 trustees in fixing the penalty and in the selection of off'enders. It confers the power of 
 levying an additional tax at the discretion of the trustees. The previous laws give the 
 right to trustees to levy the amount of the deficiency on the district, which necessarily 
 comprised those who complied with, and those who i-efused to submit to the law. If we 
 
86 
 
 are bound to consider the right of regulating education as absolutely appertaining to 
 each })rt»vince, except where the privilege of establishing separate schools existed by law, 
 it must be {idniitted that they have equally the right to attach to the provisions of such 
 laws the conditions and penalties recjuired to secure its object ; however arbitrary or un- 
 just the mode of enforcing it may appear, it would not seem proper for the Federal 
 authorities to attempt to interfere with the details or the accessories of a measure of the 
 Local Legislature, the principles and objects of which are entirely within their province." 
 This agitation began in 1872 and went on till 1877, and here again we find that 
 both the great parties in the country seem to have adopted as their rule that there 
 should be no interference in matters of this kind. I do not know how it can be better 
 put, or more strongly, than it was by .Sir John Thompson in the debate on this question 
 in 1893. I read from JIanmrd, page 1793 : — 
 
 " The principle had been well settled in this legislature time and again that no 
 statute regarding education passed by a province ought to be destroyed by disallowance. 
 On the contrary, if it were tdtra vires of the legislature, that fact ought to be ascertained 
 and established by judicial decision. I shall refer in a few moments to the precedents 
 by which that was well laid down and well established. But it was obviously, from start 
 to finish, a principle which would commend itself to the common sense of any govern- 
 ment and any legislature." 
 
 Then, speaking of the case of Prince Edward Island, he said : — 
 "That case was obviously parallel to the New Brunswick case, as to the want of 
 sanction of law for the privileges which Roman Catholics enjoyed at the time of the 
 Union, and therefore the repealing Act was declared to be intra vires of the provincial 
 legislature, and not to be interfered with. The complaint of the Roman Catholic 
 minority of Prince Edward Island was as strong as the complaint from the province of 
 Manitoba." 
 
 Then he quotes from Mr. Blake's speech, which I find in this same volume, page 
 1810. Mr. Blake's speech was quoted by Sir John Thompson with approval. Mr. 
 Blake says : — ■ 
 
 " Those members who have long been here will well remember the New Brunswick 
 school case, which was agitated for many years, and in the course of which agitation, I 
 hoped that some political aspects of that and of analogous questions were finally 
 settled — settled, at all events, for the party with which I had acted, and for the humble 
 individual who is now addressing you. I regard it as settled, for myself, at any rate, 
 first of all, that as a question of policy — there shall be no disallowance of educational 
 legislation, for the reason that in the opinion of this parliament, some other or different 
 policy than that which the province has thought fit to adopt would be better." 
 
 Now, the reason I trespass on your time by mp.king these quotations is this : that 
 when you reflect for a moment on what is asked here, I think you will agree with me that 
 the interference by the Council in this matter, an interference which is to give jurisdiction 
 to Parliament, would be a greater violation, would be more humiliating, as I have stated 
 already, to the province, than disallowance itself. Disallowance would mean merely 
 that that particular statute is wiped out from the Statute-book, and the province would 
 still be free to go on and re-enact that law, as we know that to have been done in the 
 province of Ontario in the case of the Streams Bill, which was disallowed certainly 
 twice, and was again re-enacted, but finally remained law. That gives time for consi- 
 deration and reflection. It shows that the view taken by the central body and the view 
 taken by the legislative body, are antagonistic. It enables the people of both the 
 central and local bodies to have an opportunity for reflection and consideration, and 
 ultimately, under our system, it is to be hoped that the right course will be adopted. 
 But what are you asked to do here ? You are asked to take the first step in the passage 
 of a law, a law which, when passed, so far as the province is concerned, is absolute and 
 irrevocable, and I venture to say so far as this Parliament is concerned, is absolute and 
 irrevocable. The power of this Parliament is limited to pass such remedial law as may 
 be necessary to carry out an order made by this government. Now, Parliament makes 
 that remedial law, which cannot be interfered with by the local legislature, or even by 
 
87 
 
 Parliament itself. Under these circumstances the jurisdiction for exercising the power 
 x)f control passes away, except that it resides with the Imperial Parliament. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — That is, that the Parliament of Canada cannot repeal or 
 amend its own Acts 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Its own Act passed under this section. 
 
 Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. — Of course, the local legislature could get into the 
 same position in the event of disallowance if, in the event of a remedial order being con- 
 sidered likely to occur, they agreed to legislate. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Of course, if they legislated they could prevent all these happenings. 
 What I mean is that if the local legislature refuses to carry out any order that is made 
 here, then there is a power in the central body to pass it. But just as there is a power 
 to pass that law, it is a power ad hoc, that power being exercised, it comes to an end. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ouimet. — Do you propose to cite authorities in support of that proposi- 
 tion ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I can give you the authorities if that would be of any service to 
 the Council, on the equivalent question of powers. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Daly. — The Globe has given us authorities on exactly the same lines. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I can hand in authorities showing that when a power is given to 
 a trustee to be exercised, and is exercised by the trustee, it is then gone and he cannot 
 revoke it. I think the lawyers in the Council will agree to that. The question is 
 whether this is not just an ad hoc power. Legislation with regard to education is given 
 to the province, with that exception. Parliament had the power in 1871 to create a 
 province ; Parliament therefore had power to assign a certain portion of its authority 
 over that territory which was then called Manitoba, reserving to itself this particular 
 figment of authority respecting education, and that being exercised, it appears to me 
 that power is gone. 
 
 Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. — I suppose it is hard to find a parallel case in a 
 legislature 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — You cannot find any. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ives. — Do I understand you to say that in case a less measure of justice 
 were given, it might be supplemented 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes, and I say so still. But you cannot withdraw. If you 
 pass a remedial order in the terms of my learned friend's bill, and Parliament at the 
 first session, did not i;o the whole length of that, there would then be authority in 
 another session to implement so far as necessary, the measure, and only to that extent, 
 in order to carry out the intention of the Governor's order. Now, can you imagine, 
 with the feeling that exists throughout the Dominion with regard to provincial rights 
 and the non-interference by the federal authority, anything,' more irritating, anything 
 more calculated to disturb, and to create ill-feeling, and to destroy the harmony which 
 should prevail, than the passage of a law in Ottawa, by this Parliament, for the purpose 
 of settling educational matt- rs in the province of Manitoba ? Remember, it is not 
 because you have the power to do it that it is always wise to exercice that power. Let 
 us not forget that Manitoba was almost driven to the verge of rebellion a short time 
 ago by the disallowance of her railway laws ; let us not forget that Sir John A. 
 Macdonald found it necessary to abandon that policy of disallowance which had been 
 pursued for some years in regard to vetoing its railway bi Is which interfered with the 
 general policy of the central government regarding the Pacific Pvailway. Don't let us forget 
 that the act of the Imperial Parliament which imposed the Tea Tax was a valid and legal 
 act, but it brought about the Revolution. The Imperial Parliament has power to pass laws 
 for Canada, the Imperial Parliament is omnipotent wherever the British flag flies. Its 
 power is not questioned, but what is questioned is the wisdom, and the propriety, and 
 the statesmanlike policy of exercising that power. I speak with the greatest possible 
 deference to this body, but I speak with all the strength of language that I can command, 
 to warn (you that you are now asked to take the first step in creating a line of ditticulties 
 which, I venture to say, the youngest man sitting on that council ht,a,vd will not live to 
 see the end of. And all for what purpose? Why, Sir, in a population of probably 
 190,000 in Manitoba, there appears to be 10,000, or 15,000, or 20,000, if you like, who 
 desire to continue the system of French and Catholic schools which was established 
 
88 
 
 by an enactment passed when the legislature cannot be said to have been controlled by 
 very great wisdom, as I do not think the intelligence of those few half-breeds can 
 conijiare at all with the intelligt^ice of the later setthn's who havegone in ; I say because 
 these people passed that law is it pretended that the province is never to be at liberty 
 to repeal it ? When the province repeals it deliberately, shall a body come here and, ex 
 dehito, ask successfully that the Governor in Council shall annul the School Act and 
 restore that which they, in their wisdom and justice, thought ought to be repealed? Now, 
 I appear here representing not merely an individual but a jirovince, who are seeking to do 
 what they think in their judgment is best for themselves, seeking to work out their system 
 under dithculties that we are not capaljle here, perhaps, of appreciating to the full. "NVe 
 cannot realize the enormous task which has been cast upon them of providing for the 
 education of the people, not merely those from the older provinces of Canada, but the 
 immigrants from ioreign countries, whom they are endeavouring to weld together into a 
 honogeneous population. Under these circumstances I venture to think that this Council 
 will hesitate before they take a step which will limit or deprive the local legislature of 
 this right. Let me remind you that this question is to be viewed, not in the light of the 
 interests or feelings of the province of Quebec, or of any other part of the Dominion, but 
 in the light of the interests, and welfare, and prosperity, and peace of the province whose 
 law you are asked to change and to amend. Viewed in that light, and regard being 
 had to the circumstances which I have had the honour to submit to the Council, I 
 fully realize that I have not been able to grasp, in the time at my disposal, or 
 to master the intricacies of this question, so fully as I would have liked, in order 
 to present it properly. I ask the board to remember, that the last word has 
 not by any means been said on this question of the education of the people of the 
 province of Manitoba. Now, while my learned friend, Mr. Ewart, quarrelled 
 with what he called a neutral system of schools, I want you to remember that there are 
 just two systems, or three if you like. There is the denominational system — and, if you 
 want a definition of that, you will find it in the case of New Brunswick, which appears 
 in the official document I quoted from, showing what a denominational school is. I say 
 that while my learned friend complained of this form of religious exercises which was 
 prescribed by the advisory board, you will recollect that the Hon. Mr. Pelletier speaks 
 in str-jng language of the preference on the part of his people for a system permitting 
 religious instruction in schools, instead of the secular or godless system to which 
 reference was made. Mr. Pelletier, in the speech from whic h I quoted yesterday, says 
 
 "Mr. Laurier declares that he would only settle the school question in case the 
 schools were Protestant. If, therefore, he considers that the schools are neutral or 
 without any religion he will do nothing. I have no hesitation in saying, gentlemen, 
 that between the system of Protestant schools and neutral schools, both being had, the 
 Protestant school is yet to be preferred to the neutral schools, from many points of view. 
 In a Protestant school principles are taught to the children which Catholics do not 
 admit. In the neutral school the child is made an atheist, and he is brought up in 
 ignorance of God and of all those religious principles which should be inculcated into the 
 minds of the young in order to prepare them for the battle of life. In the Protestant 
 schools the children are taught what we Catholics believe to be errors, but they teach at 
 least that there exists a God whom all should adore and to whom all should pray. 
 The child is led into error in the manner of practising this belief in God, that he or she 
 is directed towards altars before which, in our opinion, they should not kneel, but they 
 are taught at least that their heart and their intelligence should regulate their existence 
 in view of a future and immortal life. At each day they should bow the head under the 
 beneficient influence of prayer, because faith and prayer are the two grand qualities of 
 man. In the neutral school, where all religion is banished, doubt, sceptism and incre- 
 dulity are prepared, and a population grows up without religion, which is the greatest 
 of all evils. In the Protestant school children are taught that the truths of our religion 
 are not applicable as we understand them, but the parents can, perhaps, counterbalance 
 these theories receiVed at school and correct the errors which may have taken root. In 
 the neutral school it is taught to the child who has prayed at home that prayer is not 
 necessary. Religious education for the child is the accessory and necessary complement 
 of instruction. Therefore in the neutral school this principle is reversed, or it is 
 
89 
 
 rendered inapplicable. It has been asked why not speak of religion to children in their 
 family, and speak to them of other things in their schools 1 and to it is has been added 
 that common schools could be established for all creeds. This is impossible." 
 
 I read that as the best answer to the argument of Mr. Ewart in regard to the 
 exercises of prayer that are in force in these non-sectarian schools. Therefore I conclude 
 by saying that the schools, being non-sectarian by law — so that if they transgress that 
 law they can be corrected by the courts, as the administration of any other law can be 
 corrected — the schools being such as even Mr. Pelletier says are to be preferred to a 
 secular system, being such as that a majority of the Roman Catholic children of Ontario 
 are frequenting them, being of a character such as that, according to the highest mandate, 
 the authority which all Catholics revere and respect, they are bound to send their 
 children to them, is this school system of Manitoba to be disallowed and upset by an 
 order from this Council 1 Now, I ask pardon of the Council if I make a personal refer- 
 ence, which I am veiy sorry indeed to be obliged to do. I have endeavoured to conduct 
 my argument without any personalities, or without any reference to parties, or to the 
 reasons of my speaking here in a representative capacity on behalf of the Government 
 and the Legislature of Manitoba, but perhaps, without contradiction, this allusion that 
 has been made by Mr. Ewai-t would be taken as an admission on my part that it was 
 correct. He made a quotation — I do not know why he did not do it in a manly way, I 
 do not know why he made it all. I do not know what my view has to do with this 
 question, but on page 15 of his argument he quotes fi'om a Dr. Morrisson, a gentleman 
 w^hom I have not the honour of knowing, and who does not seem to know very much of 
 what he is talking about. He says : — 
 
 "Anticipating the appearance of this question in the arena of federal polities, Mr. 
 McCarthy and his Protestant Protective Association have entered upon a campaign of 
 open hostility to the Roman Catholic church, her religion and members." 
 
 Now, I say there is not one word of truth in that from beginning to end. I am 
 not connected, and never have been connected, with the Protestant Protective Associa- 
 tion. This is not the first time I have disclaimed it. I never was even a member of 
 the order of which you, Mr. Pi-emier, was at one time, and perhaps still may be, a 
 distinguished ornament. I have never had anything to do with any such body of men. 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell — If you had, perhaps you would not have made the refer- 
 ence you did up west. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I never said one word against the order. 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — No, but your information about it was wrong. 
 Mr. McCarthy. — That mTy be so, but my father was a member of the order, and I 
 would not like to say anything that would reflect upon him, or the order to which he 
 belonged. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — I would like to have been there to meet you. 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I am willing at any time to meet you on the stump or elsewhere. 
 Now, I want to deny that I have entered on any campaign of open hostility to our 
 Roman Catholic fellow subjects. I never yet, and I hope I never shall, make any charge 
 or accusation against my Roman Catholic fellow subjects. I respect their right and 
 acknowledge their right to their religion, just as I claim the right to exercise my own 
 judgment as to what religion I shall follow. Therefore, it is a slander, and I am sorry 
 my learned friend has seen fit to put it into a document which will be widely circulated ; 
 I regret still more that if he was determined to do it, he did n,t have the manliness to 
 do it in a direct manner, instead of quoting the language of another. In conclusion I 
 beg to thank the Council for your patient and attentive hearing. I certainly cannot 
 complain of any want of attention and of respect for the gentlemen whom I represent — 
 and I shall take care so to report to them ; and whatever effect may be given to my 
 arguments, they have had at the hands of this Council a most attentive hearing, and I 
 thank you for your kindness in that regard. 
 
 Mr. Ewart. — I do not think that I said, although so reported, " Mr. McCarthy and 
 his Protestant Protective Association." I think wliat I did say was " Mr. McCarthy 
 and the Protestant Protective Association." However that may be whatever I said I 
 certainly did not intend to connect Mr. McCarthy with the Protestant Association. As 
 
90 
 
 to the other part, T think that I could fully justify myself were this the proper place. 
 However, I am very glad to take my learned friends disclaimer that he has never shown 
 any hostility to the Roman Catholic Church upon general principles, and I am sorry to say 
 in partial justification of the language I used that certainly the Roman Catholics have 
 taken his strenuous attacks upon the Jesuit Order, which is a very widespread branch of 
 their church, as an attack ujhmi their church. I do not think that if my learned friend 
 were to tjike his little hatchet and cut off an important branch of a tree and afterwards 
 deny that he hit the tree that he woidd go down to posterity as a shining example of 
 heroic truthfulness, it seems to me that he would rather be taken as making some subtle 
 distinction between the branch and the tree itself. However, I am very glad to hear 
 my learned friend say that he does not intend to attack the Roman Catholic Church, 
 and I would like his disclaimer to go further and say that he does not now intend to 
 attack a verv important branch of that church or again to charge some of the members 
 of it with having poisoned one of the popes. 
 
 And now I come to Mr. O'Donohue's statement. He was asked for his credentials. 
 He left hurriedly, I may tell the Council, and he was unable to get the credentials before 
 he came away. His co-religionists feeling that possibly he might be asked for them, 
 determined to rectify the matter, and called a mass meeting the second night after he 
 left. They have sent them after him, and as he will not have an opportunity of addressing 
 the Council again, I shall read those credentials for him : — 
 
 " On Thursday night at St. Mary's school a mass meeting of Catholics was held. 
 Matters of importance were discussed, especially Mr. John O'Donohue's departure for 
 Ottawa on the mission of testifying as a representative Catholic befoi-e the Governor 
 in Council on the school case. Severe discussion ensued, and all present strongly 
 denounced Mr. O'Donohue's posing as a representative Catholic. The meeting was 
 unanimous in denouncing him. The secretary was instructed to draft a resolution. 
 
 " A resolution was then put, unanimously carried, and directed by the meeting to 
 be wired at once to Mr. J. S. Ewart, Ottawa. The resolution as carried and sent to 
 Mr. Ewart is as follows : — 
 
 " 'We Catholics of Winnipeg, in mass meeting assembled, resolveth hei'ewith : 
 
 " ' Having heard of the departure of one John O'Donohue, a trustee of the Protes- 
 tant school board of Winnipeg, for Ottaw^a, for the alleged purpose of testifying before 
 the Governor in Council on the Manitoba school case, on behalf of the Government of 
 Manitoba, and posing as a representative Catholic of this province ; 
 
 " ' And inasmuch as the said Government of Manitoba failed to contradict the afore- 
 said allegation, when questioned thereon, on the floor of the House by a member of the 
 same ; 
 
 " ' That said John O'Donohue is not, nor never has been, a representative of the 
 Catholics of jNIanitoba, on the school question, or upon any other question ; 
 
 " ' And that we strongly and emphatically repudiate any and all such enforced 
 representation by him. Carried unanimously. 
 
 " ' (Signed) " ' D. SMITH, 
 
 " ' Chairman. 
 
 " ' O'CONNELL POWELL, 
 
 " '■Secretary' 
 
 " Following the above considerable discussion ensued. It was then moved by J. J. 
 Golden, seconded by Mr. CaiToll : 
 
 " ' That we, the Catholics of Manitoba, again reiterate the fact that we are a unit 
 on the question of having our own schools, a.nd that there is no better proof of the same 
 than that while paying our taxes to and supporting the so-called public schools, we have 
 at the same time maintained our own schools for the education of our children. Carried 
 unanimously.' 
 
 " ^Nloved by Mr. Carroll, seconded by J. A. Richard : 
 
 " ' Inasmuch as the Honourable Attorney General stated on the floor of the House, 
 
91 
 
 " ' He had always maintained that a large number of Roman Catholics did not 
 
 agree with the proceedings taken in their name, and that a large number of them pre- 
 
 f erred the public school system to any other system. 
 
 ^ ^ ^i '-ii ^ ^ 
 
 (After having read certain statistics purporting to show the illiteracy prevailing in 
 Catholic countries.) 
 
 " It would be a shame and a disgrace to perpetuate such a state of affairs in this 
 country. Taxes had been paid by Catholics for the support of schools under the old 
 system, but those controlling the school had failed in their duty." 
 
 ***** 
 
 " He did not wish to say anything derogatory of any religious creed, but if the 
 Roman Catholic clergy were allowed to override the people of this country the same 
 undesirable condition would prevail here as in other countries where they predominate. 
 
 ****>}: 
 
 " If the present school law compelled Catholic children to attend '^^chool and 
 swallow Protestant religion (it would then take away a natural right of the Catholics). 
 But the law did not do this, and having this fact in view the legislation was neither 
 unfair nor ungenei ous. 
 
 " We the Catholics of Winnipeg assembled here in mass meeting repudiate all such 
 assertions, and at one and the same time characterize them as maliciously false or wil- 
 fully ignorant. Carried unanimously." 
 
 These, gentlemen, are the credentials of Mr. O'Donohue. Now for' his evidence. 
 He tells us that the teaching in the French schools is bad. He does not understand 
 French and he bases his opinion on what he heard or saw in those schools. It does not 
 require words to displace testimony of that kind. He was however sent to curse and 
 remained to bless ; for he tells us that the convents are remarkably distinguished for 
 the good education they impart to their scholars. Now, Mr. O'Donohue knows, (and I 
 should not at all be surprised if it was the fact, with reference to two members of his 
 own family) that almost all the fem.ale teachers in the Roman Catholic schools in 
 Manitoba receive their education at those convents. These are the female teachers 
 in Manitoba whom Mr. O'Donohue condemns, who receive their education in the con- 
 vents where it is such that Mr. O'Donohue can recommend it, and he tells us that it is 
 really better than the education given in the Protestant schools. Another part of 
 his evidence is that there is a large number of the French half-breeds who are 
 unable to sign their names. I do not know at all if the iigures are accurate — for 
 my part I am quite content to have it kno%vn that there are a great many who 
 are unable to read and write. But what does Mr. O'Donohue draw from that — that 
 these Metis who are unable to read and write have been to the French schools 1 
 I return to the charge upon the public schools. I say to my learned friend, that there 
 are a large number of persons in Manitoba who cannot read or write — what do you 
 think of your public schools ? My learned friend would reply : They never went to our 
 public schools. I say that they never came to our schools, and why do you charge up 
 the illiteacy to us rather than to the public schools 1 Now what is the fact with 
 reference to these French half-breeds 1 We have taken responsibility in connection 
 with them and to the best of our ability we have discharged that responsibility. 
 Who are these French half-breeds 1 They are more Indian than they are English 
 or French, and a great many of them up to within the last few years could not speak 
 either English or French. They were not those who have settled upon farms nor who 
 had the benefit of parents who were educated such as the Scotch half-breeds who 
 were educated before they came to us and settled on farms. They were not such people 
 at all, but belong to the coureur des hois, the voyageurs, those restless individuals 
 who until within the last few years hardly owned more than a wigwam or tent. They 
 have now to some extent settled down. Prior to that the good fathers of the Catholic 
 Church followed those roving bands and gave them such education as they could, and 
 I say it redounds to the credit of those Catholic fathers if they have been able 
 now to show such a result that twenty-five per cent of such roving bands are 'able to 
 sign their names and carry on agriculture to such an extent as to deal with Mr. 
 O'Donohue for implements. 
 
92 
 
 ^ly learned fiiciid ^\r. ^IcCarthy c(jnimenced very good humouredly by warning 
 the Council against my book because he said that I have had a long connection with 
 this case and was probably very much prejudiced. Prior to his argument, I would have 
 been quite prepared to ad mi t^ that being only human I probably was very much prejudiced 
 in this case, but after having heard my learned friends address I am quite prepared in 
 comparison to claim not only j)erfect sanity but the most perfect impartiality. My 
 learned friend and I have been practising before the bar for a great many years now, 
 before judges whose fundamental principle was that there never was a wrong without a 
 rcmeilv. It has been the boast of the Court of Equity that it implemented the common 
 law system just because there were wrongs for which there were no remedies, but 
 since the Court of Equity has been in operation, and that has been a great many years, 
 the jirinciple has been that there is no wrong without a remedy. But my learned friend 
 seems to have got into a new region altogether, almost into another world, some place 
 where two and two cease to make four. For the last twenty-five years my learned 
 friend and I have been going before courts where we prove that we have a grievance and 
 that the court has jurisdiction, and what do we get? We always get relief— for twenty- 
 five years we never thought it necessary to prove an3^thing further. Although I have 
 listened to his able argument I have not found out what more we have to prove. We have 
 a grievance and there is not a remedy. I say we have got into a region that I am not at all 
 familiar with, and therefore I do not know that I shall be able to meet my learned friend's 
 contentions. Adding two and two together do not now make four. What is the 
 result? — nothing, in the region in which my learned friend has been arguing. He 
 has gone further than that— not only may there be a grievance and the power to remedy, 
 but no remedy, but he has taken the broader ground that where there is a power there 
 may be no corresponding duty. For instance with reference to the very subject of 
 disallowance we are speaking about, it would seem that there is the power to remedy, 
 but there may be no corresponding duty to consider whether you are going to exercise 
 that power or not ; there may be some other principles which would actuate you in the 
 matter. Now I desire to read the language of an authority equal to my learned friend, 
 in which it is said : — 
 
 " I venture, sir, to ask the House seriously to consider the position in which we 
 stand. The worship of what was called local autonomy which some gentlemen have 
 become addicted to is fraught, I venture to say, with great evils to this Dominion. Our 
 allegiance is due to the Dominion of Canada. The separation into provinces, the right 
 of local self-government which we possess is not to make us less citizens of the Dominion, 
 is not to make us less anxious for the promotion of the welfare of the Dominion ; and 
 it is no argument to say that because a certain piece of legislation is within the power 
 of a local parliament, therefore that legislation is not to be disturbed." (That is as I have 
 understood the purport of my learned friend's argument.) — " By the same Act of 
 Parliament, by which power is conferred upon the local legislature the duty and power 
 — because where there is a power there is a corresponding duty," — (My learned friend 
 will, I think, agree with that at all events) — " are cast upon the Governor in Council 
 to revise and review the acts of the legislative bodies. If you are to say that because 
 a law has been passed within the legislative authority of the province therefore at 
 must remain, we can easily see, sir, that before long these provinces, instead of coming 
 nearer together, will go further and further apart." (My learned fi-iend has argued the 
 other way.) " We can see that the only way of making a united Canada and building up a 
 national life and sentiment in the Dominion is by seeing that the laws of one province 
 are not offensive to the laws and institutions, and it may be to the feelings of another. — 
 I will go so far as to say that they must be to some extent taken into consideration." 
 
 I am sure that everyone will be astonished to the last degree to know that that 
 language is the language of Mr. Dal ton McCarthv in the Hansard of March, 1889. 
 It is a sound and just view, but two and two do not make four in the atmosphere in 
 which we are to-day. What was the question under consideration. Itwasthe Jesuit Estates 
 Act, where it was thought there ought to be Dominion interference although no harm 
 was done. Now having squared myself with my learned friend to some extent, 
 
93 
 
 although I hope in a manner not at all offensive to him, I wish to take up a few of 
 the arguments which he has adduced here, and I shall trouble the Council with 
 another reference to historical matters. 
 
 With reference to this historical argument the only point in dispute between 
 my learned friend and myself is as to the fourth bill of rights. He did not point 
 out anything wrong in my book, in fact he even referred to it, and I think that I 
 proved in that book that the fourth bill of rights was the one referred to and I think I 
 shall clear up any douljt about it. My learned friend proposed to prove by the " clearest 
 possible testimony " that it was the third bill of rights that the delegates took down, 
 and not the fourth. He commenced his argument under a complete misapprehension 
 and I am sure it will be noticed by every one that he had to change his argument 
 before he finished. His idea was this, that the third bill of rights was adopted by 
 the council of 24 or the legislative assembly, then, having established that, as he thought 
 he could, he was going to say that this fourth bill of rights was not before the council 
 at all or the legislative assembly, that it was altered by the executive. That was the line 
 he was pursuing ; but I corrected him and pointed out that neither bill had been before the 
 assembly and he forthwith changed front, and he asked you to assume that it was the 
 third bill of rights that the Council had prepared and that someone had afterwards altered 
 it. iSTo bill of rights was befoi'e the legislative assembly, and the only question is, 
 then, whether it was the third or fourth bill of rights that was prepared by the execu- 
 tive of that legislative assembly. He asserts that the third bill of rights was prepared 
 and was afterwards altered, but for that assertion he has nothing but the witness of 
 two individuals, and I wished to point out the extent of their evidence. The 
 first one is Mr. Begg, and it may be sufficient to displace all his authority to 
 say, that although writing in 1894, he never heard that there was any discussion as to 
 whether it was a third or fourth bill of rights. He never pretended to investigate that 
 question and in fact in an interview that I had with him he so admitted. The 
 only other testimony he offers is that of Mr. Taylor, who says that he saw a copy of 
 this bill, but whether it was the same bill, we do not know ; so that statement may go 
 for what it is worth. Now, that is the whole evidence of my learned friend. His great 
 mistake was in adopting, from the language of a pamphlet that was written before my 
 book, the statement that the fourth bill of rights was never heard of until 1890, 
 and he says significantly, that is just the time when it was wanted ; that it was 
 produced in 1890 when it was wanted in the interest of these separate schools. He says 
 it was never heard of before then. My learned friend did not listen to what I had 
 stated and proved in my opening plea, that the original of this fourth bill of rights 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — The affidavits were withdrawn, and you cannot refer to them 
 now. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — I did not withdraw, however, the certified copy of that bill of rights 
 produced from the Department of Justice, and that copy of the bill of rights has been 
 in the Department of Justice no less than 16 years prior to "the first time when it was 
 even heard of." Tnis fourth bill of I'ights was first heard of in 1870, and it is now of 
 record in the Justice Department, as having been put in at the Lepine trial, which was 
 the most celebrated trial that ever took place in Manitoba, as early as 1874, and put 
 in with evidence proving that it was the original bill of rights. 
 
 Sir Charles Tupper. — Who put it in at the trial? 
 
 Mr. EwART. — I think it was the defence. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — You must produce a certified copy. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dickey. — It is not printed. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — It ought to be printed, all the affidavits ought to be printed. 
 Now there was another point in my learned friend's argument where, as it seemed to me, 
 that the Mr. McCarthy whom I have known for a great many years, and have always 
 admired, not only for his great legal and political attainments, but for his unimpeachable 
 integrity — where it seemed to me that Mr. McCarthy had got away from himself to-day ; 
 because I cannot imagine that Mr. McCarthy, under the influence of anything but some 
 overwhelming passion or dominating prejudice, would have referred to these pledges and 
 promises which I produced and pi'oved here — I do not mean by affidavits, but in other 
 ways — in the slighting way that he has referred to them. For instance, with refei'ence 
 
94 
 
 to the compact made at the time of the union of Manitoba with Canada, when a great 
 treaty was made V)v which lialf the territory that Canada nuw possesses, was added to 
 its domains, although that treaty was made under Imperial sanction and under the view 
 and direction of Imperial officers, although he admits that " the minority perhaps, had a 
 right, under the circumstances, to expect a different state of things" from that to which 
 they are sul)jected to-day, my learned friend, instead of meeting my argument, and 
 saying directly, no, there was no such compact, has said in this technical fashion, It is 
 not in the bond, and we must be governed by the exact language. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — What agreement? 
 
 Mr. EwART. — The compact in the Manitoba Act. 
 
 Mr. ]McCarthv. — I do not quite understand you. 
 
 ^Fr. EwART. — The Manitoba Act is the agreement. My learned friend does 
 not deny that we have on record the view of Sir John A. Macdonald (who was the ne- 
 gotiator of that treaty) that separate schools had been obtained for the new territory. 
 He can see for himself that it was the opinion of their Lordships of the Privy Council, 
 indicated clearly enough, that such was the intention, "What they say is that the 
 draughting is defective, — that they cannot say that the intention was put in clear lan- 
 guage. My learned friend knows that in the course of his practice, dozens of agree- 
 ments have been reformed on account of defective draughting, but he has never raised 
 against an application to reform them such an argument as he has raised with reference 
 to this compact, that because the draughting was badly done, therefore the agreement, 
 when its intention is known and ascertained by direct, testimony, should not have its 
 agreed force. That is all my learned friend has to say. He advises you to take the advice 
 of their Lordships of the Privy Council, who say it is better to be governed by the exact 
 words. No doubt a court of law has to do that, but when my learned fiiend 
 advises you to do ^\hat a court of law does, when he advises Parliament to do what a 
 court of law does, to be bound by its own language when it knows that that was not 
 its own intention, then I say he is giving you bad advice. 
 
 Then, with reference to one of the other contracts, to one to which Mr, Greenway 
 was a party, he interposes a denial by telegram, and says that Mr. Greenway has denied 
 it. Referring to the interviews Mr. Greenway had with the Pieverend Vicar General, 
 first at the Archbishops palace and in the following morning at Mr. Alloway's office, 
 my learned friend interposes, I say a denial. Mr. Greenway has denied that before. 
 He has given a general denial to the whole statement, but he has never denied, and dare 
 not deny, that he did pay a visit to the Archbishop's palace, and made an appointment 
 with the Yicar-(xeneral for the next morning in Mr. Alloway's office to get his answer, 
 and that in pursuance of what was done there, Mr, Prendergast joined his administra- 
 tion. Mr. Greenway never attempted to deny that, and if he does, I will prove it by a 
 sheaf of affidavits. My learned friend has interposed again a technical objection to the 
 other promises that were made. He cannot deny them, for they never have been denied. 
 As to the first, when the French Catholic members assented to the abolition of their 
 great safeguard they had in the Senate, my learned friend's criticism now is that 
 what they were particularly thinking of at the time, was not the schools but the 
 French language. But there is no doubt that the language of the promise covers the 
 schools as well as the Frenc'i language, and that the promises given were wide and 
 general in their terms. My learned friend says, as a technical objection to that. Why, 
 what business had these people to make those promises 1 They were the representa- 
 tives of the people in the legislative assembly asking the French members to give up a 
 safeguard which they had. My learned friend says. Yes, they made those promise's, but 
 those whom they represented on that occasion are not to be bound by them, there was 
 no mandate to make those promises. I do not pretend that, as a matter of law, if we 
 had the signature of every individual in Manitoba at that time to these promises, they 
 would 1)6 legally binding upon the parties. I cannot say that ; I cannot even say 
 that if the province had declared by an act of the legislature so and so, that would be 
 binding. His objection goes no further than this, that technically they were not legally 
 bound. I admit that, but still I dare say that the Mr. McCarthy, whom I have 
 known to this date, has never interposed objections of that kind, to his own 
 promises, or to those of his friends. Then with reference to Mr. Martin's pro- 
 
95 
 
 mises, promises he was authorized to make by the Liberal party, my learned friend 
 interposes the same objection, he says that Mr. Martin was not authorized to make that 
 statement. Now, I do not pretend to say that the Liberal party was absolutely bound 
 by what Mr. Martin said on that occasion ; but I would put it to the Liberal party, and 
 ask if they are going to act upon principles of that kind ? I do not think ni}^ learned 
 friend would have a very high opinion of them ; I do not think he would predict for a 
 party that acted upon principles of that kind, a long lease of life. It would be impos- 
 sible, I am glad to say, for any political party to live two years in Canada and have 
 anything of a respectable following, which laid down as a principle that they could 
 make promises in profusion at the polls, but the moment they were returned to power 
 they could break them. Now, I ask the Liberal party, if they are prepared to accept 
 such principles, if they are prepared to adopt the view that their lieutenants and 
 their leaders may go before the people at a critical election, and obtain power by 
 virtue of those promises, and then turn round and say they were not authorized. It 
 seems to me all these promises have a direct bearing upon the petition we are arguing 
 here to-day. It seems to me that if we can prove, not only that we have had rights, 
 and have lost them, but that we have been tricked out of them, that is a very strong 
 argument for their restoration, and for giving a lesson to the tricksters. 
 
 I do not intend to follow my learned friend very far in his long discussion as to 
 whether this Council is sitting now as a judicial body or not. If I were to say anything, 
 it would be nothing more than this, that I should think that one could not either affirm 
 positively that they are acting as a judicial body or a non-judicial body. I should think 
 that in some senses they are judicial, in other senses they are not. But, I would say 
 that they have to proceed in this matter in a judicial manr.er, and they have to bring 
 to bear upon it a judicial spirit. There is a grievance here, there are complaints and 
 there are defendants. We come before you as an appellate jurisdiction, with our griev- 
 ance in the shape of a complaint, — by a complainant complaining against a respondent. 
 I think therefore you should proceed in this matter in a judicial spirit, to investigate 
 the complaint upon the lines justice, and fairness, and reasonableness demand, 
 and to decide upon the line of duty, not upon the line of mere political expediency as to 
 what you should do under the circumstances. I may be permitted to read here a quo- 
 tation from a speech of Mr. Blake, where he says : 
 
 " But, Sir, besides the great positive gain of obtaining the best guidance, there are 
 other, and, in my opinion not unimportant gains besides. Oui's is a popular government 
 and when burning questions arise inflaming the public mind, when agitation is rife as 
 to the political action of the Executive or the Legislature — which action is to be based 
 on legal questions, obviously beyond the grasp of the people at large ; — when the people 
 are on such questions provoked by cries of creed and race, then J maintain that a great 
 public good is attainable by the submission of such legal questions to legal tribunals, 
 with all the customary securities for a sound judgment ; and whose decisions passionless 
 and dignified, accepted by each of us as binding in our own affair? involving fortune, 
 freedom, honour, life itself are most likely to be accepted by us all in questions of public 
 concern." 
 
 This language seems to me to afford a strong reason for adopting the suggestion, I 
 might almost say, the ruling, of their Lordships of the Privy Council. My learned friend 
 has, perhaps, properly characterized what they have said in some portion of their judg- 
 ment as ohifer, that is, that what they said was not absolutely necessary in order to give 
 answers to the questions that were put to them. Nevertheless it seems to me that Mr. 
 Blake's language affords a good reason for being influenced by what their Lordships have 
 said, and for adopting the suggestions which they have made. 
 
 Mr. Ewart here suspended his argument until to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I beg to refer the hon. gentlemen of the Council to chapter 25 
 of 54 and 55 Victoria, which is the Exchequer Court Act. I draw you attention to the 
 fact that an act of Parliament is merely advisory. 
 
 At 4.30 p.m. the Privy Council adjourned. 
 
96 
 
 Ottawa, March 7, 1895. 
 The Privy Council met at 1 1 o'clock a.m. 
 
 Present : — Sir ^lackonzie Bowell, Sir Adolphe Caron, Hon. Mr, Costigan, Hon. 
 Mr. Foster, Hon. Mr. Hagyart, Hon. Mr. Ives, Hon. Mr. Ouimet, Sir Charles Hibbert 
 Tupper, Hon. Mr. Daly, Hon. Mr. Angers, and Hon. :Mr. Dickey. 
 
 ]Mr. EwAKT. — Before commencing my reply to Mr. McCarthy's arguments, I think 
 it would be well that I should summarize what, in my opinion, those arguments were. 
 It seems to me that he had nine of them, and I would like to state them, because I 
 intend to take them up and answer each in detail, and I hope satisfactorily to all. His 
 fiist argument was that there should be no coercion of a great province, more particu- 
 larly when, by so doing, its jurisdiction would be taken away, and still more particularly in 
 a local matter. His second argument was that separate schools were bad in themselves, 
 and there were various sub-headings under that one heading. The third was that the 
 present schools in Manit(iba were non-sectarian, and therefore unobjectionable. His fourth 
 was that Catholics can and do send their childi-en to the public schools, instancing such 
 cases both in Ontario and ^Manitoba. As a fifth argument, he gave us a history of the school 
 case for the purpose of showing that Manitoba is not only a unit upon this question, but 
 that it had proceeded with the greatest deliberation possible. He then said that before 
 the Council could interfere, it would have to come to the conclusion that a separate 
 school system was the best possible system, or at all events, preferable. As a seventh argu- 
 ment, he defined national schools and gave some reasons for approving of them. His 
 eighth arCTuinput was that the New Brunswick case showed that the determined and settled 
 policy of the Parliament of Canada, was non-interference in matters relating to educa- 
 tion ; and his ninth argument was that, at all events, there are very few Catholics in 
 Manitoba, and the injustice therefore cannot be very great. Commencing with the first, 
 namely, that there should be no coercion of a great province, at all events, in purely 
 local matters, and by the oflFensive method of appeal, T say that is not the true way to 
 present the case before the Council. What we are complaining of is coercion, and what 
 we ask the Council and Parliament to do is to stop that coercion. My learned friend 
 pleads for liberty for the people ; that is what we plead for. My learned friend has 
 mistaken the position. It is we who are pleading for liberty for the people, liberty 
 to have their own schools conducted in the way their consciences dictate. My 
 learned friend says. No, let Manitoba coerce all these people and dragoon them by 
 force, by applying one screw after another, to come into line and send their children to 
 schools which their consciences disapprove. He argued that in no possible case ought 
 the Dominion interfere. I ventured to quote, against that position, his own language. 
 I would remind him^ further, that that has not been the practice, and that that has not been 
 the policy with reference to the important subject of clisallowance. For instance, in the 
 Ontario Streams case, a case with which my learned friend, I think, was professionally 
 identified, he succeeded in getting the Dominion Govex'nment to intervene three times, 
 upon this principle — as can easily be found by reference to the record — that vested 
 rights should not be interfered with; that individual property was there taken 
 away without compensation ; and the principle was then laid down distinctly, and it 
 seems to me in accordance with justice, that where vested rights are taken away, that 
 where flagrant injustice is found to have been done, that where it is made clear that the 
 province is coercing and improperly interfering with the rights, even of one single indi- 
 vidual, that is a case for interference by the supreme authority vested in His 
 Excellency in Council. Then the Jesuit Estates Act, although there was no 
 interference in that case, proceeded upon precisely the same principle. It was 
 not doubted thiit if there was a case made out for interference, as in the case 
 of the Streams Bill, a case where vested rights were taken away and an injustice 
 done, there should be interference. But we all remember that it was said. Why, 
 nobody is complaining of this. Nobody knew anything about it until some gentlemen 
 in Toronto pointed out to them that there was some hidden injustice in the Act. So 
 far as the Protestants in Quebec were concerned, the Act was passed without complaint ; 
 
97 
 
 and afterwards, when certain points with reference to the Act were brought to their 
 attention, they asked the Government to amend them, and they were amended. Now, 
 I say that these two cases proceeded upon the same principle, namely, that when a 
 grave injustice is done, a case for interference is made out. 
 
 But my learned friend says, in answer to all that, and in answer to what I have 
 read from his own speech, that that will apply to every case except education. I think 
 it would be interesting to take his language, and while reading it, to make the exception 
 that he suggests. I am sure when I have finished, that, while he will still say that the 
 principle he laid down would be a very useful one for this occasion, it is one that I 
 think, he would be heartily ashamed of : — 
 
 " The worship of what is called local autonomy, which some gentlemen hav© 
 become addicted to, is fraught, I venture to say, with great evil to this Dominion — 
 except in connection with education. Our allegiance is due to the Dominion of Canada 
 
 except in relation to education ; the separation into provinces, the right of local self- 
 
 o-overnment which we possess — except in relation to education, — is not to make us less 
 citizens of the Dominion, is not to make us less anxious for the promotion of the welfare 
 of the Dominion — except in connection with education, and it is no argument to say 
 that because a certain piece of legislation is within the power of the local parliament, 
 therefore that legislation is not to be disturbed — except in connection with education. 
 By the same Act of Parliament by which power is conferred upon the local legislature, 
 the duty and power — because where there is a power there is a corresponding duty — 
 except in cases relating to education — are cast upon the Governor in Council to revise 
 and review the Acts of the legislative bodies — except in cases relating to education. 
 * * * If you are to say that because a law has been passed within the legislative 
 authority of the province, therefore it must remain — except in relation to education — 
 we can easily see that before long these provinces, instead of coming nearer together, will 
 o-o further and further apart — unless it be in cases relating to education. We can see 
 that the only way of making a united Canada and building up a national life and 
 national sentiment in the Dominion, is by seeing that the laws of one province are not 
 oflfensive to the laws and institutions, and it may be, the feelings of another— except in 
 matters relating to education." 
 
 Now, he was wrong in saying that his language had no reference to education. It was 
 laid down as a general principle, a principle with which I think all reasonable men will 
 a<^ree ; but he says now that it had no reference to education. Why did he speak of it then 
 with reference to the Jesuits Estates Act 1 That, it seems to me, had something to do with 
 education ; the lands were set apart for educational purposes ; and one of the questions 
 debated with reference to the Jesuits Estates Act, was the assertion that the money 
 was not properly applied to education, but was left to the disposition of His Holiness of 
 Rome. And why should we make an exception with reference to education — of all 
 things in the world 1 Why single out education 1 Because the constitution, the very 
 clause of which we are debating here to-day, provides specially for education 1 My 
 learned friend says there should be no disallowance, there should be no interference in 
 any case, except "with reference to education. And why no ^ when the constitution 
 makes particular reference to that very subject, and a particular provision for inter- 
 ference upon that subject 1 I would suggest to him that there is another subject that 
 he may much better except from the generality of subjects, than education, and that is 
 finance. Is the Dominion to interfere with provincial finances 1 I should think a 
 much stronger case could be made out for finance than for education, if any exception 
 is to be made, and the Jesuits Estates Act was a matter relating to finance. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— Your bill proposes to interfere with local finances. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — No. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes, you say that the grant for educational purposes should be 
 
 divided. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — What we say is that we want to be restored to the enjoyment of the 
 rights we had before they were taken away. 
 
 Then my learned friend says this is a drastic way of interfering, one that would be 
 objectionable to the local legislature I cannot see that disallowance seems to me more 
 objectionable than interfering in any other way, when there is a jurisdiction over the 
 7 
 
98 
 
 subject. In the case of disallowance, there is simply destruction. My learned friend 
 savs that it may lead to reconciliation. Well, that is not our experience so far. So far 
 from disallowance leading to reconciliation, it loads to heartburnings and to re-enact- 
 niont of the statute. I cannot see why there should be any objection on the part of the 
 province to the exercise of jurisdiction here. If the province were supreme in this 
 matter, if the province had exclusive jurisdiction in this matter, then I could very well 
 understand that the province would say, This matter is within our jurisdiction only, keep 
 your hands ofl". But when it is not such a case, when the jurisdiction is here according 
 to the constitution, what grounds have they for argument 1 Apart from the constitu- 
 tion, of course, you can argue anything you like ; but what ground for complaint have 
 thev, under the constitution, that the Dominion Govei-nment or Parliament should inter- 
 fere ? The Supreme Court at Ottawa undertakes, under Dominion legislation, to interfere 
 with the decisions of our own courts. What business have they to do it ? The reply is. 
 That is the constitution, and if you don't like it, of course, agitate and get it changed. 
 Mv learned friend says that if the Parliament of Canada passes an act, such act 
 remains for ever, it can never be undone. I do not agree with him on that point. But 
 if he is right, it seems to me that it is an argument that ought to apply more to the 
 Provincial Government, to the Provincial Legislature, than to the Dominion authorities. 
 It seems to me that his argument means this, Don't remedy this wrong that has 
 been done because, if you do, you cannot take away that remedy afterwards : 
 that is, let this grievance remain unremedied, because if you apply the remedy the 
 remedy is going to remain. Now that seems to me an extraordinary argument. It 
 may be an argunient to apply to the local legislature :— You are losing your jurisdiction. 
 But I do not agree with him that Parliament would not have power to repeal. If you 
 will allow me, I will make a suggestion how to obviate all difficulties. The Dominion 
 could pass a statute for a limited time and then it would run out. That is one way of 
 relievin," the difficulty. That, however, would not suit us at all, because we might have 
 just as bad a government at the end of 10 years as we have now. Then, there is 
 another suggestion. The Dominion Parliament could pass an Act which would be in 
 force untif repealed, and as soon as it was repealed, it would cease to have force, not 
 because of the repeal, but because of the provision in the original statute. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Haggart. — Do you mean to say we could assume jurisdiction for ever by 
 putting in a clause of that kind, that we preserve the power always of repealing it 
 afterwards. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — Yes, of repealing the statute afterguards. 
 
 When he says that this is purely a local matter, I cannot agree with him at all. 
 It does not .seem to me at all to be a matter of indifference to the whole Dominion, 
 that the principle of coercion should actuate legislation in Manitoba, and whether 
 vested rights are to be interfered with there or not. It seems to me Canada is 
 interested in the progress of Manitoba, as of every other province, and an injustice 
 there cannot be tolerated without injury to the whole. Suppose, however, that 
 it is merely a local matter, then, the only complaint is that under the constitution 
 the local legislature is not supreme. I would like to point out that the local 
 lef^islature is more supreme over its local affairs than is any state in the Union. 
 No state in the Union has power to take away vested rights, but the province 
 of Manitoba to-day has more power with reference to vested rights— and that is 
 what we are dealing with here— than has any of the States ; and yet Manitoba 
 objects and says she has not got power enough. I say that the only objection is with 
 the constitution, if it has not given her greater power than any state in the Union. In 
 the States such legislation is ultra vires; here, however, the province has power 
 to pass legislation, subject, not to be declared n/tra vires, but to be overridden 
 by the better judgment of Parliament. There are a variety of local matters, however, 
 other than these which are provided for in the constitution, that are beyond the powers 
 of the local legislature. For instance, there is one that, if it were in force in Ontario, I 
 think my learned friend would have pointed it out long before now : there is one with 
 reference to Quebec, namely, that Quebec is utterly unable to alter twelve of her 
 own constituencies ; she is prohibited from doing that by the British North America 
 Act. What is more absolutely a local matter than arranging constituencies for the 
 
99 
 
 Legislative Assembly? yet the province of Quebec cannot do it. And why not? 
 Because it was so provided for the protection of the Protestants in the province 
 of Quebec. That was not to be done, and they have never attempted to do it, 
 and of course they are not going to do it. I say that there is a local matter, 
 and yet the province has not supreme power to deal with it ; because such is 
 the constitution. No province is supreme in reference to matters relating to 
 agriculture. Any province may pass a law with reference to agriculture, but the 
 British North America Act gives power to the Dominion to override any such law. 
 What is more local in its nature than a matter relating to agriculture 1 Yet, that is 
 the constitution, we are bound by the constitution, and we cannot get away 
 from it. Now, I wish to point out that at the time of Confederation this subject was 
 brought up for discussion, and this power of disallowance was discussed at great length. 
 It was suggested that the pi'ovinces should not have power to take away vested rights 
 within those provinces. It was foreseen that in the pro^dnces, some of them very imma- 
 ture, there might be an interference with vested rights, and a great injustice done ; but 
 it was thought better to reserve the disallowance power for the central authorities. I 
 do not wish to trouble you with long quotations from the debates, but I will give you 
 merely a citation from Mr. Clement's book on the Canadian constitution, page 173 : — 
 
 " Throughout the debates it was clearly recognized that the exercise by the 
 Dominion Government of the power of disallowance was to be exercised in support of 
 federal unity, eg. to preserve the minorities in different parts of the confederated 
 provinces from the hands of the majorities." 
 
 Now, my learned friend used an argument — I think it was suggested by the Secre- 
 tary of State— that if the Roman Catholics were in the majority in Manitoba, and they 
 pi'ovided for public schools according to their way of thinking, ought the Dominion to 
 interfere ? He says. No, if there was a conscience clause for the benefit of Protestants. 
 There would be a case, he thinks, if the Roman Catholics did what the Protestants have 
 done here, unless the Catholics provided for the conscience of Protestants. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — No, you did not understand me. If they established denomina- 
 tional schools, which I do not admit, and deny that they have been established here. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — If they established schools according to their way of thinking, of course 
 they would be denominational schools, and if they did not provide for the conscience of 
 Protestants, then there ought to be interference ; and yet we have here a system of 
 schools with no provision for the conscience of Catholics, and there ought to be no 
 interference ! It shows the different ways one can look at the same thing. 
 
 His next argument is that separate schools are bad, and he gives quotations. I do not 
 pretend to dwell long upon them in reply. He argued that the dogmas taught in the 
 denominational schools violated the principle of the separation of church and state ; yet 
 he himself advocates the teaching of religion in schools where the population consists, as 
 he read, of Icelanders, Mennonites, Polish Jews, French, Hungarians, Finlanders, and 
 Gaelic-speaking Crofters, besides Protestants and Catholics. I hope he may never be 
 asked to formulate a religion which is going to be suitable to all these . He says that 
 separate schools are injurious to unity, and he quotes from Dr. King to that effect, a 
 gentleman who, while advocating unity for the Catholics, has been for many years 
 engaged in conducting a separate school, although of a voluntary character, which has 
 for its object the withdrawal of Presbyterians and others from the common schools. 
 
 Then his contention with reference to separate schools is that they produce 
 illiteracy. I have never been able to understand at all how it is that illiteracy 
 is connected with church government or any other government of schools. I can 
 very well understand that it has some bearing upon the character of peoples ; it may 
 have some bearing upon their character in this way, that some nations may not be so 
 anxious for education as others. But I cannot see how it has any bearing one way or 
 another upon the question, Which is the best system of schools ? — because none of those 
 schools produce illiteracy. It is not charged by my learned friend, or any one else, 
 that if people go to those schools, or schools of any kind, they come out illiterate. He 
 has given a good many statistics for the purpose of showing that in Catholic countries 
 illiteracy does prevail. Now, he does not pretend that that is because of the Catholic 
 
 7i 
 
100 
 
 religion ; because he admits that in Belgium, which is almost entirely Catholic, illiteracy 
 is almost unknown. He does not pretend, either, that it is because the schools are under 
 church govornnuMit. » 
 
 Mr. .McCahtiiy. — Yes, that is what I do pretend. 
 
 Mr. EwAUT. — Well, if he does, all I can do is to refer him to England where, until 
 1870, all the schools were unrler church government, and more than one-half of them 
 are umler church governmont to-day. I do not think he will undertake to say that 
 England is an illiterate country. However, I do not at all admit those statistics, which 
 he says have been so carefully compiled. There have been handed to me some other 
 statistics, which I will take the liberty of reading, and which, perhaps, are more accurate 
 that those given by my learned friend. 1 have here a statement of the attendance at 
 schools in different countries. In Norway, Sweden and Denmark, where the population 
 is almost entirely Protestant, the attendance is 14 per cent. In the United States, 
 where there are ") 1,000,000 Protestants and 9,000,000 Catholics, the attendance is 13 
 per cent. In Great Britain and Ireland, where the proportion of Protestants to Catho- 
 lics is 29i to 5J, the attendance is 12.3. In France, where the population is almost 
 entirely Catholic, except the 4,000,000 that are put clown as having no religion, and 
 they are omitted from calculation, the attendance at school is 17 per cent, more than 3 
 per cent higher than any other country in the world. In Austria, which is almost 
 entirely Catholic, having 20,000,000 Catholics to 400,000 Protestants, the attendance is 
 13 per cent, or about that in the United States. In Spain, which is almost entirely 
 Catholic, the attendance is 10.6; in Italy, which is almost entirely Catholic, it is 9 per 
 cent. So that these figures prove how foolish it is to rely upon statistics of this kind 
 to support an argument for the purpose of founding legislation upon it. 
 
 Mr. McCakthv. — If both sets of statistics are correct, what is the explanation of 
 the fact that the larger the number attending schools, the larger the number who come 
 out illiterate 1 
 
 Mr. EwART. — The answer to that is that your statistics are all w rong. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — That is not an answer. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — I think that is the best answer, and needs no other. 
 
 Mr. ]McCARTnY. — My statistics are t iken from the Statesman's Year Book. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — Your statistics, even if they be true, do not prove anything with 
 reference to education. My learned friend might as well argue, but perhaps the argu- 
 ment would come better from me, that the Pi-otestant religion is unfavourable to art, 
 to painting, to music and things of that kind. As a proof of that I would contrast 
 England with Italy. I would say, too, as another proposition, that Protestantism was 
 altogether unfavourable to culture of manners, politeness and so on, and I would refer 
 him to England and Germany as against all the Catholic countries in the world. He 
 would have to admit those facts, but he would not be willing to admit the deduction I 
 draw from them. In the same way, when he says that in Catholic countries, his 
 statistics show a certain amount of illiteracy, I tell him that all they pi'ove is that the 
 southern nations are not so eager for education as are northern nations. When 
 he goes amongst northern nations he will find a Catholic nation like Belgium, 
 eager for education, and well educated. The line he has drawn is not between Protes- 
 tantism and Catholicism in their bearing upon education, but the line is between north- 
 ern nations and southern nations. Anyone who knows anything at all about ethnology 
 knows that these peoples differ in many respects, even upon the question of education. 
 
 Mr. McCartiiy.^ — Quebec is further noi-th then Ontai-io. 
 
 Mr. Ewart. — I think the only fair way to test a matter of that kind is to take the 
 two systems under the same circumstances. Take them with the same environment and 
 at the same period. For instance, let us take the separate schools and the public schools 
 in Ontario. There we have the same kind of people, at least largely the same kind, 
 living in the same country, subjected to much the same influences ; and yet the Y''ear- 
 Book for 1893, to which my learned friend goes for his statistics, also tells us that the 
 attendance upon the separate schools is about 5 per cent larger than in the public 
 schools, and the cost is less. I think that is the only fair way to make the comparison. 
 
 Then he has another argument against separate schools. He quoted statistics to 
 show that amongst the provinces, Quebec always stood at the foot. I observed, how_ 
 
101 
 
 ever, while he was i eading, that he told us also that Ontario generally stood at the top 
 of the list. If there are two provinces in which both the separate and the public school 
 systems prevail and that of those two pi'ovinces one is at the top and the other at the 
 bottom of the list, what he can make out of that, in the way of proving either in favour 
 or against separate schools, passes my comprehension. 
 
 Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. — I think Nova Scotia came third in his list ; and 
 though they have not a separate school system on the Statute-book, they have it in 
 practice. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — At the same time, in one province the Catholics are in a large 
 majority and in the other the Protestants are in a large majority. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — Does my learned friend say that teaching a little religion in the 
 schools is a bad thing for education ? No, he does not say that ; he says it is well to 
 keep religion in the schools. But does he say that teaching the Catholic religion in the 
 schools is a bad thing ? I do not think he would say that after the disclaimer of 
 yesterday. Then where is there anything that militates against the success of separate 
 schools ? In Ontario, for instance, they are working under the same rules and regula- 
 tions as are the public schools, with the same kind of inspectors, the same books, and 
 the same government regulations? They have a little Catholic religion taught 
 there, and does he say that makes a difference ? If so, I am afraid I shall not be 
 able to give him credit for his disclaimer of yesterday. 
 
 Then he attacks the separate schools, particularly in Manitoba. I think we have 
 been quite prepared to hear that in Manitoba the teachers are not up to the full standard 
 that they are in Ontario. Where there are a great many schools with a very small attend- 
 ance, and where the salaries are necessarily low because of the poverty of the people, 
 one would be quite prepared to hear that the schools were not up to the Ontario standard. 
 But the defect is not altogether upon the side of separate schools. For instance, if we 
 take up the report for last year of the public schools in Manitoba and look at the statis- 
 tics on page 8 with reference to teachers, we find that out of 997 teachers, 222 were put 
 down as untrained, not quite a fourth of them, but still about one-fourth of them are 
 altogether untrained. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Untrained at Normal schools. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — They have had no training as teachers, and I think that is not to be 
 wondered at under the circumstances. 
 
 My learned friend read some examination questions for the purpose of showing 
 how absurd some of the questions are which teachers are required to answer. Many of 
 them, however, I, for one, quite approve, that is, if the catechism is going to be taught 
 in the schools, and he says he has no objection to religion being taught in the schools. 
 If the catechism is to be taught in the schools, I can .see no objection to a-^king the 
 questions upon it that my learned friend has i-ead. Then as to those questions which 
 were written, if not read, with a sneer, questions as to the way to address dignitaries — 
 all I can say is that I wish that they had been taught in the schools when I was young. 
 If we are going to have dignitaries, one thing we ought to know is how to address them. 
 But the absurd questions are not altogether in the Catholic schools. I can give, if neces- 
 sary, a number of very absurd questions that have been put at Protestant examinations, 
 and I am sorry to say, even in the Civil Service examinations to the ladies employed 
 in the post office department. I remember one that was put to those young ladies who 
 are busy sorting letters all day, was this : " What is the deepest lake in the world V 
 No particular book was prescribed for studying that subject. 
 
 Hon. ]Mr. Foster. — They wanted a place to sink dead letters. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — [ suppose that must have been the explanation of it. In an examina- 
 tion of Protestant teachers not very long ago, there was this question, " How many legs 
 has a spider ?"' I think, however, the best way to answer such statements is to read 
 from a pamphlet that was issued by His Grace the late Archbishop Tache, telling of the 
 success of the Catholic exhibits sent over to the Colonial Exhibition in 1885 : 
 
 "In the fall of 1885, Sir Charles Tupper visited the province with the view of 
 having it take part in the International Exhibition which was to take place in 
 England during the following year. The Catholic section of the Board of Education 
 was invited to help in the exhibit. The proposition at first was met with little favour, 
 
102 
 
 it was aftei- vacation ; the schools had hardly organized for the new year ; there was no' 
 time to prepare anything new; nevertheless, the Canadian Commissioner was so pressing 
 that objections were overruled, and a collection was made in some of the nearest schools 
 out of the work of the pujiils of the previous year. The most advanced had left their 
 chisses, some of the best work had been lost or carried away, and none had been prepared 
 in view of the exhilntion. Eight schools furnished samples of their work in ditlerent 
 branches, the whole was forwarded to England, it was exhibited there, it attracted so> 
 nuu-li attention that every article exhibited was examined, re-examined, in such a way 
 that when they were returned, their condition j^i'oved tliat they had jjassed through a 
 great many hands. A diploma of merit and a medal of honour were sent to each of the 
 schools, as well as to their superintendent, who had contributed to the exhibit, and we 
 had a proof that such complimentary recognition was not merely a matter of form. 
 Capt. W. Clarke, as every one knows, was the ^Manitoba representative at the Colonial 
 and Indian Exhibition, and here is the way the gallant and intelligent representative 
 wrote to the Superintendent of Catholic schools in Manitoba : — 
 
 " 'London, 27th July, 1886. 
 
 " ' Dear Sir, — I can speak with experience with reference to the excellence of 
 your section, two of my daughters having been for a long time with the good sisters of 
 St. Boniface, where their progress was as satisfactory to me as it was pleasant to them.. 
 
 " ' I am, sir, 
 
 " ' Your obedient servant, 
 
 (Signed) " ' WILLIAM CLARKE. 
 
 " ' T. A. Bernier, Esq., 
 
 " ' Supt. of Education.' 
 
 ^Ir. Clarke is not a Catholic, nor has he shown any tendencies towards Rome, but 
 through his daughters he has acquired some knowledge of a Catholic school in Manitoba, 
 and so was prepared to acknowledge without surprise the merit of their exhibit. 
 
 Sir Charles Tupper is not a Catholic either, and is known all over for his 
 superiority and patriotism ; here is the way that the Canadian High Commissionec 
 speaks of the Catholic schools of Manitoba : 
 
 " Colonial and Indian Exhibition, 1886. 
 " Canadian Section, 
 
 "London, 29th July, 1886. 
 " To T. H. Bernier, Esq. 
 
 " My dear Sir, — I duly received your letter of the 3rd inst., and thank you for the 
 memorandum which you have prepared on behalf of your section of the ^Manitoba Edu- 
 cational exhibit. I shall be pleased to receive a thousand copies of the memorandum 
 and to see that they are carefully distributed. The exhibit which you have taken such 
 pains to collect has already attracted considerable attention, and I do not doubt it will 
 add to the success of the Dominion at the exhibition. 
 
 "I remain, yours faithfully, 
 
 (Signed) "CHARLES TUPPER." 
 
 Is it possible 1 can anything good come from that (sort of) Nazareth 1 Yes, friends, 
 come and see that Sir Charles Tupper does not hesitate to say that the exhibition of the 
 ordinary work of the pupils of Catholic schools of Manitoba will add to the success of 
 the Dominion at the exhibition. If you are not satisfied with such testimonies, listen 
 to the following remarks published in the Canadian Gazette of London, on the 4th 
 November, 1886:— 
 
 " ' It is generall}' believed, that of all the sister provinces, that of Manitoba is the 
 least advanced towards civilization. We already know, that in many respects, such is 
 not the case, but if we consider the excellent scholastic exhibition of that province, we 
 see in what degree that impression is erroneous, especially in the matter of education. 
 
 " ' The collection contains samples of books, exercises, scholastic material, etc., etc., 
 coming from the Catholic schools as well as from the Protestant schools of the province. 
 
103 
 
 " ' The excellence of the work, and especially of the geographical charts, is incon- 
 testible. This is the more pleasing, if we consider the fact that many exhibits are 
 dated from the year 1884, and the beginning of the year 1885. It is evident the 
 exhibit is composed of the ordinary duties of the schools in all parts of the province, 
 and not of work specially prepared for the occasion. 
 
 " ' Xo pretention has been made to eclipse the school exhibits of the other provinces, 
 but the collection that is under our eyes denotes that in one of the most recently 
 'organized ' provinces of the Confederation, there exists a school system, which although 
 respecting the faith and religious convictions of the population, offers to every one an 
 education capable of fitting for the highest rank in the society, the child who is placed 
 under its care." 
 
 My learned friend's next argument was that Catholic children go to the public 
 schools, both in Ontario and in Manitoba. He quite admitted, too, that that had been 
 brought about, so far as Ontario was concerned, by a policy of friendship and concession ; 
 that because the Catholics were satisfied, and there was no struggle going on, they natur- 
 ally drifted into the public schools. He quite admitted, too, that the effect of Mr. 
 Meredith's ajjitation against Catholic schools, was not to drive them further into the 
 public schools, but to drive them in the other direction, and that there had been a large 
 increase of separate schools owing to that agitation. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — An increase, not a large increase. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — It seems to me that there is here a great lesson for the province of 
 Manitoba. Would it be justifiable for this Council and for the Dominion parliament 
 to interfere, in order to carry out Manitoba's own object 1 If Manitoba's own object is 
 to get all these children into one school, what is the proper way to go about it 1 Looking 
 at Ontario, for example, is it by coercion 1 Is it by contesting the matter with the 
 Catholics, or is it by conciliation, by letting them have their own way 1 If we are to 
 believe his statistics for Ontario, clearly the latter course is the best one to follow. So 
 I say that parliament would be helping the object that Manitoba says she has in view, 
 by adopting the proper course to attain that object, antl not the one that Manitoba, 
 in its foolishness, has seen fit to adopt. But I deny the correctness of his statistics 
 upon that point. There are a number of considerations which go to annihilate them 
 completely. It must be remembered that a large number of schools in Ontario, although 
 called public schools, are in reality separate schools, that is, the Catholic religion is 
 taught there ; that by a process of severe winking, such as my learned friend says 
 Manitoba is quite willing to engage in, the schools, although public schools, are really 
 of a character satisfactory to Catholics. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy — You are assuming I said that ; I do not know that to be the 
 case. 
 
 Mr. EwART — I think you do know that that is being done in Manitoba. But I do 
 not know that you know it is being done in Ontario. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy — I do not know that it is being done in Manitoba. 
 
 Mr. EwAUT — My statement with reference to Ontario is based upon the opinions of 
 a great many individuals. The County of Essex I would mention particularly as a 
 county very much in point. Then, it must be remembered that a large number of 
 Catholics in Ontario are scattered, and it is therefore impossible to get them together. 
 
 So far as Manitoba is concerned, he makes what would be a strong point without 
 explanation, when he says that in the course of four or five years since the school acts 
 have been in force, no less than 36 separate schools have come in under the public school 
 system and have complied with the requirements of the statute. Now that is not so, 
 and what has been done has been accomplished in the most objectionable manner. The 
 Acts of 1890 were no sooner passed than a gentleman who spoke the French language, 
 was employed to go into the Catholic school districts and visit the trustees and the 
 parents, going from house to house, with the view of getting them to adopt the public 
 school system. Then commenced what may be termed the temptation on the prairie. 
 That gentleman, whether he was so instructed or not, used this ai'gument : Come away 
 from the Catholic schools, come into the public schools, and you will 
 save money by it. You will get the Parliamentary grant, you will get 
 
104 
 
 your share of the municipal taxes, and you won't have to pay for the Protestant 
 schools or the public schools, and at the same time support your own schools. However, 
 he met with litth* success, as these statistics sutHciently show. For the first three years,he 
 met with little success, although various expedients were resorted to. For instance, they 
 were asked not to abandon the books which they had before, but merely postpone their 
 religious training i.ntil after 4 o'clock. After he had got in a certain number that way, 
 he found he could get no more. He had got, I think, about a dozen out of the whole 
 province, with inducements of that kind, appealing to their poverty and appealing to 
 their ideas of getting education for their children. The Act of 1894 was 
 then brought into force, and, as he says himself, the effect of that was the with- 
 drawal of $20 a month from the schools. My learned friend says, to quote his own 
 laniTuajre, " the withdrawal of 820 a month has forced them to come in." That is what 
 it was passed for. They had not got more than a dozen schools out of all the separate 
 schools in Manitoba. Prior to the Act of 1894, the Catholics could tax themselves, or 
 rather procure from the municipalities where they were all Catholics, a sum of $20 a month. 
 The ^lanitoba government put on another screw, and the result was that a large number 
 of the schools came in. But to what extent did they come in? The Manitoba government 
 or legislature had succeeded in turning the Catholic religion out the front door in order to 
 gratify Protestants, or some of them, and then, in order to satisfy the Catholics, they 
 said, " let it come in at the back door as long as you do not say anything about it." 
 The fact is to-day — the superintendent may contradict me if it is not true — the Catholic 
 religion is taught there exactly the same as before, in every one of the schools. 
 
 Mr. Blakely. — Xo. 
 
 Mr. EwART.— If he means it is not taught in the same way he probably means that 
 it is not taught at the same time. Before 1890 it was taught during the school hours 
 between 9 and 4 o'clock ; since 1890 it has been taught from 4 o'clock to 4.30. That is 
 the difference between the schools. Thus, what were Catholic schools before 1890, 
 and what were called Catholic schools, are given credit for being public schools now. 
 The difference between them is this, that then religion was taught between 9 and 4 and 
 now the children are kept in for another half hour in order that it may be taught them. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I think that is permissible under the law. 
 
 Mr. EwART.— No, it is not permissible under the law. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. —Why not ? 
 
 Mr. EwART. — I will read my friend the law. 
 
 " Religious exercises in the public schools shall be conducted according to the re- 
 gulations of the advisory board. The time for such religious exercises shall be just 
 before the closing hour in the afternoon." 
 
 So, according to the law it is just before the closing hour, and according to the 
 practice just after the closing hour in the afternoon. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy.— You hold political meetings in the public schools. 
 
 Mr. Ewart. — Section 8 of the Act says : — 
 
 " The public school shall be entirely non-sectarian and no religious exercises shall 
 be allowed therein, accept as above provided." 
 
 The Catholic religion is still taught, as it was before. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Xot during school hours. 
 
 Mr. Ewart. — But I am showing that the only difference is, that while formerly the 
 Catholic religion was taught during school hours, now it is taught during the next hour 
 thereafter. The advisory board have the power to fix the school hours as they like. 
 They have fixed the hours from 9 o'clock to 4. Suppose they fixed the hours from 9 
 to 3.30, then if the teachers occupied the half hour after school hours in teaching 
 religion, the state of affairs would be just what it is now. The only difference would be that 
 the school hours would he changed a little. So, that what my learned friend objects to 
 is not to the teaching of religion in the schools, but to teaching during school hours, 
 insisting that the children should be kept in after school hours to teach it to them. 
 Now, there might be something said in favor of that if there were Protestants in the 
 districts affected as well as Roman Catl.olics, but where, as is the great majority of these 
 cases, none but Catholics go to the schools in question, I cannot see the soundness of 
 
105 
 
 this objection. All this fight and turmoil is about the question whether the children 
 should be taught religion just before or just after 4 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. McCakthy. — And all you are arguing for is for a change in the law which will 
 enable the teaching of religion to be carried on half an hour before, rather than half an 
 hour after four o'clock. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — We want our rights secured by law and not left to the whim of the 
 
 government 
 
 ^ly learned friend says that not only according to the practice in ^Manitoba 
 and Ontario can the children attend the public schools, but he says that the 
 Catholic doctrine permits it. My learned friend reminds me of what Lord Morris said 
 in his rich brogue, when the case was being argued before the Privy Council. My 
 learned friend may remember 
 
 Mr. ^McCarthy. — I remember the brogue. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — Speaking with reference to Dr. Bryce's affidavit, Lord Morris 
 remarked : " This gentleman gives it as his individual opinion that the Catholic religion 
 ought to be something entirely diflferent from what it is." So my learned friend is 
 trying to make the Catholic religion something entirely diflferent from what it is. I 
 have here a statement of the -Catholic doctrine, and I can show it him in the original, 
 but it is in a language I fear he would object to as much as he does to the French. It is 
 in Latin, but I can give him a free translation : — 
 
 " The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in relation to education were com- 
 municated to the American bishops by the late Pope Pius IX. and confirmed by Pope 
 Leo Xril. that the members of the church should be warned against frequenting the 
 public schools wherein the religion of the Roman Catholic Church is not taught. 
 
 " While this is the general principle, yet the Roman Catholic Church, not being 
 inimical, as is so often alleged, either to elementary education or to instruction in the 
 higher studies, permits its children to avail themselves of the advantages of the public 
 schools in cases where there is no fear of perversion and where it is impossible to pro- 
 vide church schools." 
 
 So that it will be seen that public schools can be attended by Catholic children only 
 under two limitations : first, that Catholic schools cannot be established and, second, 
 that the public schools are free, at all events, from positive objection. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — But that has been changed by what I read from the ablegate. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — I do not think so. 
 
 My learned friend goes into the history of the school Acts with a view of showing 
 that the law has been adopted of set purpose and deliberate intention by the people 
 of Manitoba. But he has been altogether too modest in the history of these school Acts. 
 He forgets the part which he took himself— and he will forgive me for referring to him 
 in this connection, because it is impossible to tell the history of these school Acts 
 without referring to him. He says that the history commenced in 1876. Well, at that 
 time Professor Bryce, who has taken an active interest in this question, wrote a pamphet 
 on the subject. But that is all that was done ; the pamphlet fell flat and dead. Thirteen 
 years intervened without a single word of complaint. There was not a man in 
 Manitoba who knew that there was a grievance with reference to separate schools. We 
 did not hear a word about it. No political party, no politician, no clergyman, no 
 private individual, so far as I know, said a word about it. The first word, so far as I 
 know, was spoken by my learned friend. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — That is not corre'ct. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — It is absolutely correct. 
 
 Mr. McCarthys — It is absolutely incorrect. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — I think I can prove what I say. My learned friend is reported to 
 have said on one occasion that he was forestalled in this matter by Mr. Smart, who was 
 then a member of the Government of Manitoba, in his speech at Clearwater. But my 
 learned friend is in error about that. Mr. Smart did speak at Clearwater, but he did 
 not advocate the abolition of separate schools ; what he did advocate was the combina- 
 tion of the government of the two sets of schools under one power, and that is all he 
 advocated. The first word said in favour of the abolition, or suppression rather, of 
 
loe 
 
 separate schools in Manitoba, so far as I know (apart from Prof. Bryce's pamphlet in 
 1876), was spoken b}- my learneil friend in Portage la Prairie in 1889. I think my 
 learned friend's suggestion that he was not the first relates to wh^t I have mentioned — 
 he thinks he was anticipated by Mr. Smart at Clearwater. I want to read what my 
 learned friend said at Portage la Prairie and what was said on the same platform 
 imiiiediaU'ly afterwards by Mr. Joseph Martin. I think Mr. Martin got his cue from 
 my learned friend, but however that may be, he was the one who introduced the Schools 
 Act, forced it upon his own government, and carried it. Then I want to read what Mr. 
 Smart said at a subsequent period, this Mr. Smart who was supposed to have forestalled 
 my learned friend by his announcement of a policy of the Government. I will read 
 what my learned friend said at Portage la Prairie. 
 Sir CiiAs. HiBHKRT TuppKR.— This was in 1889 1 
 ]Mr. EwAUT. — Yes. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — In August, 1889, after Mr. Smarts speech. 
 
 ^Iv. EwART. — This was three days after Mr. Smart's speech at Clearwater and 
 several days before his speech at Wawanesa. My learned friend said : — 
 
 " There was something for the politician to live for ; we have the power to save 
 this country from fratricidal strife, the power to make this, a British country in fact as it 
 is in name. In order to acomplish this other issues must for the moment give way. 
 We have got to bend our energies and let it be understood in every constituency that, 
 whether a man call himself Grit or Tory, Conservative or Reformer, his record is clear, 
 his principles are sound and no influence at Ottawa will induce him to betray his great 
 trust. The speaker was glad to inform the meeting that the poor, sleepy Protestant 
 minority of Quebec were at last awake." 
 
 My learned friend, as you will remember, had been arousing them with his Equal 
 Rights Association and had had some success in opening their eyes. 
 
 " He trusted before many weeks to address a meeting in Montreal and to realize 
 that that minority is sound to the core on this question. There is the separate school 
 que-tion here and in the North-west, and there is the French school question in Ontario ; 
 we have all the work to do in our various localities ; let us do that first before we seek 
 to traverse fields before more difficulty is to become encountered because vested rights 
 have become solidified." 
 
 That is the first word said, apart from Dr. Bryce's pamphlet, so far as I am aware, 
 for as to Mr. Smart's speech at Clearwater, I hope to show you that it does not relate to 
 the suppression of separate schools. ]Mr. Joseph Martin was on the platform when my 
 learned friend delivered his speech. He was a member of the Greenway Government, 
 of which Mr. Smart also was a member. If Mr. Smart, a few days before had announced 
 the policy of the Government, Mr. Martin w^ould have known it and would have told 
 the people what the policy of the Government then was — for it could have been no secret 
 if it had been announced by jNIr. Smart sometime before. But this is what Mr. Martin 
 said : — 
 
 " He could not say that it had been announced by the Government at least not 
 very definitely, what action they proposed to take in connection with the dual language 
 and separate school system in this province, which w^ere subject of an entirely similar 
 nature with the discussion now going on with regard to the disallowance to the Act in 
 Quebec. But he thought it had been very well known in this province for some years 
 back what his own individual feelings were in regard to the use of two languages in the 
 legislature." 
 
 I will read what Mr. Smart said at Wawanesa. 
 
 Mr. McCahthv.— That is not all Mr. Martin said. If I remember rightly, he 
 went on to say that he would abolish the dual language sytem. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — I have read what he said about separate schools. 
 
 Mr. ^McCarthy. — I do not think he says he will do anything about separate 
 schools, but that he will abolish the dual language system. 
 
 3Ir. EwART. — That is what I am speaking about. He did not pledge himself as to 
 separate schools, but if the Government policy had been announced he would have 
 pledged himself on that question. 
 
107 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — It had already been announced. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — His abstention from doing so is proof that it had not been announced. 
 I will read you what Mr. Smart said a few days afterwards : — 
 
 "It was not his intention, neither by speech nor inference, to be understood as 
 speaking disparagingly of Roman Catholics. They were as much entitled to their rights 
 as any other people, and he would defend them as energetically as he would those of the 
 Protestants. In referring to the schools, he did not set himself up as an educationalist^ 
 but as the matter had come before the Government, he spoke of it in a practical way. 
 There was, he said, very much of an anomaly in it all. While the state recognized both 
 systems, he did not undertake to discuss or take any side in the matter as to whether 
 this was right or wrong." 
 
 Later on Mr. Smart spoke as follows : — 
 
 " The Liberal party is known to be the party of reforms, and the present Govern- 
 ment is prepared to undertake the task of giving in the matter of the conduct of the 
 educational system equal rights to all citizens of the province, and thereby making a 
 reform, which should be received by every fair-minded man in Manitoba, with favour. 
 / do not wish to he understood in any of my remarks on this question to advocate the 
 abolition of the separate school system. lam not prejmred to express any opinion, at 
 jyresent, on this question, nor do I purpose discussing the question as to tvhether the 
 2Jrinciple of state aid to any class of denominational schools is or is not a correct one. 
 Sufficient it is for me now to point out under the existing laws the unfairness that 
 exists, with a \-iew to giving to the people the reasons for the changes which will shortly 
 take place in the law pertaining to the carrying out of the educational institutions of 
 the country. The whole department will be placed directly under a responsible Minister 
 of the Crown and similar regulations as to qualifications of teachers, as to inspectors, 
 normal schools, &c., will be mad-, both in the case of separate schools a^ well as 
 Protestant. This course will effect the saving of some thousands of dollar-^, which will 
 go further to assist in reducing the taxation raised by the people of Manitoba." 
 
 I think I have now proved my point that my learned friend was the first to say 
 anything about the suppression of public schools. 
 
 Hon. I\Ir. Daly. — You have not read what Mr. Smart said at Clearwater. 
 
 Mr. EwART. I will read what Mr. Smart said at Clearwater prior to my ^earned 
 
 friend's address at Portage la Prairie : — 
 
 " The anomaly existing as to the separate school system was pointed out, and it 
 was the Government's intention to overhaul the whole educational machine. The 
 double-bari-elled system must be abolished. The two superintendents, the two boards and 
 two sets of inspectors must go, and a minister of education will be appointed (a present 
 minister taking the portfolio who would administer the education department and be 
 responsible to the people. The change would enable ministers to greatly increase the 
 grants towards the support of schools, and would benefit the taxpayers." 
 
 So that it was a mere change in the regulation and control of schools that her 
 spoke of. The first word as to the suppression of separate schools was spoken by 
 my learned friend at Portage la Prairie 
 
 My learned friend says the School Acts were carried by large majorities in the 
 Legislature elected in 1888. He is quite correct, but he forgets how these Government 
 maprities were obtained. They were obtained by the promises— if I may refer to what 
 is generally known, and is shown by the affidavits which were withdrawn— that were 
 made to the Roman Catholics in that election. My learned friend says that after the 
 acts were passed another election took place, in which he says, and expects me to admit, 
 that the great question before the electors was the school question. He says that the 
 result of an appeal to the country upon the question and after a full threshing out of 
 the issue was a majority in favour of the Government. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — In favour of the Public Schools Act 1 
 
 Mr. EwART. — Well, that is in favour of the government. He read almost imme- 
 diately afterwards the declaration issued at that same election by the Conservatives as 
 their platform, showing, as he says, that the Conservatives were in favour of abolishing 
 
108 
 
 separate schools. I do not think that any politician ever heard of such a thing before 
 — both parties were on one side, both in favour of abolishing separate schools and yet 
 that this was the great (juestion before the people to be decided. Of course my learned 
 friend used these two facts for a different purpose, but they are mutually destructive. 
 In fact my learned f liend is quite wrong when he says that that was the great question in 
 that election, for it was not. The question of the schools was hardly debated at all, so 
 far as I know, except in the French parishes, and there, of course, all were on the same 
 side. It was not an issue in the election, because the matter was in the courts and it 
 was not thought advisable by the Catholics to make an appeal to the electors at that time. 
 My learned friend read this platform of the Conservatives for the purpose of contradicting 
 what I have said in claiming that I represented really the matured opinion of the 
 Conservatives upon this point. I did not intend to say, and I did not say, that at that 
 time the Conservatives looked upon this matter in the light that we desire. What I 
 did claim was that they looked at it in that light now, and that since the decision of the 
 Privy Council they had seen what was best to be done and were quite ready to obey its 
 behests and fall in with the suggestions of their Lordships of the Privy Council. And 
 my learned friend gave me the evidence of that a little later, though using it for another 
 purpose. He referred to Mr. Fisher's resolution for which the whole Opposition voted. 
 Mr. Fisher's resolution, after recitals, says: — 
 
 " And having regard to the suggestions of the tribunal referred to, that ' all 
 legitimate ground of complaint would be removed if the present system wei-e supple- 
 mented by provisions which would remove the grievance upon which the appeal is 
 founded, and were modified so far as might be necessary to give effect to those provi- 
 sions ' without a repeal of the present law ; this House is ready to consider the grievance 
 referred to with a view to providing reasonable relief, while maintaining, as far as 
 possible consistent with that object, the principles of the present acts in their general 
 application." 
 
 What I said is that every Conservative in the House voted for that, and it is no 
 conti-adiction of what I said as to my representing the matured opinion of Conservatives 
 to show what was the Conservative platform in 1892 under totally different circum- 
 stances. And not only did Conservatives vote for that resolution, but Mr. Fisher, who 
 is a very good Liberal, voted for it and I believe that a good many other Liberals outside 
 of the House take that view of the subject also. 
 
 Then my learned friend raised the point that before the Council could interfere it 
 must say that separate schools were better than public schools. Now I submit that 
 there is a great variety of things that this Council might say without saying that. I 
 can suggest seven, and no doubt I have not thought of all. One thing that the Council 
 might say is that it would be best to leave matters of religion to the people themselves. 
 A second is that the old law woi'ked well for twenty years without a word against it 
 and without the people knowing that thei-e was any grievance, while since then every- 
 thing has been turmoil and confusion. A third suggestion is that the Council might say 
 that separate schools were agreed to at the Union and it might surprise Mr. Greenway 
 very much by showing some regai'd for honourable engagement. A fourth thing the 
 Council might say is, that Parliament has declared that it desired separate s^chools 
 established, that in the case of New Brunswick, Parliament's decision has been in 
 favour of separate schools, and, to put Parliament in possession of the matter, this 
 Council ought to pass an order for that purpose. It might be said in the fifth place, 
 that the policy of Parliament was indicated by its dealing with the North-west Terri- 
 tories, whose circumstances are very much the same as those of Manitoba. Parliament 
 established separate schools in the North-west Territories, and, by large majorities 
 refused to disturb them. Sixth, in all other parts of Canada except perhaps Brit sh 
 Columbia there are separate schools by law or common consent. Seventh, the Council 
 might say that the Manitoba government has itself re-established separate schools after 
 four years' experience, and the only objection to their being sanctioned by the law is 
 that they have some sentimental objections to being bound to do right. With reference 
 to this last, I would like to read from my learned friend's address of the day before 
 yesterday, what I consider the most important, or, at least, the second most important 
 
109 
 
 statement made during this whole debate, perhaps during this whole controversy, the 
 only one to compare with it in importance being his declaration that we had a griev- 
 ance, and that there was power here to remedy it, but that two and two did not make 
 four. At page 30 of the second day's proceedings Mr. McCarthy is reported to have 
 said : 
 
 " In the provinces that are free, we are told, and it is the best possible argument 
 that can be urged, that so tolerant are the majority, so willing are they to yield rights 
 which could not be legally claimed, that, to adopt the language of my learned friend we 
 wink at infractions of the public school law so that it becomes almost a separate school 
 system. And they do it willingly. But it is one thing to compel people to do a thing, 
 and it is another thing to leave it to their free choice. It is a strong argument in 
 favour of allowing the people of Manitoba to work out their own salvation without in- 
 terference." 
 
 Now what does my learned friend suggest here, — that the separate school system is 
 wrong ? Not at all, but that it is right. And so tolerant are the majority that the Catho- 
 lics may have a separate school system if they will only be kind enough to take it as a 
 gift and not as a right guaranteed by the law. There is the whole point. " They are 
 willing to wink at infractions of the public school law." These gentlemen say : Let us 
 have the law one way and let us have illegal transactions going on in schools, and that is 
 all right. Let us have the Catholic religion taught there and education carried on 
 under religious auspices, and that is quite correct ; but the law must be one way even 
 though the practice is the other. I do not think we are unreasonable in saying that we 
 are not satisfied to have the law one way and the practice the other way. If we could 
 be sure that the practice would remain the way we want it, it would make no difference 
 of course. But with such a Government as we have to-day or with such a Government 
 as we may have from time to time we are not sure that the winking will be carried on 
 as steadily as heretofore, particularly when it is done for one purpose only, and that to 
 induce us to come in under the public schools. But by winking they have allowed the 
 separate schools to continue, only they must be carried on under the name of public 
 schools. 
 
 Sir Chas. Hibbert Tupper. — And I suppose that what you are afraid of is that it 
 may be a long time between winks. 
 
 Mr. EwART. — That is very well put in. That is what we fear. 
 
 My learned friend undertook to give a definition of national schools. I think he 
 was not successful. He said that national schools are those common to and enforcible 
 upon all inhabitants. He thought they might be even denominational schools so long 
 as there was only one system, but there must be only one system or they would not be 
 national schools. I would oppose to that this definition : — National schools are those 
 that are governed by the nation ; and I would add that in order to be truly national 
 they must provide for the nation and not for a party. Now I say that my learned 
 friend's definition is wrong in so far as it implies that it is a necessary feature of national 
 schools that they should be enforcible upon all. Surely there can be national schools 
 even though you have no compulsory clause. I say also he is wrong in saying that there 
 must be one system for all. In England we have separate denominational schools as 
 well as the public schools and one of the provisions is that these must be open to all. 
 Yet my learned friend would not agree that these were national schools. In defence of 
 my definition I would say that national schools are those governed by the nation, 
 just as church schools are those governed by the church, just as denominational 
 schools are those governed by the denominations. National schools are those 
 governed by the nation, just as we say national railways are those owned 
 and regulated by the government. It does not follow that all schools must be 
 upon one system ; it is not necessary they should be exactly alike. I do not think it is 
 a necessary part of a national railw^ay system that all the railways should be of one 
 gauge. We could have a national costume and yet have a great variety of tartans. Sup- 
 pose there was a system of national schools in which, in Protestant districts, the Pro- 
 testant religion was taught, and the Catholic districts the Catholic religion was taught, 
 but all governed, regulated and inspected by the nation. Would the fact that one form 
 
110 
 
 of religious exercise was carried on in one and another form of religious exei'cise in another 
 make these non-national schools. In order to be national they must provide for the 
 education of the nation. What are the schools we have in Manitoba? They are 
 national in ihe sense that they are governed V)y law, by Parliament, but they 
 are not national in the sense of providing for the nation. In fact they leave a large 
 part of the nation unprovided for, because they are schools that a large part of the 
 nation will not attend. I claim that the schools that exist in Ontario to-day known as 
 separate schools, are national schools. They are called separate schools as a name to 
 distinguish them. Just as in a railway station you will find different waiting rooms, 
 one for ladies, one for gentlemen. Nevertheless these are all public rooms. So in 
 Ontario, some schools are intended for non-Catholics and some for Catholics, but all are 
 national schools, each providing for a large part of the public and controlled by the 
 government. 
 
 Now a few words with reference to the New Brunswick case. My learned 
 friend gave you the whole history of the divisions upon that. What are the results as 
 declared by the Dominion of Canada ? One result is that the New Brunswick Acts were 
 unjust, and the people had a grievance. That is fairly enough to be inferred from the 
 different resolutions. Another result is that these Acts ought to have been disallowed, 
 for Mr. Costigan's resolution of 1873 was passed so declaring. In the third place we see 
 why the Dominion did not interfere in that case, viz. : because they had no jurisdiction 
 to intervene, or they would have done so. Mr. Mackenzie, the leader of the Govern- 
 ment after 1873 so stated in one of the paragraphs my learned friend read. 
 In the fourth place we see that Her Majesty the Queen was asked to use Her 
 influence to secure a remedy for the injustice that was done to the Roman Catholics of 
 New Brunswick. The fifth point determined is that though there was an injustice, Parlia- 
 ment would go no further than asking Her Majesty to use her influence, but would not 
 ask for such radical relief as an amendment of the whole constitution of the Dominion 
 of Canada. Now, these results seem to me to be very important and to point in an 
 entirely different direction from that indicated by my learned friend. He drew this 
 inference from the history of the New Brunswick case, that Parliament would never in- 
 terfere, that it was the declared policy of Parliament never to interfere, with any matters 
 relating to education. I have shown you that the contrary conclusions are the ones to be 
 drawn from an attentive perusal of the history of the case. 
 
 Then my learned friend says there are very few Roman Catholics in Manitoba, only 
 from ten to fifteen thousand, and that therefore no very great damage will be done after 
 all. That is just the trouble. If there were a few more we would not have to face this 
 ditficulty. When Mr. Martin first introduced these School Acts in the local legislature 
 they provided for purely secular schools. The Protestants got together at once, headed by 
 their ministers — which is a very proper thing for Protestants to do, but very wrong for 
 Catholics — and they brought such influence to bear that Mr. INIartin was forced to change 
 his Act and to make it conform to their ideas regarding schools. But the Catholics were 
 not strong enough to do that, and so they had to suffer. I do not think it makes it any 
 the more creditable — my learned friend would say manly I suppose — that the people upon 
 whom the injustice is perpetrated are few in number. We have it clearly enough established 
 that the Government did not do what they wanted to do because they were opposed by 
 those who were strong, but with regard to those who were weak the Government did 
 what they pleased. My learned friend says — or rather if we may infer from his words 
 at page 30 which I have quoted, he thinks — that no great harm will be done, because 
 after all the people are so tolerant that they will "wink at infractions of the law " and 
 so there will be in effect a separate school system ! 
 
 My learned friend has been endowed by nature with faculties of unusually high 
 order ; let me beseech him to reflect upon the disrupting purposes to which he has for 
 the last few years been applying his great talents. Let him remember that had it not 
 been for him the " sleepy " Protestants of the piovince of Quebec would never have 
 believed that they had suffered wrong or insult by the passage of the Jesuits Estates 
 Act ; and the unfortunate animosities stirred up by his agitation would never have been 
 aroused. 
 
 Let him remember that had it not been for him, the Protestants of Manitoba would 
 never have known that they had a grievance in the matter of Catholic schools ; that but 
 
Ill 
 
 for him, the fellowship and respect, which prior to 1890 existed between Protestant 
 and Catholic, between Presbyterian and Jesuit, would never have been interrupted, and 
 that tiiat harmony and co-operation between religious bodies which are so beneficial, 
 not only for education but for religion itself, would never have been, as I am afraid they 
 have been destroyed. 
 
 I beg of him to remember, that while it may be proper that respect should be paid 
 in provincial legislation to the feelings of a small body of men in another province — 
 namely to those of the members of an association which sprang up in a night and died in 
 a night, it is all the more proper that respect should be paid to the feelings of a large 
 body of men in the same pi'ovince, and to the feelings of two millions of people in the 
 other provinces. 
 
 Let him above all remember that the golden rule was not made for the use of 
 Catholics and for the advantage of Protestants ; but for Protestants and Catholics alike, 
 for him and for me, and for all the world beside. 
 
 Let him turn from his efforts to awake "sleepy" Protestants in Quebec, 
 and arouse satisfied Protestants in Manitoba, to conflict with those they have 
 learned to respect, and let him learn from him Avhom he so long followed politically — 
 and not from him only but from Mackenzie, Blake, Mowat and all the great leaders 
 upon both sides of politics — that Canada's true national greatness can never be attained 
 by force and coercion of large and important minorities, but by a spirit of fairness and 
 sympathy — a sympathy which when it attains the ideal will mould all the religions of 
 the world into onp, all-embracing, religion of love. 
 
 My last words, I am glad to say are words of agreement with my learned friend in 
 thanking you for the patience with which you have listened to this long, and, speaking 
 for myself, I fear, very tedious argument. 
 
 Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. — I would like to ask if you had considered the form 
 of any remedial order ? You submitted a bill ; have you thought of any form of remedial 
 order 1 
 
 Mr. EwART. — To some extent I have, and I would suggest the adoption of the form 
 of order which proceeds from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Rather this, 
 at all events, than the form usually followed in Orders in Council of a report of the com- 
 mittee and the adoption of that report. I do not think it would be pr-oper to proceed 
 in that way, because I think the committee has no jurisdiction to hear us, but the whole 
 Council had, and the whole Council has heard us. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Ives. — Can you give the Council anything like an accurate estimate of 
 the children of school age in Manitoba ? 
 
 Hon. Senator Bernier. — There are about 6,000. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — ^I have here the report of the Department of Education of Mani- 
 toba for the year 1893. I do not know that the figures are wholly accurate, but they 
 will show approximately the school population in that year. 
 
 Sir Mackenzie Bowell. — The petition which Mr. Ewart asked for is upon the 
 table for his use. 
 
 Mr. Ewart. — I did not know that I was to have this petition this morning. As it 
 is here, may I be allowed to say a few words in answer to the statement that I represent 
 only the French element. I refer to the original petition put in, which contains 4,267 
 names. Reference to this document will show that it is signed by French and by Irish 
 and English indifferently. And the names upon it, the Roman Catholic population of 
 Manitoba being about fifteen thousand, represent more than 25 per cent of that whole 
 Catholic population, men, women and children. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — I was going to suggest to the President that with regard to the 
 so-called fourth list of rights, said to have been introduced at the trial of Regina v. 
 Lepine, a certified copy of which is filed, it would be well if the Minister of Justice 
 would have a copy of the evidence regarding it put in at the same time. 
 
 Sir Chas. Hibbert Tupper. — You mean the evidence regarding it when it was 
 put in 1 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. — Yes. When it was put in at the criminal trial. It might be of 
 historical interest to know that. 
 
 Sir ^Mackenzie Bowell. — As the argument is finished this Council will now adjourn. 
 The Council then adjourned. 
 
112 
 
 EXHIBIT A. 
 
 In the matter of the appeal of the Hoinan Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in 
 the Province of Manitoba to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, from 
 two certain acts of the Legislature of said province, being chapters 37 and 38 of 
 53 Victoria, intituled respectively: "An Act respecting the Department of 
 Education," and " An Act respecting Public Schools." 
 
 I, Noel Joseph Ritchot, of the parish of St. Norbert, in the province of Manitoba, 
 parish priest of the Roman Catholic Church, make oath and say : 
 
 1. I was a resident of the Red River Settlement in and prior to the year 1870, 
 and resided then as now about nine miles from the present city of Winnipeg. 
 
 2. I was one of the three delegates that were sent from the said settlement in that 
 year to negotiate with the Government of the Dominion of Canada as to the terms 
 upon which Rupert's Land and the Xorth-west Territories were to be united to Canada. 
 The other two delegates were Judge Black and Mr. Alfred H. Scott. 
 
 3. The instructions I received were in writing an I consisted of three documents. 
 True copies of two of these documents are hereto annexed and marked with the letters 
 A and B, and the third was a bill of rights (Exhibit B), the seventh clause of which 
 was as follows : " That the schools be separate and that the public money for schools be 
 dis^ributed among the" different denominations in proportion to their respective popula- 
 tions according to the system of the province of Quebec." 
 
 4. I received these documents together and I never received any other bill of 
 rights than the one aforesaid. The other delegates had Avith them at Ottawa bills of 
 rishts similar to the one aforsaid. 
 
 5. The said delegates had frequent and protracted conferences with Sir John A. 
 Macdonald and Sir George E. Cartier who had been appointed a committee by the 
 Canadian Government for the purpose of negotiating with us, which conferences extended 
 to the second day of May. 
 
 6. During the said negotiations the said committee submitted to the delegates a 
 draft of a bill containing the terms upon which they were prepared to consummate the 
 union. This bill contained 26 clauses and the 19 th thereof was an adaptation of section 
 93 of the British North America Act. 
 
 7. Upon the margin of the said draft bill I wrote my comments or remarks 
 opposite each of the sections. Opposite the said clause 19 1 %vrote as follows : 
 
 " Cette clause etant la meme que celle de I'Acte de lAmerique Britannique du 
 Nord, confere, je I'interprete ainsi, comme principe foudamental le privilege des ecoles 
 separees dans toute la plenitude et, en cela est conforme a I'article 7 denos instructions." 
 
 Which is equivalent in English to , — 
 
 '•' This clause being the same as the British North America Act, confers, so I 
 interpret it, as fundamental principle, the privilege of separate schools to the fullest 
 extent, and in that is in conformity %vith article 7 of our instructions. 
 
 8. I returned to the said committee the said draft bill with my remarks and com- 
 ments written thereon as aforesaid and with the said memo, opposite the said clause 19. 
 
 9. After the conferences with the delegates were completed Sir George E. Cartier 
 on the third day of May introduced into the House of Commons the bill which after- 
 wards became the Manitoba Act. 
 
 10. Shortly afterwards I returned to the Red River Settlement carrying with me 
 a copy of the said Act which on the twenty-fourth day of J une I presented with some 
 verbal report of my mission to the Legislative Assembly. After a short discussion the 
 following resolution was amid cheering unanimously passed : — 
 
 " That the Legislative Assembly of this country do now, in the name of the people " 
 accept the Manitoba Act and decide on entering the Dominion of Canada on the terms 
 proposed in the Confederation Act." 
 
113 
 
 11. The copy of the bill of rights which I received as aforesaid prior to my 
 departure for Ottawa I retained in my own possession until the trial of Lepine in 1874 
 for the murder of Thomas Scott. At that trial I was called as a witness and did as 
 such produce to and leave in the custody of the court the said copy of the bill of rights, 
 since which time I have never seen it. 
 
 N. J. RITCHOT, O.M.I. 
 
 Sworn before me at St. Norbert, in the" 
 province of Manitoba, this twenty- 
 first day of February, 1895. 
 
 G. Cloutier, 
 
 A Commissioner, &c. 
 
 Maison Gouvernementale, Winnipeg. 
 All Rev. Mons. Josej^h N. Ritchot : 
 
 Monsieur, — Avec cette lettre vous recevrez aussi votre commission et une copie 
 des conditions sous lesquelles le peuple de ce pays consentirait a entrer dans la confe- 
 deration canadienne. 
 
 Vous vous rendrez aussi diligemment que faire se pourra en Canada, a Ottawa, et 
 en arrivant en cette ville vous vous mettrez en compagnie de MM. I'honorable M. A. 
 Scott et I'honorable John Black, pour entamer immediatement avec le gouvernement 
 de la Puissance du Canada les negociations qui font le sujet de votre commission. 
 
 Veuillez, s'il vous plait, observer que quant aux articles numerotes 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 
 15, 17, 19 et 20, vous pourrez, de concert avec les autres commissaires sus-mentionnes, 
 les traiter librement et a discretion ; mais n'oubliez jamais que puisque la confiance 
 entiere de ce peuple repose sur vous, on compte que, vous prevalant de cette liberte, vous 
 ferez tout ce qui est en votre pouvoir, afin de nous assurer ces droits et libertes qui nous 
 ont ete jusqu'ici refuses. 
 
 A regard des autres articles, je suis charge de vous informer qu'ils sont peremp- 
 
 toires. 
 
 Je dois en outre vous signifier que vous n'avez nullement le pouvoir de mener a 
 conclusion finale aucun arrangement et que toute negociation conduite par vous aupres 
 du couvernement du Canada, devra prealablement recevoir la sanction du gouverne- 
 ment provisoire. 
 
 J'ai I'honneur d'etre. Monsieur et Reverend, 
 
 Votre tres humble et obeissant serviteur, 
 
 THOS. BUNN 
 22 mars 1870. ' Sect, of State. 
 
 A Messire J. N. Ritchot, Ptre. 
 
 Monsieur, — Le president du gouvernement provisoire d'Assiniboia en conseil vous 
 met par les presentes en autorite et en delegation, vous, le reverend Messire J. N. 
 Ritchot en compagnie de Monsieur John Black, ecuyer, et de I'honorable A. Scott, afin 
 que vous vous dirigiez a Ottawa, en Canada ; et que la vous placiez devant le parlement 
 canadien la liste qui vous sera confiee avec les presentes, liste qui contient les conditions 
 et les propositions sous lesquelles le peuple d'Assiniboia consentirait a entrer en confe- 
 deration avec les autres provinces du Canada. 
 
 Signe ce vingt-deuxieme jour de mars en I'an de Notre-Seigneur mil huit cent 
 soixante-dix. 
 
 Par ordre, 
 
 THOS. BUNN, 
 
 Sec. of State. 
 
 Siege du gouvernement, 
 
 Winnipeg, Assiniboia. 
 8 
 
114 
 
 EXHIBIT B. 
 
 1. Que les territoires ci-devant connus sous le nom de terre de Rupert et du Nord- 
 Ouest n'entreront dans la conft'di'-ration de la Puissance du Canada qu'a titre de province 
 et conime sous le noiii de province d'Assiniboia et jouissant de tous les droits et privi- 
 Ic'^es communs aux diflerentes provinces de la Puissance. 
 
 2. Que jusqu'au temps oil I'accroissement de la population de ce pays nous ait donn^ 
 droit a plus nous ayons deux representants au Senat et quatre aux Communes du 
 Canada. 
 
 3. Qu'en entrant dans la confederation, la province d'Assiniboia completement 
 ^tran^ere a la dette publique du Canada et que si elle etait appelee a assumer quelque 
 partie de cette dette du Canada ce ne soit qu'apres avoir recu du Canada la somme 
 meme dont on voudrait qu'elle se rendit responsable. 
 
 4. Que la somme annuelle de quatre-vingt mille piastres soit allouee par la Puis- 
 sance du Canada a la legislature de la province du Nord-Ouest. 
 
 5. Que toutes les proprietes, tous les droits et privileges possedes soient respectes, 
 et que la reconnaissance et I'arrangement des coutumes, usages et privileges soient 
 laisses a la decision de la legislature locale seulement. 
 
 6. Que ce pays ne soit soumis a aucune taxe directe a I'exception de celles qui pour- 
 raient etre imposees par la legislature locale pour des interets municipaux ou locaux. 
 
 7. Que les ecoles soient separees et que les argents pour ecoles soient di vises entre 
 les differentes denominations religieuses au pro rata de leur population respective. 
 
 8. Que la determination des qualifications des membres au parlement de la province 
 ou a celui du Canada soit laissee a la legislature locale. 
 
 9. Que dans ce pays a I'exception des indiens qui ne sont ni civilises ni etablis, 
 tout homme ayant atteint I'age de vingt et un ans et tout sujet anglais etranger a cette 
 province mais ayant reside trois ans dans ce pays et possedant une maison, ait le droit 
 de voter aux elections des membres de la legislature locale et du parlement canadien et 
 que tout sujet etranger autre que sujet anglais ayant reside le meme temps et jouissant 
 de la propriete d'une maison ait le meme droit de vote a condition qu'il prete serment 
 de fidelite. 
 
 II est entendu que cet article n'est sujet a amendement que de la part de la legis- 
 lature locale exclusivement. 
 
 10. Que le marche de la Compagnie de la Baie-d'Hudson au sujet du transfert du 
 o-ouvernement de ce pays a la Puissance du Canada, soit considere comme nul en autant 
 qu'il est contraire aux droits du peuple d'Assiniboia et qu'il pent affecter nos relations 
 futures avec le Canada. 
 
 11. Que la legislature locale de cette province ait plein controle sur toutes les terres 
 de la province et ait le droit d'annuler tous les arrangements faits ou commences au 
 sujet des terres publiques de R. Land et du Nord-Ouest appele maintenant province 
 d'Assiniboia (Manitoba). 
 
 12. Qu'une commission d'ingenieurs nommes par le Canada ait a explorer les divers 
 terrains du Nord-Ouest et a deposer devant la Chambre legislative dans le terme de 
 cinq ans un rapport sur la richesse minerale du pays. 
 
 13. Que des traites soient conclus entre le Canada et les differentes tribus sauvages 
 du pays a la requisition et avec le concours de la legislature locale. 
 
 14. Que Ton garantisse une communication continue a vapeur du lac Superieur au 
 Fort-Garry a etre completee dans I'espace de cinq ans. 
 
 15. Que toutes les batisses et edifices publics soient a la charge du tresor canadien 
 ainsi que les ponts, chemins et autres travaux publics. 
 
 1 6. Que les langues f ran^aise et anglaise soient communes dans la legislature et les 
 cours, et que tous les documents publics ainsi que les actes de la legislature soient 
 publics dans les deux langues. 
 
 (Raison exprimees en anglais.) 
 
 17. Que le lieutenant-gouverneur a nommer pour la province du Nord-Ouest pos- 
 8^ le les deux langues fran^aise et anglaise. 
 
 18. Que le juge de la cour Supreme parle le frangais et I'anglais. 
 
115 
 
 19. Que les dettes contractees par le gouvernement provisoire du Nord-Ou st soient 
 payees par le tresor de la Puissance du Canada, vu que ces dettes n'ont ete contractees 
 que par suite des mesures illegales et inconsiderees adoptees par les agents canadiens 
 pour amener la guerre civile au milieu de nous. De plus, qu'aucun des membres du 
 fouvernement proviso re, uon plus que ceux qui ont agi sous sa direction, ne puisse etre 
 inquiete relativenient au mouvement qui a determine les negociations actuelles. 
 
 20. Que, en vue de la position exceptionnelle d'Assiniboia, les droits sur les mar- 
 chandises importees dans la province, excepte sur les liqueurs, continueront a etre les 
 memes qu'a present d'ici a trois ans a dater de notre entree dans la confederation, et 
 aussi longtemps ensuite que les voies de communication pa.r chemin de fer ne seront pas 
 terminees entre Saint-Paul et \yinnipeg, ainsi qu'entre Winnipeg et le lac Superieur. 
 
 A true copy of exhibit " N " in the trial of Lepine on record in this department. 
 
 L. A. CATELLIER, 
 
 Under Secretary of State. 
 A true copy : 
 
 Daniel Casey, 
 
 Clerk of Croivn and Peace. 
 
 EXHIBIT C. 
 
 In the matter of the appeal of the Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in 
 the province of Manitoba to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, from 
 two certain Acts of the Legislature of said pro\T[nce, being chapters 37 and 38 of 
 53 Victoria, intituled : " An Act respecting the Department of Education" and 
 " An Act respecting Public Schools." 
 
 I, James Fisher, of the city of Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba, barrister-at- 
 law, make oath and say : — 
 
 1. I have taken an active part in the discussion of public affairs in this province for 
 over ten years past, and am familiar with the course of provincial politics since the year 
 •eighteen hundred and eighty-three. 
 
 2. The present provincial government, of which Mr. Thomas Greenway is the head, 
 took office in the month of January, eighteen hundred and eighty-eight. For many 
 years before that time and up to about December, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, 
 the late Mr. John ISTorquay had been at the head of the government. He then retired 
 and was succeeded by Dr. D. H. Harrison, who had been one of Mr. Torquay's col- 
 leao-ues and of the same political pai'ty with him, and who held office for only a few 
 weeks, when he resigned, and Mr. Greenway became Premier. 
 
 3. Between the years eighteen hundred and eighty -three and the end of eighteen hun- 
 dred and eighty-seven a very active opposition had been offered to Mr. Norquay's adminis- 
 tration. This opposition was chiefly maintained by an organizntion of the Liberals of the 
 province. That organization was at first particularly active in the city of Winnipeg, 
 where a Liberal association was formed in eighteen hundred and eighty-four ; afterwards 
 like organizations were formed throughout the province, and eventually a provincial 
 organization. 
 
 4. I was for a number of years the president of the association at Winnipeg, as 
 also of the provincial organization, and I was at the time the change of government 
 took place in eighteen hundred and eighty-eight the president of the provincial 
 association. 
 
 5. Amonsst other things it was charged against the Norquay administration that 
 there was a wasteful expenditure by government in the matter of public printing in the 
 French language, and also that Mr. Norquay had failed to bring before the Legislature 
 
 8i 
 
116 
 
 a fair scheme for redistribution of seats in the House, it being charged by Liberals that 
 in the old settlements along the Red River and lower Assiniboine the population had a 
 larger representation than they should have, leaving the western and more newly 
 settled part of the province without sufficient representation. 
 
 6. Amongst the electoral districts along the Red River and lower Assiniboine 
 referred to, there were six constituencies which were usually spoken of as, and admitted 
 to be French constituencies, that is in which the French-speaking population had a large 
 majority of the votes, and the fact that the Liberal party were insisting upon a redistri- 
 bution of seats coupled with their attacks upon the expenditure for French printing led 
 to the Liberals being charged with political antipathy to the French and Roman 
 Catholic population, the great majority of whom throughout the province were at that 
 time supporters of the Norquay regime. 
 
 7. At the general election of eighteen hundred and eighty-six, of the six French 
 electoral districts, live returned supporters of Mr. Norquay (three of them being elected 
 by acclamation) and Mr. A. F. Martin, a Liberal, was elected to represent the sixth. 
 
 8. One of the districts that then elected a supporter of Mr. Norquay by acclama- 
 tion was St. Fran(-oi8 Xavier, which returned Mr. Joseph Burke. The majority of the 
 electors in that district were French speaking and Catholic as the Liberal leaders at all 
 events understood, and they in fact conti'olled the seat. 
 
 9. When Dr. Harrison formed his government the said Mr. Joseph Burke accepted 
 the office of Provincial Secretary in the administration. 
 
 10. The Liberal party were at that time confident that the Norquay Government 
 had been considerably weakened as a result of the agitation of the past few years. Mr. 
 Norquay's majority in the legislature was small ; it was thought that one or two of his 
 supporters in the House were ready to withdraw their allegiance when a convenient 
 opportunity might arise, and it was the general opinion amongst Liberals that Mr. 
 Norquay's retirement had been brought about and Dr. Harrison put in his place with 
 the view of strengthening the Conservative party, and when the change took place the 
 more active workers in the Liberal organization deemed it essential that a supreme 
 efifort should be made to defeat the new administration before it fairly got to work. 
 
 11. The opportunity that the Liberals desired seemed to be presented when Mr. 
 Burke went back for re-election on taking office. It was recognized that he was in 
 many respects peculiarly strong in his district. He was a resident merchant in the 
 neighbourhood, and a Roman Catholic ; and the French language, as we understood, 
 was his mother tongue. The French-speaking electors in the district had been practi- 
 cally all supporters of the Conservative party, and it was quite impossible to carry the 
 election without receiving a considerable portion of that vote. 
 
 12. At the same time certain reasons had led to the Conservative party being 
 weakened in the district, and after full inquiry and consideration it was concluded that 
 there was a fair chance of electing a Liberal candidate if the prejudice that was felt to 
 exist amongst the French speaking and Roman Catholic population against the Liberals 
 for the reasons already stated could be avoided. 
 
 13. E\entually Mr. F. H. Francis, an English-speaking merchant' resident in or 
 near the district, and a Protestant, entered the field as the Liberal candidate. 
 
 14. The question of placing a candidate in the field was considered and the arrange 
 ments for the campaign were conducted in Winnipeg and I was present at several of 
 the meetings that were then held for said purposes, and I was familiar with the different 
 considerations which guided us in our conclusions and that led to our support of Mr. 
 
 Francis. 
 
 15. I remember that Mr. Francis expressed himself very strongly during the 
 campaign upon the question of the attitude of Liberals towards the French-speaking 
 population, and especially as to their attitude on the question of interfering with the 
 special privilege claimed by that population in respect to the use of the French language 
 and schools. He nave us to understand, and we were fully convinced, that it was 
 useless to contest the seat unless we could satisfy the electors that the Liberals were 
 not to attack these privileges of the French and Catholic population in the event of 
 their attaining power. It was well understood that this expressed the real attitude of 
 
117 
 
 the party on these questions and I was informed that Mr. Francis was expressly author" 
 ized by the Liberal leaders to give a pledge to that effect. 
 
 16. During the progress of the campaign it came to the knowledge of the Liberal 
 organizei's in Winnipeg that a strong appeal was being made to the electors of the 
 district to defeat Mr. Francis because of the fear that the Liberals would interfere with 
 the privileges aforesaid and it was felt that this question must be promptly met. 
 
 17. At that time the leading representatives of the Liberals in the legislature were 
 Mr. Thomas Greenway, who afterwards became Premier, and Mr. Joseph Martin who 
 became the Attorney General in his administration, and they were undoubtedly the 
 recognized leaders of the party, Mr. Greenway being the leader in the House. Mr. 
 Martin was at that time resident in Winnipeg and Mr. Greenway was also in the city 
 during the campaign and they both took a very active interest in it. Mr. Greenway 
 chiefly taking charge of that part of the campaign which was conducted in the city, and 
 it was left largely to Mr. A. F. Martin above named to organize and look after the work 
 in the distiict and especially amongst the French-speaking population. 
 
 18. At the request of Mr. Joseph Martin I attended a meeting with him at the 
 Koman Catholic school-house at St. Franeois-Xavier on the evening before the election 
 day. Our special object in attending there was to meet this particular charge as to the 
 attitude of the Liberals towards those particular privileges of the French and Roman 
 ■Catholic population. 
 
 19. It was then well known by the leading Liberals in Winnipeg who were inter- 
 esting themselves in the campaign that at a meeting held some nights before in another 
 part of the district Mr. Joseph Martin had been^ present, that Mr. Norquay had 
 addressed the meeting and in very strong terms repeated this charge, and that Mr. 
 Martin had effectively answered the charge by utterly denying that such was or would 
 be the attitude of the Liberals and that he had squarely placed the Liberal policy before 
 the electors as one entirely opposed to any such interference, as was suggested. 
 
 20. At the meeting at St. Francois-Xavier which Mr. ^Martin and I attended, the 
 large majority of the electors present were at the time said to be and I have no doubt 
 were French speaking and Roman Catholic. Mr. Burke was present and addressed the 
 meeting, and according to my recollection he spoke before Mr. Martin did ; at all events 
 the same charges were made by our opponents against the Liberal party and the sauie 
 appeals to oppose their candidate upon the grounds referred to. Mr. Martin then delivered 
 a strong address tj the meeting in which he chai-acterized these allegations as to the 
 attitude of Liberals as being utterly without foundation ; he declared in the most 
 positive terms that the Liberals had no thought of interfering with these institutions 
 and made a positive declaration that if they attained office, they would not do so. He 
 referred to my presence there as the president of the Liberal organization for the pro- 
 vince, and said that if necessary, I would confirm what he said on the subject. I was 
 not, according to my recollection, called upon to say anything, nor did I make any 
 statement, but I would certainly have confirmed his statement had there seemed to be 
 any occasion for it, and undoubtedly the statement of Mr. Martin, on the question and 
 the pledges that he gave were entirely in accord with the position that I understood the 
 Liberal party held, and they were in accord with what had been stated in Winnipeg at 
 the meetings connected with the campaign, and our purpose in attending the meeting 
 was to make a statement of that character with the view of satisfying the French and 
 Roman Catholic electors. 
 
 21. It was never doubted amongst the Liberal leaders, and there is, I think, no 
 •doubt of the fact that the defeat at that time of Mr. Burke led to the resignation of the 
 Harrison administration and the advent of the Liberals into power. I know that it 
 was felt, throughout the whole campaign, by the Liberals who took charge of it, that 
 the contest was a crucial one that was to decide which party should for some years in 
 future hold office. We all felt that if Mr. Burke was elected and Mr. Harrison enabled 
 to carry on the work of the session which had then actually opened, he would soon 
 strengthen himself in power, and I have now no doubt that but for the result of that 
 election the Conservatives would have still been in power in the province. It was also 
 universally admitted at the time, and there cannot be a doubt of the fact, that the said 
 ■election could not have been carried by the Liberals without a considerable number of 
 
118 
 
 the French speaking and Roman Catholic voters, and the declaration of the Liberal 
 policy was made, and the pledges as to the future action of the party given in order to 
 secure that vote. 
 
 Sworn before me, at Winnipeg, in the 
 province of Manitoba, this IDth day 
 of February, A.D. 1895, 
 
 A. N. McPllERSON, 
 
 JAMES FISHER, 
 
 I. 
 
 1 Commissioner, <S:c. 
 
 EXHIBIT D. 
 
 In the matter of the appeal of the Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects- 
 in the province of Manitoba to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, 
 from two certain Acts of the legislature of said province, being chapters 37 and 38 
 of 53 Victoria, intituled respectively " An Act respecting the Department of 
 Education " and " An Act respecting Public Schools." 
 
 I, Al{)honse Fortunat Martin, of the city of Winnipeg, in the province of Mani- 
 toba, Esquire, make oath and say : — 
 
 1. During the election contest between the Honourable Joseph Burke, as a member 
 of the Conservative party, and Mr, F, H, Francis, as a member of the Liberal party, in' 
 the constituency of St. Francois Xavier, in the month of January, eighteen hundred 
 and eighty -eight, I was the one appointed by the leaders of the Liberal party to organize- 
 and conduct the campaign on behalf of Mr, Francis. 
 
 2. I found in conducting the said campaign, that I was being constantly met with 
 the assertion that the Liberal party was opposed to the further continuance of the 
 Catholic schools and the use of the French language, and I thought it was necessary 
 that in some public way, assurances should be given of undoubted character to the 
 electors. For this purpose, I called two meetings, one on the seventh of January, 
 eighteen hundred and eighty-eight, at the schoolhouse, at Le Petit Canada, and the 
 othei-, on the eleventh of January, eighteen hundred and eighty-eight, at the school 
 house at St. Francois Xavier, and both in the same constituency. I asked Mr. Joseph 
 Martin, who was then one of the most prominent members of the Liberal party, to be 
 present at both meetings, and to give assurances which I thought were necessary as 
 above mentioned. He made upon each occasion a strong address to the meeting in 
 which he characterized the allegations as to the attitude of Liberals upon the questions, 
 aforesaid as being utterly without foundation. He declared in the most positive terms, 
 that the Liberals had no thought of interfering with those institutions ; and made a. 
 positive declaration, that if they attained office they would not do so ; and said that 
 if Liberals did such a thing he would leave the Liberal party for ever. 
 
 3. At the meeting on the eleventh day of January already referred to, Mr. James 
 Fisher, who was then the President of the Liberal party in the province of Manitoba, 
 was present during Mr. Martin's speech, and towards the end of Mr. Martin's address 
 he pointed to Mr. Fisher as being the President of the Liberal party, and said that he 
 (Mr. Fisher) would confirm, if necessary, what he had said as to the principles of the 
 Liberal party. 
 
 4. The effect of these speeches was very great and to that alone can be attributed 
 the fact that ]Mr. Francis was elected by the said constituency. Without these assurances 
 given by Mr. Martin there can be no question that Mr. Burke would have been elected 
 by a large majority. 
 
119 
 
 5. The Joseph Martin referred to is the same Joseph Martin who became the 
 Attorney General in the administration formed by Mr. Greenway, and it was under the 
 auspices of the said administration and at their instance that the Acts referred to in 
 the caption of this affidavit were passed. 
 
 Sworn before me, at the city of Winnipeg, in ] 
 
 the province of Manitoba, this 20th day of V A. F. MARTIN. 
 
 February, A.D. 1895. J 
 
 Hugh Armstrong, 
 
 A Commissioner. 
 
 EXHIBIT E. 
 
 Winnipeg, Man., Feb. 21st, 1891. 
 
 To the Editor of the Free Press, 
 
 Winnipeg, Man. 
 
 Sir, For the reasons hereinafter given, I think the time has arrived when I 
 
 should make the statement of facts in connection with the election contest between Mr. 
 Jos. Burke and myself in St. Fran9ois Xavier, in January, 1888, which has been the 
 subject of discussion from time to time in the papers, and I beg that you will therefore 
 publish the following statement of the facts in connection with that election as coming 
 
 from me : — . 
 
 I have been a resident of the village of Headingly, in the province ot Manitoba, 
 for the past sixteen years, and have there carried on for many years a general mercan- 
 tile business. I was the Liberal candidate for election to represent the district of 
 St. Fran(^ois Xavier in the legislature of Manitoba, in the election that took place in 
 the month of January, 1888, my opponent being Mr. Jos. Burke, who had been elected 
 to represent the constituency at the general election held in 1886, and who, having at 
 the time referred to, accepted office in the administration formed by Dr. Harrison, had 
 gone back for re-election by his constituents. 
 
 I entered into the said contest with the assent and approval of the leaders of the 
 Liberal party in Winnipeg, including Mr. Greenway and Mr. Martin, and also Mr. 
 Fisher, who, as I understand, was president of the Liberal Association for the province. 
 
 The election was looked upon as exceedingly important— one which, it was felt, 
 was going to decide whether the Harrison administration should continue in power or 
 not, *as it was felt that the Conservative government had been weakened and that 
 Dr. Harrison would be forced to retire should Mr. Burke be defeated. 
 
 The constituency was one of the French-speaking constituencies of the province, so 
 called. About two-thirds of the electors in the district were French speaking and 
 Roman Catholic in religion, and it was manifestly impossible to carry the election 
 without securing the votes of a large number of the French-speaking electors. 
 
 • Mr. Burke'had been for many years also carrying on a mercantile business m the 
 near neighbourhood, and was well known in the district. He is himself a Roman 
 Catholic Vho came from the province of Quebec, and speaks French equally well with 
 
 English. . , 
 
 Early in the campaign I found that a very serious cry was raised against the 
 Liberal party on the ground, as it was alleged by Mr. Burke and his friends, that the 
 Liberal party if they got into power were likely to pass legislation interfering with the 
 rights and privileges of the French and Catholic population of the province m respect of 
 the use of the French language and as to the schools, and because of my being a candidate 
 of the Liberal party an appeal was made to the French speaking and Catholic electors 
 to defeat me on that ground. 
 
120 
 
 I had certainly never understood or supposed that it had ever been the policy of 
 the T.iberal party to interfere with these rights and privileges, and I would most decid- 
 edly have been opposed to such an interference, and I felt that unless 1 took a decided 
 position upon this question it was utterly useless for nie to continue in the field as a 
 Liberal candidate. 
 
 Because of this, I waited upon ]Mr. Jos. Martin, then one of the Liberal leaders 
 already named, who afterwards became the Attorney General of the province, and 
 explained to him the situation, and I gave him to understand that unless the attitude 
 of the Liberal party was made clear as not seeking to or intending to interfere with 
 these i-ights and privileges, I should certainly not I'emain in the field. 
 
 Thereupon, I received assurances from Mr. Martin that satisfied me that the 
 Liberals would not interfere with these rights and privileges, and which enabled me to 
 take that attitude before the electors and to declare it as the attitude of the Liberal 
 party, and I continued in the field and the result was that I was elected. 
 
 ]\Ir. Martin himself came into the riding during the campaign and addressed cer- 
 tainly one, and possibly, two meetings at which I was present, and the principal object 
 of his coming out was in order to refute and deny the allegations that were being made 
 by our opponents, as to the alleged attitude of the Liberals upon the questions referred 
 to, and certainly, at one such meeting, he spoke in strong terms denying that it 
 was any part of the Liberal policy to interfere with these institutions, or that it was 
 ever intended to do so, and I believe his statements went a long way to satisfy the 
 minds of the French electors who were inclined to support me, and I believe that 
 because of their being satisfied upon these points through my declarations and those 
 of Mr. Martin, I received their support and secured the election. 
 
 It is beyond question that I could not have been elected had no such assurances 
 been given to the electors as aforesaid, and there is no doubt that the immediate result 
 of the election was the downfall of the Harrison administration and the advent into 
 power of ]\Ir. Greenway and Mr. Martin. 
 
 At the meeting that I particularly remember, Mr. Martin being present, Mr. Fisher, 
 the president of the Provincial Liberal Association was also present and his presence 
 was referred to as confirming what Mr. Martin stated, and Mr. Fisher either by silence 
 or by nod or language gave consent to Mr. Martin's statements, at all events he was 
 understood by the electors to concur in what Mr. Martin had said. 
 
 I have noticed from time to time statements that have been made in the press and 
 in the legislature since the passage of the School Act of 1890, referring to the pledges 
 given by Mr. Martin in St. Franc^ois Xavier that I have referred to. I have not up to 
 this time myself made any statement publicly on the question, and I desire to add in 
 this statement that my silence hitherto arose that up to this time the question has been 
 a legal one before the courts, and I deemed it better not to interfere in the matter. I 
 desire also to add that my willingness to make a statement now arises not from a desire 
 on my part so much to help one side or the other in the present contention as to put 
 myself on record as entirely opposed to the agitation for the elimination of religious 
 exercises from the public schools. I w^oukl also add that as a large number of the 
 constituents were well known to me and customers at my store I think it just to myself 
 to make the present statement. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 F. H. FRANCIS. 
 
121 
 
 EXHIBIT F. 
 
 In the matter of the appeal of the Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in 
 the province of Manitoba to His Excellency the Governor General in Council from 
 two certain Acts of the legislature of said pi'ovince, being chapters 37 and 38 of 53 
 Victoria, intituled respectively : " An Act respecting the Department of Education " 
 and " An Act respecting Public Schools." 
 
 1. Joseph Burke, of the city of Winnipeg, but formerly of the parish of vSt. Fran^-ois 
 Xavier, in the province of Manitoba, merchant, make oath and say as follows : — 
 
 1.' At the general election for the Legislative Assembly of the province of Manitoba 
 held in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, I was elected for the consti- 
 tuency of St. Fran>^ois Xavier, by acclamation, as a supporter of the then Norquay admi- 
 nistration. TT • l- 
 
 2. In the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven, Mr. Harrison became 
 leader of the government, and he asked me to take the portfolio of provincial secretary 
 in his administration. I accordingly did so, and was sworn in as provincial secretary 
 in such administration about the last of December, one thousand eight hundred and 
 
 eighty -seven. i • u i, i 
 
 3. A writ was immediately issued for an election in my constituency which had 
 become vacant by reason of my acceptance of office, and the election was fixed for the 
 twelfth day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eigty-eight. 
 
 4. It was well known that the fate of the Harrison administration depended upon 
 this election, and the Opposition placed in the field as opposed to me Mr. F. H. Francis, 
 a store-keeper at Headingly, in the said constituency. 
 
 5. The large majority of the electors in the said constituency were members of the 
 Boman CatholTc church. I was a member of that church while Mr. Francis was a 
 Protestant. The Harrison administration belonged to the political party commonly 
 known as the Liberal-Conservatives. Mr. Francis was a candidate on the part of the 
 political party known as Liberals. i t -u 
 
 6. At and prior to this period it had been frequently charged against the Liberal 
 party that they were not in sympathy with the privileges enjoyed by the French-speaking 
 part of the population and the Roman Catholics, and it was feared by many members of 
 that nationality and religion that if the Liberals came into office that those privileges 
 would be curtailed or entirely abolished. During the election to which I have above 
 referred there was a great deal of discussion as to this attitude of the Liberal party and 
 it was urged by me and many supporters and canvassers on my behalf that the Liberals 
 were opposed to the privileges above referred to. 
 
 7. In order to meet these charges, two meetings were called on behalf of the Liberal 
 candidate in the said constituency, one of which was held at a school-house at a place 
 called Le Petit Canada, on the seventh of January, and the other was held at the school- 
 house at St. Francois Xavier village, on the eleventh day of January. At both of these 
 meetings Mr. Joseph Martin, who was then one of the leaders and one of the most pro- 
 minent^men of the Liberal party, appeared and made a speech to the electors of the said 
 constituency ; he made upon each occasion a strong address to the meeting in which he 
 characterized the allegations as to the attitude of the Liberals upon the questions aforesaid 
 as being utterly without foundation. He declared in the most positive terms that the 
 Liberals had no thought of interfering with those institutions ; and made a positive decla- 
 ration that if they attained office they would not do so ; and said that if the Liberals did 
 such a thing he would leave the Liberal party for ever. 
 
 8. At the meeting of the eleventh day of January, already referred to, Mr. James 
 Fisher, who was then the President of the Liberal party in the province of Manitoba, 
 was present during Mr. Martin's speech, and towards the end of Mr. Martin's address 
 he pointed to Mr. Fisher as being the president of the Liberal party, and said that he 
 <Mr. Fisher) would confirm, if it were necessary, what he had said as to the principles 
 of the Liberal party. 
 
9. The effect of these speeches was very great, and to that alone can be attributed' 
 the fact that Mr. Francis was elected by the said constituency. Without these 
 assurances given by Mr. Martin, there can be no question that I would have been, 
 elected by a very large majority. 
 
 10. The said Harrison administration resigned office on the sixteenth day of said 
 month of January, and such resignation was due entirely to the fact of my being 
 defeated in the said constituency. ]Mr. Greenway, the leader of the Liberals, was imme- 
 diately afterwards sent for, and undertook to and did form an administration which has 
 remained in office till the present time. 
 
 11. The Joseph ]\Iartin aljove referred to is the same Joseph Martin who became 
 the Attorney General in the administration formed by Mr. Greenway, and it was under 
 the auspices of the said administration and at their instance that the Acts referred to 
 in the caption of this affidavit were passed. 
 
 Sworn before me at Winnipeg, in the 1 
 
 province of Manitoba, this 19th day - JOSEPH BURKE, 
 
 of February, 1895. J 
 
 Alfred J. Andrews, 
 
 A Comynissioner in B. B., &c., and Notary Public. 
 
 EXHIBIT G. 
 
 In the matter of the appeal of the Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in- 
 the province of Manitoba to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, from 
 two certain Acts of the legislature of the said province, being chapters 37 and 38 
 of 53 Victoria, intituled respectively : " An Act respecting the Department of 
 Education " and " An Act respecting Public Schools." 
 
 1, William Hogue, of the Parish of St. Francois Xavier, in the province of 
 Manitoba, make oath and say as follows : — I was an elector of the constituency of St. 
 rran(j'ois Xavier, at the election which took place at that constituency, in the month of 
 January, eighteen hundred and eighty-eight, between the Honourable Joseph Burke on 
 the one hand and Mr. F. H. Francis on the other. 
 
 2. I was present at the meeting held in the school-house at St. Francois Xavier 
 East, in the said constituency, on the day of the said month of January, and I heard 
 Mr. Joseph Martin give assurances to the French and Roman Catholic electors with 
 reference to the Catholic schools and the use of the French language. He said he heard 
 that there was a rumour in the constituency that if the Liberals came into power they 
 would abolish the Catholic schools and the use of the French language ; he could well 
 understand why such a thing should be said in a Roman Catholic constituency ; but he 
 absolutely denied it, and said there was not a word of truth in it, that it was a most 
 absurd rumour. He positively assured the elex;tors that the Liberal party would never 
 interfere with the privileges aforesaid, and stated that if the Liberals came into power 
 and made any attempt to interfere with their separate schools or the use of the French, 
 language, he (Mr. Martin) would leave the Liberal party for ever. 
 
 Sworn before me at St. Franqois Xavier, in the 
 
 province of Manitoba, this 22nd day of \ WILLIAM HOGUK 
 
 February, 1895. 
 
 P. Lavallee, 
 
 A Commissioner in B. R. 
 
123 
 
 EXHIBIT H. 
 
 In the matter of the appeal of the Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in 
 the province of Manitoba to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, from 
 two certain Acts of the legislature of the said province, being chapters 37 and 38 
 of 53 Victoria, intituled respectively : " An Act respecting the Department of 
 Education " and " An Act respecting Public Schools." 
 
 I, J. P. McDougall, of the parish of St. Franqois Xavier, in the province of Mani- 
 toba, make oath and say as follows : — 
 
 1. I was an elector of the constituency of St. Francois Xavier at the election which 
 took place at that constituency in the month of January, eighteen hundred and eighty- 
 eight, between the Honourable Joseph Burke on the one hand and Mr. F. H. Francis 
 on the other. 
 
 2. I was present at the meeting held in the school-house at St. Francois Xavier 
 East, in the said constituency, on the day of the said month of January, and I 
 heard Mr. Joseph Martin give assurances to the French and Roman Catholic electors 
 with reference to the Catholic schools and the use of the French language. He said he 
 had heard that there was a i-umour in the constituency that if the Liberals came into 
 power they would abolish the Catholic schools and the use of the French language ; he 
 could well understand why such a thing should be said in a Roman Catholic constituency, 
 but he absolutely denied it, and said there was not a word of truth in it, that it was a 
 most absurd rumour. He positively assured the electors that the Liberal party would 
 never interfere with the privileges aforesaid, and stated that if the Liberals came into 
 power and made any attempt to interfere with their separate schools or the use of the 
 French language, he (Mr. Martin) would leave the Liberal party for ever. 
 
 Sworn before me at St. Francois Xavier, ") 
 
 in the province of Manitoba, this 22nd day V JOHN P. McDOUGALL. 
 
 of February, 1895. ) 
 
 P. Lavallee, 
 
 A Commissioner in B. R. 
 
 EXHIBIT I. 
 
 In the matter of the appeal of the Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in 
 the province of Manitoba, to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, 
 from two certain Acts of the legislature of said province, being chapters 37 and 38 
 of 53 Victoria, intituled respectively : "An Act respecting the Department of 
 Education" and "An Act respecting Public Schools." 
 
 I, Norbert Todd, of the parish of St. Fran9ois Xavier, in the province of Manitoba' 
 make oath and say as follows : — 
 
 1. I was an elector of the constituency of St. Fran9ois Xavier at the election which 
 took place at that constituency in the month of January, 1888, between the Honourable 
 Joseph Burke, on the one hand, and Mr. F. H. Francis, on the other. 
 
 2. I was present at the meeting held in the school-house, St. Francois Xavier East, 
 in the said constituency, on the day of the said month of January, and I 
 heard Mr. Joseph Martin give assurances to the French and Roman Catholic electors 
 with reference to the Catholic schools and the use of the French language. He said 
 that he had heard that there was rumour in the constituency that if the Liberals came 
 into power they would abolish the Catholic schools and the use of the French language. 
 
124 
 
 He could well understand why such a thing should be said in a French Catholic consti- 
 tuency, but he absolutely denied it, and said there was not a word of truth in it, that it 
 was a most absurd rumour. He positively assured the electors that the Liberal party 
 would never interfere in the privileges aforesaid, and stated that if the Liberals came 
 into power and made any attempt to interfere with their separate schools or the use of 
 the French language, he (Mr. Martin), would leave the Liberal party for ever. 
 
 Sworn before me at the parish of St. Francois] 
 
 Xavier, in the province of Manitoba, this - NORBERT TODD, 
 
 twenty-.second day of February, 1895. J 
 
 P. Lavallee, 
 
 A Commissioner in B.R. 
 
 EXHIBIT J. 
 
 In the matter of the appeal of the Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in 
 the pro\ince of Manitoba to His Excellency the Governor (xeneral in Council, from 
 two certain Acts of the legislature of said province, being chapters 37 and 38 of 53 
 Victoria, intituled respectively : " An Act respecting the Department of Educa- 
 tion" and " An Act respecting Public Schools." 
 
 I, Francis "Walsh, of the parish of St. Frs. -Xavier, ia the province of Manitoba, 
 make oath and say as follows : — 
 
 1. I was an elector of the constituency of St. Francois-Xa%-ier at the election which 
 took place at that constituency in the month of January, 1888, between the Honourable 
 Joseph Burke, on the one hand, and Mr. F. H. Francis, on the other. 
 
 2. I was present at the meeting held in the school-house, at St. Francois Xavier 
 East, in the said constituency, on the day of the said month of January, 
 and I heard Mr. Joseph Martin give assurances to the French and Roman Catholic 
 electors with reference to the Catholic schools and the use of the French language. He 
 said that he had heard that there was rumour in the constituency that if the Liberals 
 came into power they would abolish the Catholic schools and the use of the French 
 language. He could well understand why such a thing should be said in a French 
 Catholic constituency, but he absolutely denied it and said there was not a word of 
 truth in it, that it was a most absurd rumour. He positively assured the electors that 
 the Liberal party would never interfere in the privileges aforesaid, and stated that if 
 the Liberals came into power and made any attempt to interfere Mith their separate 
 schools, or the use of the French language, he (Mr. Martin) would leave the Liberal 
 party for ever. 
 
 Sworn before me, at the Parish of St. Francois 1 his 
 
 Xavier, province of :Manitoba, this 22nd - FRANCIS x WALSH, 
 
 day of February, 1895. J ^^^^^ 
 
 P. Lavallee, 
 
 A Commissioner in B.R. 
 
125 
 
 EXniBIT K. 
 
 In the matter of the appeal of the Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in 
 the province of Manitoba, to His Excellency the Governor General in Council 
 from two certain Acts of the legislature of said province, being chapters 37 
 and 38 of 53 Victoria, intituled respectively : " An Act respecting the Department 
 of Education " and " An Act respecting Public Schools." 
 
 I, Joseph Hogue, of the parish of St. Erangois-Xavier, in the province of Manitoba, 
 make oath and say as follows : — 
 
 1. I was an elector of the constituency of St. Frangois-Xavier at the election which 
 took place at that constituency in the month of January, 1888, between the Honourable 
 Joseph Burke, on the one hand, and Mr. F. H. Francis on the other. 
 
 2. I was present at the meeting held in the school-house at St. Francois-Xavier 
 East, in the said constituency, on the day of the said month of January, and I 
 heard Mr. Joseph Martin give assurances to the French and Roman Catholic electors 
 with reference to the Catholic schools and the use of the French language. He said that 
 he had heard that there was rumour in the constituency that if the Liberals came into 
 power they would abolish the Catholic schools and the use of the French language. He 
 could well understand why such a thing should be said in a French Catholic consti- 
 tuency, but he absolutely denied it and said there was not a word of truth in it, that it 
 was a most absurd rumour. He positively assured the electors that the Liberal party 
 would never interfere in the privileges aforesaid, and stated that if the Liberals came 
 into power and made any attempt to interfere with their separate schools, or the use of 
 the French language he (Mr. Martin) would leave the Liberal party for ever. 
 
 Sworn before me at the Parish of St. Francois- ^ his 
 
 Xavier, province of Manitoba, this 22nd [ JOSEPH + HOGUE. 
 
 day of February, 1895. J mark. 
 
 P. Lavallee, 
 
 A Cotmnissioner in B.R. 
 
 EXHIBIT L. 
 
 In the matter of the appeal of the Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in 
 the province of Manitoba to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, from 
 two certain Acts of the Legislature of the said province, being chapters 37 and 38 
 of 53 Victoria intituled respectively : "An Act respecting the Department of 
 Education," and " An Act Respecting Public Schools." 
 
 I, Gilbert Todd, of the parish of St. Frangois-Xavier, in the province of Manitoba 
 make oath and say as follows : — 
 
 1. I was an elector of the constituency of St. Francois-Xavier at the election which 
 took place at that constituency in the month of January, eighteen hundred and eighty- 
 eight, between the Honourable Joseph Burke, on the one hand, and Mr. F. H. Francis, on 
 the other. 
 
 2. I was present at the meeting held in the school-house at St. Frangois-Xavier 
 East, in the said constituency, on the day of the said month of January, and 
 I heard Mr. Joseph Martin give assurances to the French and Roman Catholic electors 
 with reference to the Catholic schools and the use of the French language. He said he had 
 heard that there was a rumour in the constituency that if the Liberals came into power 
 they would abolish the Catholic schools and the use of the French language ; he could 
 well understand why such a thing should be said in a Roman Catholic constituency ; 
 
126 
 
 but he absolutely denied it and said there was not a word of truth in it, that it was a 
 most absurd rumour, lie positively assured the electors that the Liberal party would 
 never interfere witli the privileges aforesaid, and stated that if tlie Liberals came into 
 power and made any attempt to interfere with their separate schools, or the use of the 
 French language, he (Mr. ]\Lartin) would leave the Liberal party for ever. 
 
 sworn before me at St. Franc^ois Xavier, j 
 in the province of Manitoba, this ]- 
 
 Sx . . 
 
 province of Manitoba, this ^ GILBERT TODD. 
 
 22nd day of February, 1895. ) 
 
 P. Lavall]£e, 
 
 A Commissioner in B.R. 
 
 EXHIBIT M. 
 
 In the matter of the appeal of the Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects, in 
 the province of Manitoba to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, 
 from two certain Acts of the legislature of said province, being chapters 37 and 38 
 of 53 Victoria, intituled respectively : " An Act respecting the Department of 
 Education," and " An Act respecting Public Schools." 
 
 1. the Verj Rev. Joachim Allard, O.M.I., of the town of St. Boniface, in the pro- 
 evince of Manitoba, administrator of the Archdiocese of St. Boniface, make oath and say 
 as follows : — 
 
 L I was duiing all the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
 -eighty-eight, the Vicar-General of the said archdiocese of St. Boniface, having my resi- 
 dence in the ejiscopal residence at St. Boniface. 
 
 2. I distinctly remember that during the early part of the said year of our Lord 
 one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, the Hon. Thomas Greenway, with whom I 
 was not then personally acquainted, called at the said episcopal residence in St. Boniface, 
 in company of Mr. W. F. Alloway, whom I personally knew, and the said Mr. Alloway 
 then introduced the said Hon. Thos. Greenway to me, and the said Mr. Greenway then 
 stated to me that he had called to see His Grace the Archbishop, personally, touching a 
 confidential matter. His Grace was then sick and confined to his bed, and I so informed 
 the said Mr. Greenway, and stated to him that as the vicar-general of His Grace I could 
 receive any confidential communications and communicate the same to His Grace ; and 
 I then assured him that he could rely upon my discretion in any confidential communi- 
 <;ation that he wished to make, and that His Grace the Archbishop would also respect 
 his confidence. 
 
 3. The Hon. Mr. Greenway then stated to me that he had been called to form a new 
 government in this province, and that he was desirous to strengthen it by taking into 
 bis cabinet one of the French members of the legislature, who would be agreeable to the 
 archbishop ; whereupon I remarked that I did not think that His Grace would favour 
 any French member joining the new administration unconditionally, and without any 
 previous understanding as M certain questions of great importance to His Grace. Mr. 
 Greenway replied that he had already talked the matter over with his friends, and that 
 he (Mr. Greenway) was quite willing to guarantee, under his government, the main- 
 tenance of the then existing condition of matters with regard : 
 
 \. To separate Catholic schools ; 
 
 2. To the official use of the French language ; 
 
 3. To the French electoral divisions. 
 
 4. I received the assurances of the said Hon. Thomas Greenway, as above stated to 
 me, and I promised him that I would convey the same to His Grace the Archbishop, and 
 I further told him that I believed his assurances so made would give great satisfaction 
 to His Grace. The said Hon. Thomas Greenway then proposed to come again on the 
 
127 
 
 following day, to receive an answer as to the nomination of the French member of his 
 cabinet ; but I told him that I would not put him to that inconvenience, but that I would 
 meet him in Winnipeg on the following day for that purpose ; and it was then agreed 
 between myself and him, that such meeting should take place on the following morning 
 in Mr. Alloway's office at the hour of nine o'clock. This finished the first interview I 
 had with the said Hon. Thomas Greenway. 
 
 5. During all the time that elapsed between the introduction of Mr. Greenway and 
 the end of the said interview as above set out, and his departure from said residence 
 on that day Mr. W. F. Alloway was personally present and heard all that took place 
 between the said Hon. Thomas Greenway and myself, as above stated by me. In pur- 
 suance of my promise, I, on the said day of the interview, visited His Grace the Arch- 
 bishop, in his bedroom, and reported to him fully and faithfully what had taken place at 
 said interview. 
 
 6. His Grace expressed his satisfaction, and instructed me to answer the Honour- 
 able Thomas Greenway that he would throw no obstacle in the way of his administra- 
 tion, and that I could say to him that, His Grace would have no objection to Mr. 
 Prendergast being taken into the new cabinet as a French representative, and His 
 Grace particularly requested me to convey to Mr. Greenway the satisfaction given him 
 l)y the assurance and promise made to me by the said Mr. Greenway. 
 
 7. On the following morning, in pursuance of the appointment so made, I attended 
 at the oflice of Mr. Alloway in Winnipeg, and then again met the said Hon. Thomas 
 Greenway, and I then communicated to him the message of His Grace so entrusted to 
 me as above set out, and Mr. Greenway then expressed to me his personal gratification 
 at the said message and attitude of His Grace, and he then assured me that faith would 
 be kept by his government with His Grace ; and then again and in specific terms 
 repeated to me the assurance that 
 
 First. — The Catholic separate schools ; 
 Second. — The official use of the French language ; 
 
 Third. — The number of French constituencies would not be disturbed during his 
 administration. 
 
 8. I had promised not to violate the confidence of the Hon. Mr. Greenway by 
 disclosing the particulars of said promises and assurances. But the said assurances have 
 been denied by the said Mr. Greenway on the fioor of the legislature, notwithstanding 
 that he had violated the terms of the same before that time, and but for such open 
 denial by him of such promises, and his misstatements of what took place, I would not 
 have felt at libert}' to now disclose the same. 
 
 9. Mr. W. F. Alloway was present at his office during the second interview with 
 said Hon. Thomas Greenway, as above set out and remained in the room where we were 
 closeted during much of the time during which said second interview lasted. 
 
 Sworn before me at Ottawa, in the county 1 t ATT*-r>-n.^i*-r 
 
 £ r> 1 ^ ,, . , 4. • 4.U 1 e \ J- ALLARD, O.M.I. 
 
 ot Carleton, this twenty-sixth day or - a r ■ • ^ ^ 
 
 February, 189o. ) 
 
 T. G. ROTHWELL, 
 
 A Commissioner in the H. C. J. and a Notary Public « 
 
 in and for the Province of Ontario. 
 
128 
 
 EXHIBIT N. 
 
 In the matter of the appeal by the Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in 
 the province of ^Manitoba to His Excellency the Governor General in Council from 
 two certain Acts of the legislature of the said province, being chapters 37 and 38 
 of 53 Victoria, intituled respectively : " An Act respecting the Department of 
 Education," and " An Act respecting Public Schools." 
 
 I, William Forbes Alloway, of the city of Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba^ 
 banker, make oath and say as follows : — 
 
 1. In or about the month of January, in the year of our Lord 1888, the Honourable 
 Thomas Greenway, then Premier of the province of Manitoba, with whom I was inti- 
 mately acquainted had several interviews with me on the subject of the composition 
 of his "-overnment which he was at that time forming, and especially as to the attitude 
 of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of St. Boniface and the clergy and members of the 
 Roman Catholic church towards his government ; and the said Greenway intimated to 
 me that he was desirous of meeting the said Archbishop of St. Boniface with a view of dis- 
 cussing certain matters with him touching the formation of the government and especi- 
 ally as to the choice of a French speaking member of the government, and as he told me 
 that he was not personally acquainted with the said Archbishop it was arranged that I 
 should introduce him to His Grace for that purpose. 
 
 2. Accordingly I accompanied the Honourable Mr. Greenway to the episcopal 
 residence at St. Boniface in said province shortly after said interview took place in order 
 to wait upon the said Archbishop for the said purpose. 
 
 3. On reaching the said residence we found that the Archbishop was then unwell 
 and confined to his bed, but we saw the Rev. J. Allard, the Vicar-General of the Arch- 
 bishop who was informed by Mr. Greenway and me that Mr. Greenway had caUed to 
 see His Grace the Archbishop touching a confidential matter, whereupon the said Vicar- 
 General said, that as Vicar-General, he could receive any confidential communications 
 and communicate the same to the Archbishop. 
 
 4. Thereupon a conference took place between the said Vicar General on the one 
 part, and 3Ir. Greenway and myself on the other part, in which Mr. Greenway informed 
 the Vicar-General, for the information of the Archbishop, that he had been called upon 
 to form a new government in the province ; that he was desirous of strengthening it by 
 taking into his cabinet one of the French members of the legislature, and that he desired 
 to consult the Archbishop as to the person who would be agreeable to him as such 
 French member. ■» 
 
 5. Thereupon the Vicar-General intimated that there were certain questions as to 
 which probably the Archbishop would desire to have an understanding before he would 
 favour any French member joining the new government. Mr. Greenway thereupon said 
 that he had already discussed with his friends certain questions which they knew had 
 created uneasiness amongst the French and Roman Catholic population in the province, 
 and that he and his political friends forming the government were quite prepared to 
 undertake that the feelings of the Roman Catholic section of the population upon these 
 questions would be fully respected and that their position upon these questions would 
 Vje fully sustained. 
 
 6. These questions were then talked over between Mr. Greenway and the Vicar- 
 General, the same being questions that had been somewhat warmly discussed during an 
 election contest that had recently taken place in a constituency in the province largely 
 composed of the Roman Catholic and French population. 
 
 7. These questions were (first) that of the continuation or abolition of separate 
 schools as hitherto enjoyed by Catholics, (second) as to the use of the French language 
 as an official language in the province, and (third) as to changes in the representation 
 in the legislature of the province which might affect the number of French electoral 
 divisions. 
 
 S. Upon all of these questions Mr. Greenway assured the Vicar-General in my 
 presence that his government was prepared to uphold the position of the Romaa 
 
129 
 
 Catholic section of the population and that they would neither interfere with separate 
 schools nor the use of the French language as an official language or lessen the number of 
 French electoral divisions. 
 
 9. The Vicar-General assured Mr. Greenway that he would communicate his state- 
 ments to the Roman Catholic Archbishop immediately, and thereupon an appointment 
 was made for Mr. Greenway and the Vicar-General to meet in my banking office in 
 Winnipeg the following morning. 
 
 10. On the following morning pursuant to the said appointment Mr. Greenway and 
 the said Vicar-General met in my office, when the Vicar-General reported that he had 
 seen His Grace the Achbishop who had requested him, the Vicar-General, to convey to 
 Mr. Greenway the satisfaction given him by the assurance and promise that had been 
 made by Mr. Greenway to him in respect of these questions. 
 
 11. Some further conversation then took place between Mr. Greenway and the 
 Vicar-General in which the assurance given the day before as to the attitude of the 
 government upon these several questions was substantially repeated. 
 
 12. I was present during the whole of the interview on the first day at the epis- 
 copal residence in St. Boniface, and I took a particular interest in the discussion because 
 I was very friendly to Mr. Greenway and desirous of seeing his government strength- 
 ened, and was desirous of securing the additional support of the Archbishop and the 
 clergy and members of his church, and there is no doubt whatever than an assurance 
 favourable to the position of the Roman Catholic party upon all of these questions was 
 given by Mr. Greenway in the most positive terms. 
 
 13. At the interview in my office on the second day I was present the greater part 
 of the time and heard the greater part of the conversation, and there is no doubt what- 
 ever that the promises and pledges of the previous day were substantially repeated and 
 that there was a perfect understanding between Mr. Greenway and the Vicar-General 
 as representing the Archbishop, that Mr. Greenway's government would respect and 
 maintain the position of the Roman Catholic party upon all of these questions. 
 Sworn before me at the city of Ottawa, in the] 
 
 province of Ontario, this day of - W. F. ALLOWAY. 
 
 February, A.D. 1895. J 
 
 John S. Ewart, 
 
 A Commissioner, &c. 
 
 EXHIBIT 0. 
 
 In the matter of the appeal of the Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in 
 the province of Manitoba to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, 
 from two certain Acts of the legislature of the said province, being chapters 37 and 
 38 of 53 Victoria, intituled respectively : " An Act respecting the Department of 
 Education " and " An Act respecting Public Schools." 
 
 I, Thomas Alfred Bernier, of the village of St. Boniface, in the province of Mani- 
 toba, senator, make oath and say : — 
 
 1. In the year 1881 I became a member of the board of education for the province 
 of Manitoba, and being a member of the Roman Catholic Church became also a mem- 
 ber of the Roman Catholic section of the said board. In the same year I was appointed 
 by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to act as superintendent of Roman Catholic 
 schools in the said province. I retained my position on the Board of Education and my 
 position as superintendent of Roman Catholic schools until the Education Act of 1890 
 came into force. 
 
 2. By the Manitoba School Act, passed in the year 1881, it was provided amongst 
 other things that the sum appropriated by legislature for common school purposes 
 should be divided between Protestant and Roman Catholic sections of the board of edu- 
 cation in certain proportions. 
 
 9 
 
130 
 
 3. Clause 90 of said last mentioned Act provided as follows : — " From the sura or 
 proportion paid to each section there shall first be paid the incidental expenses of that 
 section and such sum to the superintendent of education as the Lieutenant Governor in 
 Council may doom just, and each section of the board may reserve for unforeseen con- 
 tingencies a sum nut exceeding ten per cent of its share of the approi^riation," which 
 clause remained in force until the year 1888. 
 
 4. In pursuance of the said clause of ihe said statute, the Roman Catholic section 
 of the board of education did set apart for unforeseen contingencies from year to year a 
 certain portion of the monies received by it from the government. 
 
 5. By the provisions of the Act of 1888, the provincial grant instead of being paid 
 over to the difTerent sections of tie board were paid direct to the person or persons who 
 might be entitled to receive the money upon the requisition of the i-espective superin- 
 tendents of education. 
 
 6. Shortl}' after the passage of the Act of 1888, a demand was made upon me as 
 superintendent of Roman Catholic schools for the payment over to the government of 
 moneys which had accumulated by reason of the said board setting apart for unforeseen 
 contingencies of a portion of the said grant from year to year. 
 
 7. The amount at the time under the control of the Roman Catholic section which 
 had so accumulated as aforesaid was the sum of thirteen thousand eight hundred and 
 seventy-nine dollars and forty-seven cents, and the said sum was on the twenty-second 
 day of July, 1889, paid over Ijy the Roman Catholic section to the Provincial Treasurer. 
 
 8. In the letter of the Provincial Secretary addressed to me as superintendent of 
 Catholic schools asking that the amount should be paid over there were the following 
 words : " this demand refers only to a detail of internal administration, and in no way 
 to the propei'ty of the amount indicated, the amount is decidedly a vested right and 
 will not admit of doubt at any time." 
 
 9. Before complying with the said demand the Roman Catholic section passed the 
 following resolution, a copy of which was sent to the Provincial Secretary : " In accord- 
 ance with the desire of the government expressed in the letter of the Hon. Secretary of 
 State, of the 12th July, 1889, the Catholic section of the Board of Education authorizes 
 its superintendent to hand over to the Provincial Treasurer the sum of thirteen thou- 
 sand eight hundred and seventy-nine dollars and forty-seven cents being the reserve 
 fund and the balance of all funds in hand for the schools under the direction of the said 
 Catholic section of the Board of Education, in remitting the money the Catholic section 
 takes the respectful liberty of observing : 
 
 " The reserve fund was raised and accrued in accordance with the dispositions of 
 the educational acts then in vigour in the province ; 
 
 " 2. This reserve has been made possible because the members of the Catholic 
 section not only administered the school funds with the strictest economy, but also in 
 many instances helped by personal sacrifice. 
 
 " 3. The property of this reserve fund is a vested right to the Catholic schools of 
 the province, therefore those who administered it until to-day are persuaded that the 
 government will not change its destination and willnot on that account diminish the 
 ordinary grants, in accordance with the positive assurance that the government has 
 given us the above mentioned letter of the Honourable Secretary of State." 
 
 No part of the said sum of money was ever afterwards drawn by the Roman Catholic 
 section or applied for the purposes of the Roman Catholic schools, but the whole amount 
 remained with the provincial treasurer until the coming in force of the School Act of 
 1890 and the Roman Catholics have never received any benefit from the said sum of 
 money whatever. 
 
 Sworn before me at the city of Ottawa, in the countyl 
 
 of Carleton, and province of Ontario, this twenty- - F. A. BERNIER. 
 
 sixth day of February, A.D. 1895. J 
 
 T. R. ROTHWELL, 
 
 A Notary Public in and for the Province of Ontario. 
 
131 
 
 EXHIBIT P. 
 
 AN ACT RESPECTING SEPARATE SCHOOLS. 
 
 HER Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of 
 the province of Manitoba, enacts as follows : — 
 L This Act may be cited as " The Separate Schools Act." 
 
 2. The Lieutenant Governor shall appoint, to form and constitute the Separate 
 School Board of Education for the province of Manitoba, a certain number of persons 
 not exceeding nine, all of which persons shall be Roman Catholics. 
 
 3. Three of such members, recorded at the foot of the list of the members of the 
 board as entered in the minul^ book of the Executive Council of the province of 
 ^Manitoba, shall retire and cease to hold office at the end of eacl> year, which for the 
 purposes of this Act shall be held and taken to be the second day of October annuallv, 
 and the names of the members appointed in their stead shall be placed at the head of 
 the list, and the three members so retiring in rotation and annually may be elif^ible for 
 reappointment. 
 
 4. The Department of Education may, for the observance of the separate schools, 
 
 (a.) Make from time to time such regulations as they may think fit for the general 
 
 organization of the separate schools ; 
 
 yb.) Make regulations for the registei'ing and reporting of daily attendance at all 
 the separate schools in the province subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Gov- 
 ernor in Council ; 
 
 (c.) Make regulations for the calling of meetings from time to time of the depart- 
 ment, and pi escribe the notices thereof to be gi>en to the members (ISSl). 
 
 5- It shall be the duty of the Board of Education, — 
 
 (a.) To have under its control and management the separate schools and to make 
 from time to time such regulations as may be deemed fit for their general government 
 and discipline and the carrying out of the provisions of this Act ; 
 
 (b.) To arrange for the proper examination, grading and licensing of its teachers, 
 the recognition of certificates obtairred elsewhere, and for the withdrawing of license 
 upon sufficient cause ; 
 
 (c.) To select all the books, maps and globes to be used in the schools under its con- 
 trol and to approve of the plans for the construction of school-houses. : 
 
 Provided, however, that in the ease of books havinij reference to religion and morals 
 they shall not be at variance with Roman Catholic doctrine ; 
 
 (d.) To appoint inspectors who shall hold office during the pleasure of the board 
 (1881). 
 
 (e.) To make regulations regarding the selection of school sites, the size of school 
 grounds, and the formation and alteration of all school districts under its care. 
 
 (/) To make and enforce regulations for the establishment and operation of depart- 
 ments in such of its schools as it may deem suitable for the preparation of candidates 
 for the annual examination of teachers and for matriculating at the L'niversity of 
 Manitoba, and for the doing of general literary work corresponding to the standard 
 required for these exanunations, and to give special aid to such schools from the funds 
 at its disposal, not exceeding in the aggregate one-twentieth of its appropriation ; 
 provided that no school shall be entitled to receive such special aid that does not 
 comply fully with the regulations made by the board for its operation ; provided further 
 that each such department shall be established only with the consent of the local board 
 of school trustees. 
 
 (g.) The board may, whenever they shall see fit, appoint and hold a meeting of such 
 board, in any part of the province, and such meeting shall be as valid as if held in the 
 city of Winnipeg, which shall be the usual place of meeting of such board or section 
 9i 
 
132 
 
 QUORUM. 
 
 6- The quorum of the board shall consist of a majority of the members. 
 
 7. Any member of the l)()arfl absentin<j himself from the meetings of the board for 
 six months, unless from sickness or absence from the province, shall be considered to 
 have ipso facto resigned his position, and the superintendent of the board shall notify 
 the Provincial Secretary of the vacancy so caused, and the member appointed to replace 
 him shall liold olHce only for the unexpired term of the member whom he replaces. 
 
 SUPERINTENDENTS. 
 
 8. The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall appoint one of the members of the 
 board to be the superintendent of the separate schools, and the superintendent shall be 
 the secretary of the board. 
 
 9. In addition to the duties specified in other clauses of this Act, it shall be the 
 duty of the superintendent, and he is hereby empowered, — 
 
 (a.) To call all meetings of the board, and also to call any school meeting required 
 to be held under this Act when the parties who are otherwise invested with the power 
 to do so, either neglect or refuse to exercise it ; 
 
 (6.) To have, as the executive officer of the board, the general supervision and direc- 
 tion of the schools, and of the inspectors that may from time to time be appointed ; and 
 to have authority to take measures to enforce and carry into effect all the provisions of 
 this Act and the regulations issued under its authority that relate to the schools within 
 their respective jurisdictions ; 
 
 (c.) To give such explanations of the provisions of this or any other School Act, 
 and of the regulations and decisions of the board, as may be required and to enforce the 
 same ; and 
 
 [d.) To prepare during the first term of the school year a report to the Lieutenant 
 Governor in Council upon all the schools under his supervision for the previous school 
 year, accompanied with full statistical tables, showing among other things, the number 
 of children of school age in each district, as shown by the census returns for that year, 
 the number who have attended school and the average attendance as shown by the semi- 
 annual returns of the different teachers, and such report shall also contain a statement 
 of the receipts and expenditure of all government money furnished to the board for 
 common school purposes. 
 
 10- In case of the absence of the superintendent, he may, with the sanction of the 
 Lieutenant Governor in Council, appoint a member of the board to act for him. 
 
 IL It shall be the duty of the council of each municipality to establish, and alter 
 when necessary, the school districts within their own bounds, and in case any school 
 district or proposed district should be included in more than one municipality, its for- 
 mation or alteration shall be made by the reeves or mayors of such municipalities, and 
 the local inspector or inspectors of schools ; provided that the formation or alteration of 
 school districts by municipal councils or by the reeves and mayors of municipalities and 
 the local inspector or inspectors shall be made under the regulations that may from 
 time to time be issued for that purpose by the Board of Education, and all by-laws and 
 resolutions for forming or altering school districts, shall be submitted to the board and 
 receive its sanction before they can be carried into effect ; provided also that upon the 
 refusal or neglect of any council, or of the reeves and mayors and local inspectors of the 
 municipalities concerned to establish or alter any school district, when petitioned to do 
 so by at least five heads of families resident therein, or upon an appeal against the 
 action of such body forming or altering any school district, the board shall be empowered 
 to confirm or annul the action appealed against, or to form or alter such school district 
 as they may tliink fit, within three months after their receipt of such appeal or petition ; 
 provided further that no school district shall be organized under this Act unless there 
 shall be at least ten children of school age living within the same, and situated not over 
 three miles from a point that may in anywise be fixed as the first school site. 
 
 (a.) It shall be the duty of the clerk of each municipality within one month after 
 the passing of this Act to transmit a description or map included in each school district 
 
133 
 
 within his municipality to the superintendent under a penalty of five dollars for neglect 
 or refusal. 
 
 (h.) The reeves or mayors and the local inspector or inspectors of schools engaged 
 in the formation or alteration of school districts extending within the bounds of two or 
 more municipalities shall be entitled to the same remuneration per day with travelling 
 expenses for their attendance as municipal councillors for attendance at meetings of 
 their respective councils, and each reeve or mayor shall be paid by the council of his 
 own municipality and the local inspector by all the municipalities concerned in equal 
 parts. Provided that in no case the inspector shall be paid a less sum than two dollars 
 and a half per day and ten cents per mile each way for travelling expenses. 
 
 12. In case of the readjustment of any school district subsequently to an issue of 
 debentures by such district, and before the said debentures have been fully paid, all 
 lands added to the school district by such readjustment shall thereafter be liable to 
 taxation in common with the remaining portion of the school district for the purpose of 
 meeting payments on such debentures as they become due ; and all persons assessed for 
 lands detached from any school district after an issue of debentures in such district and 
 before the said debentures have been fully paid, shall in case of their assessment for the 
 payment of debentures in any other school district, be entitled to receive back all sums 
 for which they may hereafter be assessed for payments on debentures in any school 
 ■district except that in which they then reside. 
 
 13. In all cases of readjustment, the inspector of schools for the district, jointly 
 with one competent person to be appointed bv each boai'd of trustees, whose district 
 the readjustment may aflPect, who shall be non-residents of the said district, shall form 
 a board of ai-bitration, whose duty it shall be to value the existing school-houses, school 
 sites and other school property or assets within the territories readjusted, and ascertain 
 the respective debts and liabilities thereof ; and the said board or a majority of it< 
 members shall thereupon adjust and settle in such a manner as they may deem just and 
 •equitable, the respective rights, claims and demands of the parties interested ; and their 
 award in writing, in luding their own reasonable costs and charges, may be enforced in 
 the county courts of the province, and which said award shall in all respects be subject 
 to appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench, the same as awards in civil matters. 
 
 {a.) The said arbitrators shall be entitled to receive for thei'- attendance at the said 
 arbitration the same remuneration with travelling expenses as paid to municipal coun- 
 cillors for their attendance at meetings of their respective councils, and such payments 
 shall be paid equally by the school districts represented in the arbitration. 
 
 14. The school distiiat of any incorporate city or town shall be the same as the 
 territorial limits of the said city or town, except as hereinafter provided, but nothing 
 herein shall prevent the union of a portion of the adjoining municipality or municipali- 
 ties to a city or town or portion of a city or town for school purposes as provided in 
 section eleven of this Act ; and the first school meeting in any city or town or school 
 •district, including a city or town after its incorporation, shall be called by the city or 
 town clerk within two weeks after the holding of the municipal elections, or, in case of 
 his failure to do so, by the superintendent as soon afterwards as convenient. 
 
 (a.) It shall be lawful for the board to form or subdivide any city or town or any 
 school district which includes or is included in a city or town, into wards for the 
 •election of school trustees, such number of wards not to exceed six in any one ca^e, 
 and to determine the number of trustees not exceeding two to represent each ward 
 when the number of such wards is more than one, and to fix the date of the first election 
 of trustees after such formation or subdivision ; which election shall take 
 place in each ward at the call of the superintendent, and in such case 
 the trustees that may then be in ofiice will so remain in ofiice only until 
 such election takes place irrespective of the date of their appointment ; provided 
 that the existing wards for municipal purposes shall be the wards for school purposes in 
 any city or town until such formation or subdivision is effected by the board : provided 
 further that the board shall have power to maintain its district as it existed before the 
 incorporation of said city or town, or so to extend its district as to include Roman 
 Catholics residing in the vicinit}' where no separate school is in operation, but in such 
 cases the children of the residents within the city or town limits only shall be computed 
 in the division of school taxes levied on the incorporated bodies within the city or town ; 
 
134 
 
 (b.) In portions of the province not organized into municipalities the Board of 
 Education shall have authority to form and alter school districts under its authority, 
 and the trustees of such scluxtl districts are hereby empowered to assess the same and 
 to levy and collect taxes therein for the suppoit of their schools. 
 
 SCHOOL MEETINGS. 
 
 15. All school meetings after the first shall be called by the i-espective boards of 
 trustees, in accordance with the form of notice furnished by the Board of Education. 
 
 16. At every school meeting as authorized and re(|uiied to be held under this pre- 
 sent Act, the Roman Catholic ratepayers, or if it is a first meeting in a new district, 
 then the Roman Catholic freeholders and householders present at such meeting, or a 
 majority of them ; 
 
 (a.) Shall elect a chairman ; and the chairman of the meeting shall decide all ques- 
 tions of order, subject to an appeal to the meeting, and in case of equality of votes, he 
 shall give the casting vote, but he shall have no vote as chaiiman, and the chairman 
 shall take the votes in the manner desired by a majority of the electors present, unless 
 a poll be demanded by any electors present, when he shall be the returning ofiicer ; 
 
 (h.) Shall elect a secretary; and the secretary shall record the procedings of the 
 meeting in a book kept for that purpose, and if a poll be held he shall record the names 
 of the voters, and the candidate or candidates for whom each elector votes ; and such 
 poll shall be held on the day of such meeting and shall be kept open until four o'clock 
 in the afternoon, unless at any time one hour shall have elapsed without a vote being 
 recorded ; 
 
 (c.) A copy of the minutes of all school meetings shall be transmitted to the super- 
 intendent within ten days after the holding of such meeting. 
 
 FIRST ELECTION OF TRUSTEES. 
 
 17. At the first meeting in any new school district such meeting being duly 
 organized by the election of a chairman and secretary, the majority of the Roman Ca- 
 tholic resident freeholders, and householders present, of the full age of twenty-one years, 
 shall elect three persons who shall be Roman Catholics to be school trustees for such 
 district ; and 
 
 (a.) The first person elected shall continue in office for two years to be reckoned 
 from the annual meeting next after his election, and until his successor has been ap- 
 pointed ; 
 
 (b.) The second person elected shall continue in office for one year to be reckoned 
 from the annual meeting next after his election, and until his successor has been 
 appointed ; and 
 
 (c.) The third and last person elected shall continue in office until the next ensuing 
 annual school meeting, and until his successor has been appointed ; 
 
 (d.) Until a school tax has been imposed in any organized school district, every 
 Roman Catholic resident freeholder, and householder, of the full age of twenty-one 
 years shall be eligible for the office of trustee, and may take part in any school meeting. 
 
 18. In all school districts which include or may hereafter include a city or town 
 not divided into wards for school purposes, theie shall be elected three trustees who 
 shall be Roman Catholics, at the first school meeting therein, whose term of office shall 
 be the same as that of trustees elected at the first meeting in rural school districts ; and 
 in all school districts divided or hereinafter to be divided into wai'ds for school purposes, 
 there shall be two trustees who shall be Roman Catholics elected for each ward at the 
 first meeting, one of whom shall hold office one year from the next annual school meet- 
 ing thereafter, and the other until the next annual school meeting, and in each case 
 until a successor has been appointed ; the trustee to hold office for the longer term shall 
 be the first nominated if no poll be held ; and in case a poll is held, the person obtain- 
 ing the highest number of votes, and in case there be an equality of votes, the returning 
 officer by his vote shall designate the person to serve the longer term, and afterwards 
 there shall be elected at each annual meeting a number of trustees equal to the number 
 
135 
 
 of those whose term of office has expired, and these newly elected trustees shall remain 
 in office three years in towns and cities not divided into wards for school purposes, and 
 two years if such are so divided, and in each case until a successor has been appointed. 
 
 SCHOOL MEETINGS, 
 
 19. On the first Monday in February in each year a meeting of the Roman Catholic 
 ratepayers of each school district, of the age of twenty-one years, and upwards, shall 
 be called by the board of trustees, by notice posted by them on the school-house, if there 
 be one, or in three public places in the district, at least two weeks in advance ; and the 
 majority of the electors present shall choose one or more persons (as the case may be) 
 who are Roman Catholics, to be school trustees for the district, and two auditors, and 
 shall I'eceive and decide upon the annual report of the trustees and the report of the 
 auditors, and transact such other business as may have been set forth in the notice 
 calling the meeting. 
 
 (a. ) All special meetings of the ratepayers in a scliool district shall be called by the 
 trustees or the superintendent by posting up notices in at least three pu blic places within 
 the school district at least two weeks previous to such meeting ; the business to be 
 considered at such meeting shall be plainly set forth in the notices calling the same, and 
 no other business may be legally transacted at a special meeting but such as may be 
 held in accordance with these provisions. 
 
 20. When in a district from any cause the annual meeting has not been held on 
 the first Monday in February, the trustees shall appoint another day for the holding of 
 such meeting ; provided that if the trustees fail to call such meeting the superintendent 
 shall call it. 
 
 (rt.) If within thirty days after the holding of a school meeting a complaint be made 
 in writing to the superintendent regarding the legality or regularity of the proceedings 
 at such meeting, he may cause an investigation to be held, and in his discretion declare 
 the proceedings void, and cause another meeting for the same purpose to be called, or 
 may ratify and confirm such proceedings, and any decision so rendered by s ch superin- 
 tendent shall be final. 
 
 21. In incorporated cities and towns all annual meetings in each ward shall be 
 held in the first Monday in February in every year, commencing at ten o'clock in the 
 forenoon, and shall be called bv the chairman of the board of school trustees. It shall 
 be the dui y of the said board to furnish the chairman of every such meeting with a copy of 
 the Roman Catholic voters' list for such ward, and in all cases of cities and towns not 
 divided into wards for school purposes, there shall be but one voting place in such city 
 or town. 
 
 (a.) The ratepayers present at the said meeting shall elect a chairman and seci'etary 
 and shall proceed to nominate a trustee or trustees, who shall be Roman Catholics, to 
 take the place of those whose term of office has expired. 
 
 In case the number of nominations does not exceed the number of vacancies to be 
 filled before the hour of eleven o'clock, the chairman shall declare the persons so nomi- 
 nated to be elected ; but should the number of persons nominated exceed the number 
 of vacancies to be filled, a show of hands shall be taken and the person or persons hav- 
 ing the majority of votes shall be declared elected should no ratepayer present demand 
 a poll. 
 
 If a poll be demanded the chairman shall be the returning officer and shall record 
 the votes given, and at four o'clock the poll shall be closed, and the person or persons 
 having the majority of votes shall be declared elected, provided that if one hour elapses 
 during such poll without a vote having been recorded, the chairman shall then declare 
 the poll closed. 
 
 (6.) The first meeting of the board of trustees in a city or town shall be held on the 
 day following the annual meeting. 
 
 22. Except as provided for in the first election of trustees and in the case of any 
 person or persons who have been included in a school district after the last preceding 
 assessment and levy of taxes within the same, no person shall be entitled to vote at any 
 school meeting whatever, unless he shall have been assessed, and in case an objection be 
 made to the right of any person to vote in a district, the chairman shall, at the request 
 
136 
 
 of any elector present, require the person whose right of voting is objected to, to make 
 the following decLaration (or athnnation) : — 
 
 " I, A. B., do declare (or aifirm) that I am I'ated on the assessment roll of that 
 portion of the municipality of now included in the 
 
 school district ; that I am of the full age of twenty-one years, and that I am legally quali- 
 fied to vote at this election." 
 
 Thereupon the person making such declaration shall be permitted to vote, and not 
 otherwise. 
 
 23. In incorporated cities or towns no person shall be entitled to vote at any 
 school meeting for the election of school trustees, on any school question whatsoever, 
 except in the district to which he belongs, and unless his name be upon the revised 
 municipal voters' list for the ward in whicli he offers to vote ; and in case any objection 
 be made to the right of any person to vote in a ward, the chairman or returning officer 
 of the election shall, at the request of any elector present, require the person whose 
 right of voting is objected to, to make the following declaration : — 
 
 " I, A. ix, do declare (or affirm) that I have been rated on the assessment roll of 
 this school district and that I am legally qualified to vote at this election." 
 
 Thereupon the person making such declaration shall be permitted to vote. 
 
 SCHOOL ASSESSMENT. 
 
 24. For the purpose of supplementing the legislative grant it shall be the duty of 
 the council of each municipality to levy and collect each year by assessment upon the 
 whole of the Roman Catholic real and personal property within the municipality (as the 
 case may be) that is liable to taxation under the Municipal Act, a sum equal to twenty 
 dollars for each month that the trustees of each school district wholly or included within 
 the municipality, may declare as hereinafter provided that they have kept and will keep 
 a teacher under engagement at a salary in each of their schools during the current 
 school year ; and for each school district partially included within the municipality, they 
 shall levy and collect in like manner a proportionate part of twenty dollars per month, 
 as fixed by the local inspector in the manner hereinafter provided for each of their 
 schools, and the said council may in their discretion levy and collect in like manner an 
 additional sum not exceeding twenty-five per cent of the amount hereinbefore required 
 to be levied. 
 
 (a.) From the moneys so levied and collected the council shall, upon the first day of 
 December following, pay over to each school district wholly or partially included in the 
 municipality one-half the sum of twenty dollars per month or the proportion thereof 
 allotted to each district as hereinbefore provided, and upon the thirty-first day of January 
 following shall pay over the whole of the balance due to the said trustees, whether the 
 necessary amount has been fully collected or not from the tax levied for the same. 
 Provided that no board of trustees shall be entitled to receive a larger total amount for 
 the school year than twenty dollars for each month within the same that they have 
 actualh' had a teacher engaged at a salary in each of their schools, and in case of doubt 
 or dispute as to the number of months, the certificate of the superintendent sha'l decide ; 
 
 Provided, further that all rural schools kept in operation over seven months of the 
 school year which have not secured an average attendance of resident pupils of the 
 period of operation equal to fort}' per cent of the enrolment for the same period, shall 
 be subject, in the discretion of the council or councils concerned, with the consent of the 
 proper superintendent of education and not otherwise, to a leduction not exceeding 
 one-half of the amount otherwise payable for each month it was kept in operation over 
 seven months ; and this percentage of attendance may be obtained on the application of 
 any council from the proper superintendent after the close of the last half of the school 
 year. 
 
 (h.) It shall be the duties of the trustees of each school district wholly situated in a 
 municipality to lay before the council at its first meeting after the thirty-first day of 
 July in each year a statement of the number of months in the current school year during 
 which they have kept and will keep a teacher engaged at a salary in each of their 
 schools, and before the thirty-first day of January following shall notify the clerk of the 
 
137 
 
 municipality if they have failed to keep a teacher engaged as so stated by them, and in 
 such case give the actual numljer of months they have had such teacher engaged ; 
 
 (c.) It shall be the duty of the trustees of each school district that extends within 
 the bounds of two or more municipalities or of a city or town and rural municipality to 
 obtain from the last revised assessment roll of each municipality concerned a copy of 
 that part of the said roll relating to the school district as included within the three 
 miles limit as defined in this Act, and forward the said copies before the first of July 
 to the local inspector with a statement of the number of months in the current school 
 year during which they have kept and will keep a teacher under engagement at a salary 
 in each of their schools, and the amounts of their estimates exclusive of the legislative 
 grant required for the use of their schools, and the said inspector shall equalize the rate 
 of assessment of the portion of each municipality included within the school district as 
 hereinbefore described and shall allot to each municipality its due proportion of the 
 sum of twenty dollars per month of the current school year that the said trustees have 
 declared their school has been and will be kept in operation, and shall send notice 
 thereof by mail to the clerk of each municipality concerned before the fifteenth day of 
 July, and the said inspector shall in like manner allot the remainder of the trustees' 
 estimate and return the copies of the rolls with his equalization and an allotment duly 
 made out thereon to the trustees, and the said trustees if they fail to keep a teacher 
 under engagement during the school year for the full time stated by them shall before 
 the thirty-fii-st day of January following notify the local inspector of the actual time, 
 and he shall make another allotment based upon such time, and notify each council 
 concerned, and the said trustees and the said inspector shall be entitled to receive from 
 the trustees for each allotment made as hereinbefore required the sum of five dollars. 
 And the said inspector shall be empowei'ed, if he deem the amount of the trustees' 
 estimate over and above the municipal levy to be excessive or improper, to demand an 
 explanation thereof from the trustees, and in his discretion to reduce the said amount 
 "with the consent of the superintendent, and not otherwise. 
 
 (d.) Any board of school trustees that fails to notify their council or the local ins- 
 pector (as the case may be) in due time of the number of months their school is to be 
 kept in operation during any school year as hereinbefore require :1, shall not be entitled 
 to receive a larger amount in such year from the municipal levy than the council or the 
 local inspector (as the case may be) may in their discretion fix for them, and any board 
 of trustees failing to keep a teacher under engagement the full time stated by them 
 shall not be entitled to receive their second instalment of school moneys due on January 
 thirty-first until they have notified the clerk of the municipality of the actual time such 
 teacher has been under engagement, and any board of trustees wilfully making a false 
 statement in regard to such time shall forfeit their second instalment. 
 
 (e.) Any moneys collected by a council from a general levy for school purposes that 
 remain over in any year after all due payments therefrom have been made to the school 
 disti'icts entitled to the same, shall be deposited in some chartered bank by the said 
 council and afterwards used only to pay or advance moneys to school districts within 
 the municipality in the year or years following, unless the proper section of the Board 
 of E lucation shall require the same moneys or any portion of them to be paid over at 
 any time to any school district or school districts wholly or partly included in the muni- 
 cipality that the said board may consider in especial need of such assistance. 
 
 (^. ) In levying an assessment for separate school purposes the council of each 
 municipality shall assess all lands the denomination of whose owners as Catholics or 
 non-Catholics cannot be ascertained before the time of making such levy in the manner 
 provided in section 27 of this Act. 
 
 25. For the purpose of supplementing the legislative grant and the municipal levy 
 it shall be the duty of the board of trustees of each school district wholly or partially- 
 included in a rural municipality before the first day of July in each year at a meeting 
 of the said board, to make an estimate of the sum over and above the amount of the said 
 legislative grant and municipal levy that they shall require for school purposes during 
 the current school year, and resolve whether the said estimate shall be collected by the 
 municipal council or councils concerned, or by a collector or collectors appointed by the 
 said boai'd. 
 
138 . 
 
 (a.) In case the board of trustees resolve to levy and collect by their own authority 
 the amount of their estimate, it shall be the duty of the said board, if their school dis- 
 trict be wholly included in a single municipality, to obtain a copy of the last revised 
 assessment roll of that portion of the municipality that includes all the lands liable for 
 taxation for their school within their school district, and these lands shall be such within 
 the district as are wholh* included within a distance of thn e miles in a direct line from 
 the school-house or site, and each quarter section or parish lot partially included within 
 the same, except such as may contain a residence, the occupant of which must travel 
 four miles or over by the public road from it to reach the school-house, and the said 
 board of trustees shall then strike and levy a rate for raising the amount of the said 
 estimate and j^lace the amount of tax to be collected from each person or property 
 included within the aforesaid limit opposite his name, or the description of his property,, 
 and place the roll in their collector's hands for collection, and such roll handed to him 
 shall be his warrant for the collection of the taxes entered upon the same, and in col- 
 lecting he shall possess and be vested with the same power and authority, and be sub- 
 ject to similar t)bligations and penalties as a collector employed by the municipality. 
 The said collector may be the secretary-treasurer of the trustees or some other person not 
 a trustee, and his remuneration shall in no case exceed five per cent of the amount col- 
 lected ; and if the secretary -treasurer act as collector his remuneration for both offices 
 shall not exceed the amount fixed for the office of the secretary-treasurer by this Act. 
 The said collector shall give security to the satisfaction of the trustees for the faithful 
 performance of his duties to the amount of the trustees' estimates, and if such security 
 be not given the trustees shall, i]) so facto, be his sureties. 
 
 ib.) The said collector shall pay over the taxes as collected to the secretary- 
 treasurer, and shall return his roll to the trustees on or before the thirty-first day of 
 January following his appointment. 
 
 (c.) In case the school district is included within the limits of two or more muni- 
 cipalities, whether city, town or rural municipalities, the trustees shall levy and collect 
 the amount of their estimate according to the allotment made for them upon the equal- 
 ized assessment rolls returned to them by the local inspector in the same manner, under 
 the same conditions, and with the same powers given by this Act to trustees of school 
 districts wholly included within the limits of a single municipality for the collection of 
 their estimates. 
 
 {d.) In case the board of trustees resolve to have their estimates levied and col- 
 lected by the council or councils of the municipality or municipalities in which their 
 school district is wholly or partially included, they shall transmit a copy of such reso- 
 lution with the amount of their estimate, or in the case of school districts included with- 
 in the limits of two or more municipalities the proportion of their estimate allotted by 
 the local inspector to the council of the municipality concerned, at or before its first 
 meeting after the thirty-first day of July of the year in which such estimate is made, 
 and it shall be the duty of the council of such municipality, employing their own lawful 
 authorities, tj levy and collect such estimate or proportion thereof upon the i^eal and 
 personal property within the three miles limit in each school district as hereinbefore 
 descriljed and pay the whole amount so collected to the trustees at the dates upon 
 which they are required to pay them the amounts due from the municipal levy. Pro- 
 vided that in the case of any school district wholly situated within a municipality the 
 council shall be empowered if it deem the estimate of the trustees for the special rate 
 excessive or improper, to demand an explanation thereof from the trustees and in its- 
 discretion to reduce the said estimate with the consent of the superintendent, and not 
 otherwise. 
 
 (e.) For the purpose of collecting the arrears of school taxes for any year, the 
 trustees of any school district wholly or partially included in a city, town or rural 
 municipality may, in any year, transmit a list of such arrears to the council of the 
 municipality concerned with the estimate of the taxes to be collected for them, for the 
 current school year, and thereupon the said council shall levy and collect the said arrears 
 and pay them over to the trustees on the same dates as they are required to pay over 
 their taxes collected for the current year. The trustees may, employing their own 
 lawful authority, bring a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction for the collection of 
 
139 
 
 such arrears whether they had been assessed by the said trustees or by the council of 
 the municipality. 
 
 (/!) In all cases where the assessment of personal property is mentioned in the 
 Separate Schools Act it shall be held to mean personal property liable to assessment 
 under the Municipal and Assessment Acts. 
 
 (g.) The whole or any portion of any school tax levied upon any land that has been 
 due and unpaid for more than one year after the 31st day of December of the year when 
 the rate for the same was struck, shall be liable to be sold for taxes in the manner 
 provided by the Municipal and Assessment Acts, for the sale of land for taxes ; and it 
 shall be the duty of each municipal collector or treasurer, as the case may be, to include 
 such lands in all lists of lands submitted by him to the mayor or reeve for authenti- 
 cation ; provided that in cases where school trustees levy the school tax by their own 
 authority, it shall be the duty of their secretary-treasurer to supply the council with a 
 certified list of lands, Kable to sale for arrears of school taxes from time to time, and it 
 shall be the duty of each council, upon receiving the proceeds of any sale of lands, for 
 school taxes, forthwith to hand the said proceeds over to the school trustees entitled to 
 the sane, less the costs of such sale, interest and the excess over the amount of the 
 school tax. 
 
 (/(.) All the general school and the special school tax, actually collected remaining 
 unpaid to the trustees by a council after date fixed by this Act for payment of the 
 same shall be a debt due by such council to the trustees, except arrears of taxes levied 
 by the authority of the trustees themselves. 
 
 26. The school assessment shall be laid equally according to valuation upon ratable 
 real a nd personal property of Roman Catholics in the school district and shall be payable 
 by and recoverable from the owner, occupier or possessor of the property liable to be 
 rated, and shall, if not paid, be a special mortgage and not requiring registration to 
 preserve it, on all real estate and a special charge and lien upon all personal pioperty 
 except live stock and farming implements to the value of five hundred dollars belonging 
 to bona fide owners of real estate of at least forty acres. 
 
 27. The corporations situated in a locality where both public and separate school 
 districts are established, shall be assessed only for the school district of the majority ; 
 yet out of such assessment the council of the local municipality, city or town, shall give 
 to the school district of the minority a part of such assessment in proportion to the 
 number of Catholic or non-Catholic children of school age, as the case may be, according 
 to the census. 
 
 28. The following real and personal property shall be exempt from taxation under 
 this Act : 
 
 (T). Real estate held in trust for Her Majesty, or for the public uses of the 
 province ; 
 
 (2). Real estate vested in or held in trust for the municipality, and used for 
 municipal purposes ; 
 
 (3). Real estate held in trust for any tribe or body of Indians ; 
 
 (4). Every place of public worship, churchyard, burying-grounds, educational or 
 charitable institution, public roadway, squai'e, jail, hospital, agricultural and horti- 
 cultural societies, with the land requisite for the due enjoyment thereof ; 
 
 (5). Lands allotted by the Dominion Lands Act to half-breed children of heads of 
 families under the age of eighteen years, not disposed of by them. 
 
 29. The Roman Catholic ratepayers of a school district including religious,, 
 benevolent, or educational corporations, shall pay their respective assessments to the 
 separate schools ; and in no case shall a non-Catholic ratepayer be obliged to pay for a 
 Catholic school, or a Catholic ratepayer for a non-Catholic school. 
 
 30. When property owned by a non-Catholic is occupied by a Catholic and vice 
 versa, the tenant in such cases shall only be assessed for the amount of property he 
 owns, whether real or personal, but the school taxes on said rented or leased property 
 shall in all cases, and whether or not the same has been or is stipulated in any deed, 
 contract or lease whatever, be paid to the trustees of the scliools to which the owner of 
 the property so leased or rented ought to pay and to no other, subject to the exceptions 
 aforesaid. 
 
140 
 
 31. Wherever property is held jointly as tenants or as tenants in common by two 
 •or more persons, the holders of sucli property being non-Catholics and Catholics, they 
 shall be tissessed and held accountable to the two boards of school trustees for the 
 amount of taxes in proportion to their interest in the business, tenancy or partnership 
 resppctivoly, and such taxes shall be paid accordingly. 
 
 32. In incorporated cities and towns no rate shall be levied at any general or 
 special meeting, for the building, repairing or improving of a school-house, to exceed in 
 •any one year one cent on the dollar, on the ratable property in the district. 
 
 SCHOOL TRUSTEES. 
 
 33. The school trustees in each school district shall be a corporation undei' the 
 name of " The school trustees for the separate school district of number 
 
 in the province of Manitoba ; and it shall be lawful for the Board of Edu- 
 cation to assign a name and a number to designate each school district under its autho- 
 rity. The trustees of each school district shall have perpetual succession, and a com- 
 mon seal, if they think proper to have one ; they may sue, and be sued, and shall gene- 
 rally have the same powers which any other body politic or corporate has or ought to 
 have with regard to the purposes for which it is constituted. 
 
 34. Except as elsewhere provided the time of holding office as school trustee shall 
 be three years. Provided that the trustees in any year elected shall remain in office 
 until their successors are elected. 
 
 35. Every trustee after his election and before he shall be entitled to sit or vote 
 as such at any meeting of the boai'd, shall make before the chairman of the school 
 meeting at which he was elected, or before a justice of the peace, a declaration, which 
 he shall produce and deposit with the secretary-treasurer of the board, and which shall 
 be in the following form : 
 
 "I., A. B., do solemnly declare that I will truly, faithfully, and to the best of my 
 ability and judgment, discharge the duties of the office of school trustee for the Catho- 
 lic school district of to which I have been elected. 
 
 " Dated at the day of 18 
 
 " Taken before me, &c., , 
 
 " C. D. 
 
 J. P. (or chairman, as the case many be)." 
 
 36. The school trustees shall meet within ten days after receiving notice of their 
 election for the purpose of choosing a chairman and a secretary-treasurer and transac- 
 ting such other business as may be required. 
 
 (a.) In case of absence of the chairman from any meeting of the board, the then 
 assembled school trustees shall elect one of their number to act in that capacity for 
 the time being, who shall then be vested with the same powers and privileges as the 
 ordinary chairman. 
 
 37. In the meetings of the school trustees all questions shall be decided by the 
 majority of votes, and the chairman shall have the right to vote, but in case of an equal- 
 ity of votes the question shall be decided in the negative. 
 
 38. It shall be the duty of the board of trustees : 
 
 (a.) To take possession and have the custody and safekeeping of all school property 
 "which has been acquired or given for school purposes under this Act in their district, 
 and such corporation shall be empowered to acquir-e and hold, as a corporation, by any 
 title whatsoever, any land, movable property, moneys or income for school purposes, 
 and to apply the same according to the terms on which the same was acquired or re- 
 ceived, but they shall not, without the sanction of the board, have power to alienate 
 or dispose of any school real estate ; 
 
 {h.) To do whatever they may judge expedient with regard to building, repairing, 
 renting, warming, furnishing and keeping in order the school-house or school-houses in 
 their district, its furniture and appendages, and the school land and inclosures held by 
 them, and for procuring apparatus and school books for their school, and when there is 
 
Ul 
 
 no suitable school-house belonging to the district or when a second school-house is re- 
 quired, then, to build, rent, repair, furnish, warm and keep in order, a house and its 
 appendages, to be used as a school-house ; 
 
 (c.) To contract with and employ such teachers exclusively who hold certificates, 
 from the board, and such contract shall be in writing and signed by the contracting 
 parties ; 
 
 (d.) To provide for the salaries of teachers, and all other expenses of the school ; 
 
 (e. ) To visit the school once a month, for the purpose of seeing that it is conducted 
 according to the prescribed regulations ; and the school trustees, or any of them, shall,, 
 if necessary, make anj^ suggestions in accordance with the said regulations, with a view 
 to the more effectual working of the school, and should the teacher fail to act upon 
 them, the matter shall be referred to the whole body of trustees, who shall report to 
 the superintendent : 
 
 (}'.) To see that the discipline of the school is propei'ly enforced ; at duly called 
 meetings of the board of trustees to expel the unmanageable pupils on the complaint 
 of the teacher ; and hold meetings to inquire into the same ; 
 
 ((/.) To keep a record of their proceedings, signed for each sitting by the chairman 
 and secretary, and also correct accounts of their receipts and expenditures, with refei-- 
 ence to the school or schools under their control, mentioning especially what relates to 
 each school, and such account shall be at all reasonable hours open to the inspection of 
 the ratepayers of the school district ; 
 
 (h.) To admit as pupils of the school any children whose parents or guardians are 
 not assessed and do not pay the special tax for one-fourth of the estimated expenses of 
 the school as pi'ovided in sections 24 and 25 of this Act, and to charge and collect a 
 sum not exceeding fifty cents per month for each such pupil ; 
 
 (i.) To have their schools in operation for at least six months every year when 
 there are not less than ten children of school age in their district ; 
 
 (j.) To transmit to the superintendent the half-yearly and annual reports and the 
 census returns, required by him, on the forms provided, and to cause their books and 
 accounts at any time to be laid open to his inspection, or to that of any person appointed 
 by him for that purpose ; 
 
 (k.) To call special meetings for any purpose whatever, whenever required to do so 
 by the majority of the ratepayers or by the superintendent. 
 
 39. No act or proceeding of a boai'd of trustees shall be deemed valid or binding 
 on any party which is not adopted at a regular or special meeting of the corporation, of 
 which notice shall have been given either by one of their body or the person chosen by 
 them to act as a secretary-treasurer, to all the trustees, and a majority of the trustees at 
 such meeting shall have full authority to perform any lawful business. 
 
 40. It shall not be lawful for any t>-ustee to enter into a contract with the corpo- 
 ration of which he is a member, or to have any pecuniary claim on such corporation, 
 except for a school site, or as a secretary-treasurer, and then only when he shall have 
 been appointed by the other two members of the corporation. 
 
 41. No school trustee shall be teacher or inspector of any school in his school 
 district. 
 
 42. Any person elected to the office of school trustee who refuses to serve as such 
 shall forfeit the sum of five dollars for the use of the school district, and his neglect or 
 refusal to take the declaration of office within one month after his election, if resident 
 at the time within the district, shall be construed as such refusal, after which 
 another person shall be elected to fill the place ; but no school trustee shall be reelected 
 except by his own consent during the four years next after his going out of office. 
 
 43. Any person chosen as trustee may resign with the consent expressed in 
 writing of his colleagues in office, and a continuous non-residence of three months shall 
 cause the vacation of his office, 
 
 44. In all cases of vacancy another trustee shall be elected at a meeting called by 
 the trustees or trustee remaining in office, and the person so elected shall hold office for 
 the unexpired term of the trustee whom he replaces ; provided that if the vacancy is 
 not filled within one month, the superintendent shall appoint some qualified person to 
 fill it. 
 
142 
 
 45. In all cases of prolonged incapacity arising from sickness, no election or 
 appointment to till the said office shall take place unless the said incapacity has been 
 established by the certificate of a physician, deposited with the secretary-treasurer, and 
 the vacancy arising from such incapacity shall date from the day of the deposit of such 
 
 certificate. 
 
 46. Tlie board of school trustees or their secretary -treasurer shall have at all times 
 during office hours free access to the assessment roll of the municipality, and they shall 
 be permitted to copy therefrom that portion of it having reference to their respective 
 school districts, together with the names and amount for which each individual is 
 assessed. 
 
 47. If any trustee in cities and towns shall absent himself for three months from 
 the meetings of the board of school trustees, without being authorized so to do by a 
 resolution of the board, or if he ceases to reside in the school district for a period of 
 three months consecutively, his seat shall thereby become vacant. 
 
 DISQUALIFICATION OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES. 
 
 48- Except as provided in clause seventeen, no person shall be eligible to be 
 elected or to serve as a school trustee who is not a resident ratepayer of the district 
 which he proposes to represent, and a Roman Catholic. 
 
 49. No person convicted of felony or of an infamous crime shall be eligible to be 
 elected as a school trustee. 
 
 SECRETARY-TREASURER. 
 
 50. The trustees shall appoint as secretary-treasurer one of their own number, or 
 some other competent person, and the duties of such secretary-treasurer shall include : 
 
 (a.) The correct and safe-keeping and producing (when called for) of the papers and 
 moneys belonging to the corporation ; 
 
 (b.) The correct keeping ot a record of all their proceedings in a book procured for 
 that purpose ; and 
 
 (c.) The collecting, receiving and accounting for of all school moneys, whether from 
 the government or otherwise, for the purpose of public school education within his dis- 
 trict and the distributing of such moneys in the manner directed by the majority of the 
 trustees. 
 
 51. Every secretary-treasurer shall before entering upon his duties as such give 
 security to the school trustees by a bond signed and acknowledged before a justice of 
 the peace, and such security shall be given by at least two solvent sureties, jointly and 
 severally, to the satisfaction of the board of school trustees, and for the total amount 
 of the moneys for which the secretary-treasurer m ly at any time be responsible, whether 
 arising from the local school fund or from any particular contribution or donation paid 
 into his hands for the support of schools, and such security shall be renewed or changed 
 whenever its renewal or change is required by the school trustees. 
 
 (a.) In school districts in which the secretary-treasurer has not given such security 
 the trustees shall be personally liable and respon.sible for any loss that may be caused 
 through his default, except in case they shall, within three months from the date of 
 their election as trustees or his appointment as secretary-trt asurer, enter a written 
 protest against the refusal of the majority to exact such security. 
 
 52. When the assessment is made by the trustees, the secretary-treasurer shall 
 receive the assessment roll from the assessors, and shall thereupon notify each person 
 whose name appears on said roll of the amount for which he is assessed, and such assess- 
 ment roll shall be open at all reasonable hours to the inspection of any Roman Catholic 
 ratepayer of the school district, and every such ratepayer shall be entitled to receive a 
 copy thereof on payment to the secretary -treasurer at the rate of five cents per name on 
 such roll ; 
 
 (a.) The secretary-treasurer shall notify each person whose name appears on the 
 assessment roll of the date and the place fixed by the school trustees for the sitting of 
 the court of revision ; 
 
143 
 
 (b) The secretary-treasurer shall within one month after receiving the assessment 
 roll from the assessors lay the same before the board of trustees, and after the said 
 board have struck the rate he shall receive the roll fi'om them for the purpose of col- 
 lection. 
 
 53. Every secretary-treasurer shall prepare and submit to the board of school 
 trustees annually, previous to the general meeting of the ratepayers, a detailed state- 
 ment of receipts and expenditures of the school district for the current school year 
 then expiring, and such statement after being approved by the school trustees shall be 
 by them submitted at the annual meeting of the school district, and the secretary- 
 treasurer shall on the payment to him of the sum of one dollar, furnish to any ratepayer 
 a copy of such statement. 
 
 54. The remuneration of the secretary-treasurer may, in the discretion of the 
 school trustees, be fixed at any amount not exceeding eight per cent on the moneys 
 received by him in such capacity, but such remuneration shall include every service 
 which the trustees may require from time to time from the secretary-treasurer, and 
 shall cover all contingent expenses whatever, except such as may be specially authorized 
 bv rules and regulations of the Board of Education, and shall not in any case exceed the 
 sum of one hundred dollars. 
 
 55. It shall be the duty of the board of trustees of cities and towns, and they are 
 hereby empowered : 
 
 (a.) At their first meeting after the annual meeting of ratepayers, or at some sub- 
 sequent meeting, to elect one of their number as chairman, and to appoint one of their 
 number or some other person as the majority of the board may decide to be their sec- 
 retary-treasurer, to determine the amount of salary to be paid to such officer, and to 
 impose by by-law such additional duties as may be required of him by the board of 
 trustees, and his appointment shall in all other respects be subject to the same duties, 
 obligations and penalties as are imposed by this Act in the appointment of secretary- 
 treasurers in rural school districts ; 
 
 (6.) To appoint, if they think proper to do so,^ collector or collectors of school 
 taxes for the city or town, who shall discharge similar duties and be subject to similar 
 obligations and penalties and have the full powers and authority as a collector of a 
 municipality ; 
 
 (c.) If they deem it advisable to do so, to make an estimate of the sum or sums re- 
 quired for educational purposes of the school district during the current school year ; 
 to obtain a copy of the last revised assessment roll of the city or town that relates to 
 properties liable to taxation for separate school purposes within the school district ; to 
 strike and levy a rate for the raising of the amount of the said estimate upon such 
 assessment, placing the amount of tax payable opposite the name or description of each 
 person or propertv assessed ; and to place the said assessment roll in their collector's 
 hands for collection, and he shall be empowered to collect the same in the same manner 
 as any collector of a municipality ; 
 
 {d.) In case they deem it advisable to do .so, to provide the clerk of the city or town 
 before the 1st day of May in eachschool year, with their estimate of the amount required in 
 such year by them for educational purposes, and accompany such estimate with a list of 
 the names of the persons, or a description of the properties liable to be assessed for the sup- 
 port of the separate schools of which the board applying are trustees, and it shall be the 
 ■duty of th« council of such city or town to levy and collect the amount demanded and 
 add a separate column for school taxes to their collector's roll, and to pay over such 
 taxes monthly to the trustees as collected ; 
 
 (e.) To demand and obtain from the council of the city or town, if they deem it 
 ■expedient to do so, a list of all uncollected school taxes for the current or for any pre- 
 vious school year, and it shall be the duty of the council to furnish such a list in com- 
 pliance with such demand, and the said board may place such list in the hands of a col- 
 lector appointed by them, whose powers, duties and obligations in collecting the same 
 shall be the same as those of any collector of the municipality, and the said trustees 
 may bring suit for the collection of all arrears of school taxes in a court of competent 
 jurisdiction, whether the said arrears had been assessed by them or by the council of the 
 municipality : 
 
144 
 
 ('!) To collect at their discretion from the parents or guardians of children who do 
 not reside or are not assessed within the school district, a sura not exceeding one dollar 
 per month for each pupil attending their schools, and if they think proper so to do to 
 supply all the pupils attending their schools with the necessary text books and other 
 school requisites anil to collect from their parents or guardians a sum not exceeding 20 
 cents per month for each pupil in payment for the same ; 
 
 {;/.) To submit the books and accounts of their secretary-treasurer annually to the 
 examination of the city or town auditor, or two auditors appointed by the board for that 
 purpose, and to pulilish in one or more public newspapers or on printed sheets for the 
 information of the public, on or before the 15th day of January in each year, a detailed 
 statement of the receipts and expenditure of all school moneys for the current year and 
 of the assets and liabilities of the board, with the certificate of the said auditor or audi- 
 tors as to the correctness of such statement ; 
 
 (/(.) To make all the returns required by the Department of Education or by the 
 Board of Education upon the forms provided and within the time specified by the 
 Department of Education or the board requiring the same ; 
 
 (i.) To require the oflicers and teachers to comply with the law and regulations of 
 the Board of Education in the attendance and classification of pupils and the arrange- 
 ment of their school exercises, the certification and duties of teachers, the ariangement 
 of school rooms and their furniture, and the use of text books and apparatus ; 
 
 (J.) To purchase or rent school site or school premises, and rebuild, furnish, repair, 
 warm and keep in order the school-houses and appendages, lands, inclosures, and movable 
 property of the school district, and to provide registei s in the prescribed form, suitable 
 maps, apparatus, text and prize books for the schools, and if they deem it expedient, to 
 establish and maintain school libraries ; 
 
 {k.) To determine under the direction and authority of the board the number, kind, 
 grade and description of schools (^such as male, female, infant, central or ward schools) 
 to be established and maintained, the teachers to be employed, the terms upon which 
 they are employed, the amount of their remuneration, and the duties in addition to those 
 prescribed by the Board of Education, which they are to perform ; 
 
 (l.) To appoint with the concurrence of the Board of Education, an inspector or 
 manager of the schools within the jurisdiction whose duty shall be, by frequent visits to 
 the schools and in every other way to do all in his power to improve their character and 
 efiiciency ; he shall have control of the organization and management of the schools of 
 such city or town, and report monthly to the ti'ustees as to their condition and pro- 
 gress, but the schools of such city or town shall be under the supervision of the inspector 
 appointed by the Board of Education for the county in which the city or town is situate 
 except that in cities or towns in which a collegiate department is or may be estab- 
 lished, the collegiate inspectors shall have such supervision and report half-yearly to the 
 superintendent ; 
 
 (m.) To establish with the consent and not otherwise of the Board of Education 
 and to conduct in accordance with the regulations of the same, a collegiate department 
 for the preparation of students for matriculation in the University of Manitoba, for 
 the preparation of students for first and second class teachers' certificates, and for the 
 purpose of laying the foundation of a thorough education in the English or French lan- 
 guage and literature ; 
 
 (n.) To exercise all the powers and perform all the duties not herein specified, and 
 not inconsistent with those provisions that are given to the trustees of rural school dis- 
 tricts by this Act. 
 
 PROSECUTION BY OR OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES. 
 
 56. The school trustees of any school district may institute suits, or prosecutions 
 for the school assessments, assessment for school-houses, and for all arrears of the said 
 assessments and monthly fees, and such suits or prosecutions may be instituted before 
 the county court or before two justices of the peace of the county, and the justices may 
 after judgment cause the amount of the judgment, together with the cost thereof, to be 
 levied under warrant by the seizure and sale of the goods and chattels of the defendant, 
 
145 
 
 such seizure and sale to be effected by the secretary-treasurer, who shall for that pur- 
 pose have and execute the power of sheriff, and who shall be entitled for such services 
 to the same fees as the said officer. 
 
 57. In all such suits or prosecutions judgment may be rendered with costs, and no 
 judgment rendered on any such suit or prosecution shall be liable to be appealed from, 
 nor shall any such suit or prosecution be removed by writ of certiorari. 
 
 58. No member of any board of school trustees shall engage in any suit at law as 
 such trustee, as plaintiff, without a special authorization from the trustees, duly entered 
 in the minutes, after deliberation ; and every such action may be brought either by the 
 chairman or by the secretary-treasurer, in the name of the corporation, as the board 
 may see fit. 
 
 59- All persons entrusted in any manner with the carrying of this Act into effect, 
 or qualified to vote at the election of school trustees, shall be competent to institute 
 proceedings under this Act except in cases where it is specially provided to the con- 
 trary. 
 
 60- All contestation with regard to the election of school trustees and to the func- 
 tions and powers assumed by school trustees or any of them, or their officers, or by any 
 person or persons claiming to be such trustee or trustees, or officer or officers, may by 
 any competent person be brought by a petition setting forth the case, of which a copy 
 must have been served on the parties concerned, before the county court at its next 
 sitting, and shall then be determined in a summary manner on the evidence adduced. 
 
 But no resolution, by-law, proceeding "or action of any board of trustees shall be 
 invalid or set aside by reason of any person whose election has been annulled or declared 
 illegal having acted as a trustee. 
 
 61. Any school trustee whose election has been obtained by fraud or stratagem or 
 by the votes of persons not qualified as electors, or any person usurping the functions of 
 school trustee, or illegally holding that office, may be summarily prosecuted at the 
 instance of any party interested or several collectively interested, before any one of the 
 judges of the county court of the county in which such election, usurpation or illegal 
 retention of office has taken place, for the purpose of declaring such election, or such 
 retention of office, illegal and such seat vacant. 
 
 62. It shall be the duty of any judge of the Court of Queen's Bench or of the 
 county court of this j^rovince, or any stipendiary magistrate, to investigate and decide 
 any complaints which may be made in the manner provided by the statute in that 
 behalf, in regard to the election of any school trustee, or in re'gard to any proceeding at 
 any school meeting ; provided always that no complaints in regard to any election or pro- 
 ceeding at any school meeting shall be entertained unless made in writing within 
 twenty days after the holding of such election or meeting. The costs and expenses of 
 such investigation shall be paid by the parties concerned in it, as such judge or magis- 
 trate may decide, but such judge or magistrate shall not be entitled for his own services, 
 expenses to a greater sum than five dollars per day for each day actually engaged in 
 such investigation. 
 
 63. The school trustees shall be constituted a court of revision for hearing and 
 deciding any complaints that may be made against any assessment made under their 
 authority, and shall sit as such at any time fixed by the trustees after eight days' notice 
 given by posters in three public places of the district by the secretary treasurer ; and 
 the decision of the said court of revision shall be final when the amount to be paid shall 
 not exceed twenty dollars ; and the members of the said court of revision shall be 
 empowered to administer oath while sitting as such ; and every appeal from the decision 
 of such court of revision shall be heard and determined finally at the next sitting of 
 the county court within the jurisdiction of which the school district is situated. 
 
 QUORUM. 
 
 64. The quorum of any corporation, board or body constituted under this Act 
 shall (unless otherwise expressly declared) be an absolute majority of all the members 
 thereof ; and the majority of the members present at any meeting regularly held at 
 which there shall be a quorum may validly exercise the powers of the corporation. 
 
 10 
 
146 
 
 ASSESSORS. 
 
 65. The school trustees may within twenty days after the annual school meeting, 
 appoint one or more assessors from llie resident ratepayers, provided the district is not 
 included within a municipality, or the municipal council refuses or neglects to do so, 
 and such remuneration shall be paid to such assessor as the board shall see fit. 
 
 66. Before entering upon the discharge of their duties such assessors shall be 
 sworn l^efore a justice of the peace to the faithful discharge of their duties, and they 
 shall, within two weeks after their appointment, proceed to make out an assessment 
 roll of the ratable property of each Roman Catholic ratepayer in the school district, 
 and shall deliver the same into the hands of the secretary-treasurer of the school trustees 
 within one month thereafter. 
 
 AUDITORS. 
 
 67. At every annual meeting of any rural school district there shall be appointed 
 by the ratepayers two auditors, or persons to examine the accounts of the secretary- 
 treasurer or of the school trustees and report thereon at the next annual meeting, and 
 who shall certify to the correctness or otherwise of such accounts. 
 
 (a.) It shall be the duty of the secretary-treasurer to submit his books and vouchers 
 to such auditors when called upon by them to do so. And their report shall be pre- 
 sented to the annual meeting next after their appointment. 
 
 68. It shall be the duty of every teacher, employed by any board of school trustees — 
 (a.) To teach diligently and faithfully all the branches required to be taught in the 
 
 schools according to the terms of his agreement with the school trustees, and in accord- 
 ance with the laws of Manitoba relating to separate schools, or any by-laws or regula- 
 tions issued under the same ; 
 
 (').) To keep in the prescribed form the register of the school ; 
 
 (c.) To maintain proper order and discipline in his school ; 
 
 (d.) To keep a visitors' book (which the trustees shall provide) and enter therein the 
 visits made to his school, and to present such book to every visitor and request him to 
 make such remarks suggested by his visit ; 
 
 (e.) To give the trustees and visitors access at all times when desired by them to 
 the registers and visitors' book appertaining to the school ; 
 
 (/".) To deliver up any school registers, visitors' book, school-house key or other 
 school property in his possession on the demand or order of the board of school trustees 
 employing him ; 
 
 (g.) To have at the end of every half year at least a public examination of his school, 
 of which he shall give due public notice ; 
 
 (h.) To furnish to his superintendent or to the inspector any information which it 
 may be in his power to give respecting anything connected with the working of his 
 school, or in anywise affecting his interests or character. 
 
 69. AH agreements between trustees and teachers to be valid and binding shall be 
 in writing and signed by the teacher and chairman of the board of trustees employing 
 him, and sealed with the corporate seal, if any, of the trustees. 
 
 (a.) Any teacher whose agreement has expired with the board of trustees, or who 
 is dismissed by them, shall be entitled to receive forthwith all moneys due to him 
 for his services as teacher while employed by the said board ; if such payment be 
 not made by the trustees or tendered to the said teacher by them he shall be entitled 
 to recover from the said trustees the full amount of his salary due and unpaid with ten 
 per cent interest per annum until payment is made, by a suit in a court of competent 
 jurisdiction, and upon his obtaining judgment therein, his case shall be a first lien upon 
 all payments due the said trustees from any source whatsoever until the said claim is 
 satisfied. 
 
 INSPECTORS. 
 
 70. The Board of Education shall have power to appoint inspectors who shall hold 
 ofiice during the pleasure of the board ; to define their duties and to provide for their 
 remuneration ; and such inspectors shall visit the schools and report thereon at least 
 twice a year. 
 
147 
 
 VISITORS. 
 
 71. The visitor in each school district may be — 
 (a.) The resident Roman Catholic priest ; 
 
 (b.) The members of the Provincial Legislature; 
 
 (c.) The judges of the Court of Queen's Bench and County Court ; 
 
 (d.) The members of the Department of Education ; and 
 
 (e.) The trustees of each school district in their own district. 
 
 72. In incorporated cities or towns, a general meeting of the visitors may be held 
 at any time or place appointed by any two visitors, on sufficient notice being given to the 
 other visitors, and the visitors thus assembled may devise such means as they may deem 
 expedient for the efficient visitation of the schools, and in concert with the school 
 authorities for promoting the establishment of libraries and the diffusion of knowledge. 
 
 SCHOOL ATTENDANCE. 
 
 73. The teacher of each school receiving public aid shall within ten days after the 
 ■close of each semi-annual school term, transmit to his superintendent a correct statement 
 of the names of the children attending such school, with their respective ages, and 
 distinguishing between the sexes, together with the average attendance during the 
 preceding school term, and a statement of the number of months during which the 
 school has been kept open, with such additional information as the superintendent may 
 from time to time require. 
 
 (a.) If any trustee or officer of a public school knowingly signs a false report, or if 
 a public school keeps a false school register or makes a false return, that may thereby 
 show a claim of such school to a larger sum than the just proportion of school moneys 
 coming to the same, such school trustee, officer or teacher shall, for every oifence, forfeit 
 to the public fund of the municipality the sum of twenty dollars, for which any person 
 whatever may prosecute him before a justice of the peace, and he may be convicted 
 upon the oath of one credible witness other than the prosecutor. 
 
 ' ' ANNUAL CENSUS OF CHILDREN. 
 
 74. The school trustees in each school district shall between the first and thirtieth 
 of November in each year cause to be made by their secretary-treasurer a census of the 
 children in such school district from the age of five years inclusive to the age of fifteen 
 years inclusive, giving the age in each case, and mentioning those who attend the 
 school, and such census after being certified by the secretary-treasurer of the school 
 district under oath signed by at least one of the trustees, shall, on or before the tenth of 
 the month of December following, be presented to the superintendent, whose duty it 
 shall be to forward the same to the Provincial Secretary within the eight days follow- 
 ing, and no census shall be received by the superintendent after the said date of the lOtli 
 day of December in each year. 
 
 APPORTIONMENT OF PUBLIC MONEYS. 
 
 75. The sum appropriated by the legislature for school purposes shall be divided 
 between the public and separate schools in the manner hereinafter provided in pro- 
 portion to the number of children between the ages of five and fifteen inclusive, resid- 
 ing in the various public and separate school districts in the province where schools are 
 in operation, as shown in the census returns. 
 
 76. The Provincial Treasurer and one other member of the Executive Council, to 
 be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, shall form a committee for the apportion- 
 ment of education funds and legislative grant between the public and separate schools ; 
 and the selection of a member of the Executive Council to act as a member of such 
 committee, shall, when practicable, be so made, or from time to time changed by the 
 Lieutenant Governor as to secure that one member of the said committee may be of the 
 Catholic persuasion and one a non-Catholic. 
 
148 
 
 77. It shall be the duty of such coraniittee on or before the fifteenth day of 
 January in each year to apportion the education fund, and within two weeks after the 
 prorogation of the session of the legislature at which the grant for education is voted, 
 to apportion said grant between the schools, according to the aggregate number of 
 children being respectively non-Catholic and Catholic between the ages of five inclusive 
 and fifteen inclusive, who shall be found from the census hereinbefore described to be 
 residing within all the school districts existing in the province. 
 
 78- If the census returns upon which such apportionment is at any time to be made, 
 or any of them, be defectivf^ in any respect, the said committee shall have power to re- 
 quire school trustees to supply to the committee such information as will enable them 
 
 to correct the same. 
 
 79. After such apportionment shall have been made the sum due to the separate 
 schools shall be placed to the credit of the board in accounts to be opened in the books 
 of the Treasury Department and in the Audit Office. 
 
 EXPENDITURE OF SCHOOL MONEYS. 
 
 80. (a.) From the sum so appropriated to the Board of Education there shall be 
 paid such sums as may be provided by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council for inciden- 
 tal expenses and salaries of superintendent. 
 
 (b.) Then the sum of $75.00 shall be paid semi-annually to each school which has 
 been in operation during the whole of the previous term, and a proportionate part 
 thereof to each school in operation for a part of the same ; and in the case of newly 
 established schools, to those which have been in operation for at least one month of 
 said term ; provided that except in the case of new school districts no school shall be 
 entitled to receive a larger amount than one-half the sum incurred by the trustees 
 thereof for its current expenses during the term for which such grant is made ; provid- 
 ed further that a reduction in the amount to be made may, in the discretion of the board, 
 be made in the case of any school district in which the average attendance of the resid- 
 ent pupils enrolled for the term has been less than forty per cent of such enrolled 
 
 number. , 
 
 (c.) The residue remaining after all payments have been made as above provided 
 shall be divided among all the school districts on the basis of average attendance of 
 pupils at the schools of such districts. Provided that in reckoning such average 
 attendance fifty per cent shall be added to the average attendance in rural school dis- 
 tricts (being school districts outside the cities, towns and villages). 
 
 (d.) No school shall be entitled to receive any portion of the legislative grant 
 whose trustees have neglected to transmit within the time provided by law in the pre- 
 ceding year the census returns which form the basis of the apportionment of the public 
 funds, or whose annual or semi-annual returns are not transmitted as required by the 
 regulations of the board, or whose school has not been kept in operation at least six 
 montlis during the school year, unless with the sanction of the board. 
 
 (e.) No school district shall be entitled to receive any money from the legislative 
 f^rant or the municipal levy in any year that does not contain at least ten resident 
 children of school age, but the trustees of such may levy and collect from their school 
 district the amount of any indebtedness that may fall due within the same during such 
 
 year. 
 
 81. AH payments to school districts shall be made to the order of the duly qualified 
 teacher or teachers of the school, unless it be shown that the salary of such teacher or 
 teachers has been paid in full. 
 
 («.) All payments made by the Provincial Treasurer for the purposes of education 
 shall be made direct to the person or persons entitled to receive the money. Provided 
 no payment shall be made except upon the requisition of the superintendent of educa- 
 tion. 
 
 82. Any school not conducted according to all the provisions of this or any Act in 
 force for the time relating to separate schools or the regulations of the Board of Educa- 
 tion in force under its authority, shall not be deemed a separate school within the 
 
149 
 
 meaning of the law, and such schools shall neither participate in the educational fund 
 nor in the legislative grant. 
 
 ARBITRATION'. 
 
 83. In case of any difference between school trustees and teachers in regard to his 
 salary or the sum due him or claimed to be due, or any other matter connected with his 
 duty, the same shall be submitted to arbitration, in which case each party shall choose 
 an arbitrator. 
 
 84. In case either party in the first instance neglects or refuses to appoint an 
 arbitrator on his behalf, the party requiring the arbitration, may, by notice in writing 
 to be served upon the party so neglecting or refusing, require the last named within three 
 days exclusive of the day of service of such notice, to appoint an arbitrator on his behalf, 
 and such notice shall name the arbitrator of the party requiring the arbitration ; and 
 in case the party served with such notice does not, within the thi'ee days mentioned 
 therein, name and appoint an arbitrator, then the party requiring the arbitration may 
 appoint the second arbitrator. 
 
 85. The superintendent or a member of the Board of Education, to be nominated 
 by such superintendent, shall be the third arbitrator. 
 
 86. The arbitrators may require the attendance of any or all the parties interested 
 in the reference, and of their witnesses, and may direct them or any of them to produce 
 all documents, books, papers, or writings bearing on the matter in question ; and the 
 arbitrators may take evidence on oath. 
 
 87. The said arbitrators or any two of them may issue their warrant to any person 
 named therein to enforce the collection of any moneys by them awarded to be paid, 
 and the person named in such warrant shall ha^•e the power and authority to enforce 
 the collection of the monies mentioned in the said warrant with all reasonable costs by 
 seizure and sale of the property of the party or corporation against whom the same 
 has issued, as any bailiff of the county court has in enforcing a judgment and ex- 
 ecution issued out of such court. 
 
 88. In case of any dispute or difference arising between any two boards of school 
 trustees in regard to any sum of money due or claimed to be due under any Act of the 
 province of Manitoba, the same shall be referred to arbitration in the manner by this 
 Act provided ; and, provided always, that in differences between any two boards of 
 school trustees, the third arbitrator"^ shall be chosen by the other two, and the decision 
 of such three arbitrators shall be final. 
 
 MUNICIPAL OFFICERS. 
 
 89. It shall be the duty of the city or town clerk, or clerks of municipalities to 
 furnish to the board of school trustees five days before the annual school meeting 
 authorized to be held under this Act, a certified copy of the last revised municipal 
 voters'" list for each ward in the city, town or municipality in which such act is in force. 
 
 HOLIDAYS. 
 
 90. Every Saturday and every statutory holiday shall be a holiday in the public 
 schools ; subject, however, to regulations respecting holidays as the Board of Education 
 may from time to time make for the schools. 
 
 BY-LAWS FOR COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE OF CHILDREN. 
 
 91. Every board of school trustees may, with the sanction of the board make, 
 amend or revo*ke any by-laws for their school district, for any of the following purposes : 
 
 (a.) Requiring the parents or guardians of Roman Catholic children of not less 
 than seven years nor more than twelve years of age, as may be fixed by the law, to send 
 such children to school for a certain period in each year, unless suflicient evidence be 
 
150 
 
 produced by such parents or guardians, that they cannot do so ; and any of the following 
 shall be considered a reasonable excuse ; 
 
 (1.) That the child is under instruction in some other manner satisfactory to the 
 magistrate before whom the complaint may be brought ; 
 
 (2.) That the child has been prevented from attending school from sickness or any 
 unavoidable cause ; 
 
 (3.) That such child has reached a standard of education of the same or greater 
 degree than that to be obtained in .such public school by children of twelve yeai's 
 of age ; 
 
 (b.) Determining the time during which such children are to attend school ; 
 
 (c) Imposing penalties upon pai'ents or guardians for the breach of any by-law ; 
 
 (1). Admonition in the form of a note of warning, signed by the chairman of the 
 board of school trustees ; 
 
 (2). Summons to appear before the board of school trustees and to receive repri- 
 mand from the chairman, if merited ; 
 
 (3). Complaints by the boai'd of school trustees to any justice of the peace of the 
 district, who may impose a fine not exceeding twenty-five cents for the first offence, fifty 
 cents for the second, and so on, doubling the last fine for any lepetition of the offence. 
 
 92. It shall be competent for any judge of the county or stipendiary magistrate to 
 investigate and decide upon any complaints made by the trustees or any person author- 
 ized by them against any parent or guardian for the violation of any such by-law as by 
 the previous section provided, may be enacted ; and it shall be the duty of such judge 
 of the county court to ascertain, as far as may be the circumstances of any party com- 
 plained of, for not sending his or their child to school or otherwise educating him or 
 them, and whether the alleged violation has been caused by poverty or ill-health, and in 
 any such case the judge shall not award punishment but shall report the circumstances 
 to the trustees making the complaint. 
 
 REGISTRATION OP SCHOOL TAXES. 
 
 93. Previous to the first day of August in each year the boards of school trustees, 
 if they themselves collect the school taxes, shall cause to be made a list of the names of 
 all persons in their district in arrears for school taxes, the amount due by them, the lot 
 or lots on which such taxes are due ; and if such taxes remain unpaid it shall be the 
 duty of the said board of school trustees on or previous to the last day of August in each 
 year, to register the said lots with the amount due on real estate only, with the treasurer 
 of the municipality in which such lots are situated, and if such lots are not within a 
 municipality then in the registry office of the county in which such lands are situated, 
 by filing a copy of the tax list, after which such taxes shall become a first lien or mort- 
 gage on the lot or lots on which they are respectively due and payable, and any sale of 
 property or transfer made thereafter shall be subject to such taxes. 
 
 94. In incorporated cities and towns the board of school trustees shall each have 
 power to borrow money for the purchase of school lands or the erection of school build- 
 ings or other school purposes in the manner hereinafter provided. 
 
 BORROWIXG MOXEY. 
 
 95. If the ratepayers of any school district at a public meeting duly called, require 
 the trustees to borrow any sum of money for the purchase of school sites or erecting of 
 school-houses and their appendages, or for the purchase or erection of a teacher's resi- 
 dence, or for the purpose of paying off any debt, charge or lien against such school- 
 house, or residence, or against the trustees of any school district incurred by them as 
 such trustees for any of the purpo.ses aforesaid, the said trustees shall forward to the 
 Lieutenant Governor in Council, a certified copy of the minutes of such meeting, and 
 the Lieutenant Governor in Council may thereupon sanction such loans, and such sanc- 
 tion shall l)ind the ratepayers of the said school district to cause to be levied a sum 
 sufficient for the payment of the principal and interest on any such loan at the times 
 when the same shall become payable, as provided between trustees and the lender. 
 
151 
 
 (a.) No loan under two thousand dollars shall be made for any term exceeding ten 
 years nor for any amount for a period exceeding twenty years. 
 
 (h. ) The principal on such loan shall be made payable by annual instalments unless 
 with the sanction of the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the said annual instal- 
 ments together with interest on the principal of such loan may be applied towards the 
 immediate redeeming of the debt contracted by the issue of such debentures, and all 
 school boards that have issued debentures not payable in instalments shall invest in a 
 sinking fund annually, a sufficient sum to meet such debentures when due, and such 
 investment shall be made with the consent and advice of the superintendent, and when 
 so made shall not De payable to the order of the trustees without such order being 
 countersigned by said superintendent until their debentures mature. 
 
 (c.) Notice of such meeting shall be given by posting up on the door of the 
 school-house (if any) and in two or more conspicuous places within the school district 
 for which such loan is sought to be obtained, at least two weeks previous to such meet- 
 ing, a notice in the form or to the etfect of that set forth in said schedule A of this 
 Act. 
 
 {d.) A majority of the Roman Catholic ratepayers of any such schools present at 
 such meeting shall be sufficient to authorize such loans, and the assent of the Lieuten- 
 ant Governor shall be obtained before such loan is completed. 
 
 (e.) The assent of the Lieutenant Governor to any such loan shall be conclusive 
 evidence of all the necessary formalities having been complied with, and that such loan 
 is one which such school district may lawfully make. 
 
 {f.) Any school district having obtained the assent of the Lieutenant Governor to a 
 loan, may issue debentures therefor in the form set forth in schedule B of this Act, to 
 secure the amount of the principal and interest upon such loan, upon such terms as such 
 loan can be obtained, and tlie said debentures shall be sufficient, when signed by the 
 secretary-treasurer and countersigned by one or more ti'ustees, to bind the said trustees 
 and to create a charge or lien against all revenues of the school district for which such 
 loan is made. 
 
 [g.) All debentures issued or to be issued under the authority of this Act and the 
 coupons attached thereto shall create and be a charge and lien upon all school property 
 then or thereafter acquired by, or granted, or given to the school district which shall 
 issue the said debentures as well as upon all of the Roman Catholic property assessable 
 in such school district for school purposes for the said district, and the amounts from 
 time to time falling due upon such debentures and coupons (subject to any provisions for 
 establishment of sinking funds for the repayment of any such debentures) shall be 
 included in the amount required from time to time for school purposes for the said dis- 
 trict, and shall be collected and received by and paid to the trustees of the said school 
 district in the manner directed for the liaising of money for school purposes. 
 
 (A.) Any writ of execution against the trustees for any school district which school 
 lies wholly within one municipality, may be endorsed with a direction to the sheriff to 
 levy the amount thereof by rate, and the proceedings thereon shall be the following : — 
 
 (1.) The sheriff shall deliver a copy of the writ and endorsement to the treasurer 
 of the municipality in which such school district is situate, or leave such copy at the 
 office or dwelling-house of such officer with a statement in writing of the sheriff's fees 
 and of the amount required to satisfy such execution, including in such amount the 
 interest calculated to some day as near as is convenient to the day of service. 
 
 (2.) In case this amount with interest thereon from the day mentioned in the state- 
 ment is not paid to the sheriff within one month after the service, the sheriff shall 
 examine the assessment roll of the municipality in which such school district is situate, 
 and shall in like manner as rates are struck for general municipal purposes strike a rate 
 on the assessable lands in said school district sufficient on the dollar to cover the 
 amount due on the execution with such addition to the same as the sheriff deems suffi- 
 cient to cover the interest and his own fees up to the time when such rate will probably 
 be available. 
 
 (3.) He shall thereupon issue a precept or precepts under his hand and seal of 
 office directed to the said treasurer, and shall annex to every such precept the roll of 
 such rate, and shall by such precept after reciting the writ, and that the said trustees 
 
152 
 
 had neglected to satisfy the same, and referring to the roll annexed to the precept, 
 command the said treasurer to levy or cause to be levied such rate at the time and in 
 the manner by law required in respect of the general municipal rates. 
 
 (4.) At the time for levying the annual rates next after the receipt of such precept 
 the said treasurer shall add a column to the tax roll of the lands in said school district 
 headed " Execution rate of A. B. vs. The .School Trustees for the Separate School District 
 of in the Province of Manitoba" (or, as the case maybe, adding a column 
 
 for each execution, if more than one) and shall insert thereon the amount by such 
 precept re(|uired to be levied upon each person respectively, and shall levy the amount 
 of such execution rate as aforesaid, and said treasurer, so soon as the amount of such 
 execution or executions is collected, shall return to the sheriff the precept with the 
 amount levied thereon. 
 
 (5.) The sheriff shall, after satisfying the executions and all fees thereon, return any 
 surplus within ten days after receiving the same to the said treasurer for the general 
 purposes of the said school trustees. 
 
 (6.) The treasurer shall for all purposes connected with carrying into effect or 
 permitting or assisting the sheriff to carry into effect the provisions of this Act with 
 respect to such execution, be deemed to be an officer of the court out of which the writ 
 issued, and as such shall be amenable to the court and may be proceeded against by 
 attachment, mandamus or otherwise, in order to compel him to perform the duties hereby 
 imposed upon him. 
 
 (7.) The above clauses, one to six both inclusive, shall be applicable to executions 
 against the school trustees for any district lying within more than one municipality, but 
 in such case the said sheriff shall strike a rate on the assessable lands in said school 
 district from the assessment rolls of the several municipalities in which said school is 
 situate, and shall deliver to the treasurer of each of the municipalities the precept or 
 precepts aforesaid, attaching a roll of said rate so far as it applies to the lands of said 
 school district in the municipality of each of such treasurers. 
 
 SCHEDULE "A." 
 
 PUBLIC NOTICE. 
 
 Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Roman Catholic ratepayers within the 
 separate school district of number will be held at the 
 
 in the said district on day the day of A.D. 18 
 
 at the hour of o'clock in the noon, for the purpose of considering 
 
 the expediency of raising money by way of loan to (here state the purpose for which the 
 loan is intended). 
 
 Dated this day of A.D. 18 
 
 Secretary-Treasurer. 
 
 SCHEDULE " B. " 
 
 Debentures of the separate school trustees for the separate school district 
 
 of number in the Province of Manitoba. 
 
 The school trustees for the separate school district of number in the 
 
 province of Manitoba, promise to pay to bearer at the at the sum of 
 
 dollars of lawful money of Canada, years from the date hereof, and 
 
 to pay interest thereon during the currency hereof at the same place at the rate of 
 
 per centum per annum, to the bearer of the coupons hereunto annexed respect- 
 ively, and numbered with the number of this debenture. 
 
 Issued at this day of 18 , by and under the 
 
 authority of subsection y of section 95 of an Act of the Legislature of Manitoba, passed 
 in the year of Her Majesty's reign, chapter 
 
 S. H. 
 
 Trustee. 
 
 T. R. 
 
 Secretary-Treasurer. 
 
153 
 
 Coujyon No. 
 
 The school trustees of the separate school district of number in 
 
 the province of Manitoba, will pay the bearer hereof at the on the 
 
 day of 18 , the sum of dollars, being interest due on that 
 
 day on school debentures, «fec. 
 
 T. R. 
 
 Secretary- Treasurer. 
 
 The minutes of any section of the ratepayers of a school district called to consider 
 the propriety of borrowing money as above mentioned shall be headed with a statement 
 in the following form or to the same efiect : — 
 
 " Minutes of a public meeting of the Roman Catholic ratepayers of the separate 
 " school district of number in the province of Manitoba, held the 
 
 <« day of 18 in pursuance of a notice given as 
 
 " required by ' The Separate School Act,' and called for the purpose of considering 
 " (and advising the trustees of said school section in respect to) the question of raising 
 " or borrowing a sum of money for the purpose of (here state the purpose for which the 
 *' loan is intended as is the public or posted notice). 
 
 " The said meeting having been organized by ^Ir. A. B. as chairman, and Mr. C. B. 
 " as secretary, the following proceedings were had : 
 
 " It was moved by Mr. &c. (the motions and formal proceedings 
 
 " of the meetings to be then given, certified at the foot thereof to be correct, and signed 
 " by the chairman and secretary)." 
 
 The said minutes shall also contain a list of the names of the ratepayers who voted 
 at the said meeting upon the question of raising or borrowing money, distinguishing 
 those who are freeholders from those who are not, and recording the vote given by each 
 person " for or against the said question." 
 
 96. A copy of said minutes shall be given to the secretary-treasurer of the board of 
 trustees of the district for the information of the said board and the original with a de- 
 claration endorsed thereon and attached thereto, taken before a justice of the peace or 
 other person authorized to take declarations under the statute, with a copy of the no- 
 tice calling such meeting, proving the posting of the said notice as required by the Act, 
 shall be given or transmitted to the superintendent ; and it shall be the duty of such 
 superintendent, with as little delay as possible after the receipt of such minutes and 
 proof, to inquire and satisfy himself that the purpose for which the loan is required is a 
 proper and necessary one, and having regard to the means of the ratepayers of such 
 school district to repay the same ; and if such superintendent approves of such loan he 
 shall transmit said minutes, proof, and other documents connected thereof to the pro- 
 vincial secretary together with a certificate or note of his approval endorsed thereon 
 over his signature. 
 
 97. It shall be the duty of the secretary-treasurer of the board of school trustees of 
 any school district, upon being made aware that a loan as aforesaid had been sanctioned by 
 the ratepayers to at once transmit to the superintendent a statement duly certified 
 under the hand of the said secretary-treasurer and the seal of the said board of trustees, 
 to be correct, showing the amount of the assessed value of the real and personal estate 
 of such school district, its debentures indebtedness including the amount proposed to be 
 added under such by-law then being submitted for approval ; its indebtedness other 
 than under said debentures ; the yearly rate in the dollar required to pay said deben- 
 ture debt ; the total rate required for all purposes and the interest past due, if any, on 
 the indebtedness of said school district. 
 
 98. A statement embodying the information mentioned in the last preceding section 
 as to the assets and liabilities of the school section, shall be written or printed on the back 
 of each debenture, issued under the anthority of this Act, and following such statement 
 shall also be written or printed the words " Issued under the provisions of the Separate 
 School Act," viz. : Vic, Cap 
 
 99. Upon the assent of the Lieutenant Governor being obtained to such loan and 
 upon presentation within six months thereafter to the Provincial Secretary or Acting 
 
154 
 
 Provincial Secretary of the debenture ordebentures issued to raise the same the said Provin- 
 cial Secretary or Acting Provincial Secretary (unless such assent has in the mean time been 
 withdrawn) shall sign such debenture or debentures under the statement or endorsement 
 thereon horeinbofore mentioned, and shall atUx the seal of his office, or of the province 
 thereto, and such signature and seal shall be conclusive that all the formalities in 
 respect to said loan and the issue of said debentures have been complied with, and that 
 the correctness of the statement or endorsement thereon, and the legality of the issue 
 of such debenture shall be thereby conclusi\ely established, and its validity shall not be 
 questionable by any court in this province, Ijut the same shall to the extent of the 
 assets of the school district issuing the same, be a good and indefeasible security in the 
 hands of anv hoiia fide holder thereof. 
 
 100. The Governor General in Council, when the question of any school loan shall be 
 before him for assent thereto, may take into consideration the effect of the proposed 
 loan upon the security of any previous loan, in case the new proposed loan shall be 
 repayable before a former one, or former ones, and may withhold such assent to such 
 new loan if he considers that the security of the holder of any existing debenture loan 
 of such school district was likely to be rendered insufficient by the reason of the date of 
 payment of the proposed new loan being prior to that of any then existing debenture 
 debt of such district. 
 
 101. The trustees of any school district may under the advice and with the consent of 
 the superintendent, invest any money under the control of such trustee as a sinking 
 fund for the payment of any loan, or otherwise held for school purposes and not re- 
 quired for expenditure within twelve months. 
 
 102. The trustee of any school district may with the consent and approval of the 
 superintendent sell and dispose of any land or real estate, or any interest therein for the 
 benefit and advantage of said school district and convey the same or any portion 
 thereof in fee simple or for any less estate to any purchaser or purchasers 
 thereof, or of any interest of freehold, leasehold, or other estate therein, by deed or 
 other instrument as the case may be signed by the chairman and secretary-treasurer of 
 such school district. 
 
 103. None of the provisions of this Act shall affect any suit pending in any of the 
 courts at the date of the passing of the same. 
 
 104. In the case of any rural school district the trustees of which neglect or refuse to 
 levy or ask the council to levy a special rate to meet their debentures indebtedness 
 maturing within the school year, and in the case of any rural school district in which 
 there is not a legally competent school board, the superintendent shall be empowered to 
 act for such school board or school district in requiring the council or councils concerned 
 to levy or collect the sums he shall designate as necessary to meet such indebtedness, 
 and the council or councils shall levy and coUect such sum and pay the same over to the 
 creditors upon the order of the said superintendent. And it is further provided that 
 upon the trustees of any rural school district becoming legally incompetent or unable to 
 act from any cause and there being a sufficient number of ratepayers resident in the 
 district to form a new school board, the superintendent shall thereupon be invested 
 with the powers of the school trustees for such district, and shall be empowered to 
 collect and receive all moneys due the said trustees from any source, to take possession 
 of all their school properties, secure a proper title for all properties they may be entitled 
 to, and in his discretion to dispose of or sell the same ; provided that all moneys re- 
 ceived by the superintendent in any way in behalf of such district shall be paid over 
 by him to meet the liabilities of the same that may become due from time to time. 
 
 LOANS. 
 
 105. At any time in any one year before the estimate of a school district 
 has been prepared by a board of school trustees or handed to the clerk of the munici- 
 pality, or before the moneys have been paid over to the board by the municipality, a 
 board of school trustees in any city, town or local municipality, may borrow- money upon 
 the credit of the board and give the promissory note or notes of the board for the same, 
 or for the moneys theretofore borrowed to such an amount as is legally authorized ;. 
 
155 
 
 provided, however, that no such money shall be borrowed or notes given to an amount 
 exceedino- in the aggregate one-half of the amount of the said estimate for the next 
 preceding year, if such estimate has not been made for the current year ; and provided 
 also that such moneys shall only be borrowed or notes given upon a by-law of the board, 
 which recite the amounts previously borrowed and the notes previously given therefor 
 and any sum paid thereon, but any error or omission in reciting such sums or notes 
 shall not invalidate such by-law as against a bona fide lender or payee or holder for 
 value of any such note having notice of such error or omission. 
 
 "(a.) Any such note or debt for money so borrowed may be enforced against the 
 board of school trustees, and the ratepayers liable to contribute to its revenues in the 
 same manner as claims against or debts of municipalities, may be enforced under the 
 Municipal Act." 
 
 " (6.) Upon the payment to the board by a municipality of any portion of the sums 
 to be levied for the trustees by a municipality it shall be the duty of the board of 
 school trustees to apply one-half of such sum so paid to it for the reduction of the debt 
 incurred for moneys so borrowed, or upon such note or notes, or in the event of no such 
 debt or note or not sufficient thereof to exhaust the one-half of the sum so paid being 
 then overdue, then to deposit such half, or the unexhausted portion thereof in some 
 chartered bank and to apply the same to such debt or notes as may become due and 
 payable." 
 
 (o.) All payments authorized by loan which are in the discretion of the Board of 
 Education, shall be subject to ratification by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. 
 
 EXPROPRIATION. 
 
 106. It shall be the duty of the trustees of every school district to purchase or 
 lease, and take with the consent, in writing, of the Board of Education in that behalf, 
 the necessary land or real property for school-houses, teachers' residences and other 
 buildings in connection therewith, and if necessary for the purpose aforesaid, to increase 
 the extent of the school grounds, already in possession, by purchasing or leasing and 
 taking lands adjoining the same. 
 
 (1.) No land or property may be taken for the purpose aforesaid without the con- 
 sent of the owner, if, at the time of the application of the trustees for the same : 
 
 (a.) The said land or property is owned by any religious, charitable or educational 
 corporation ; 
 
 (ft.) The land or property required for a separate school is owned by a non-Catholic; 
 
 (c.) In a rural school district the land required is less than three hundred yards 
 from the owner's residence or buildings or exceeds one acre in extent ; 
 
 (d. ) In a city or town the lot i"equired is not vacant ; 
 
 (2.) For the purposes aforesaid the school trust':^es shall first serve the owners of 
 the land or parties empowei-ed to convey the land required as aforesaid with a notice 
 which shall contain : 
 
 {a. A description of the land to be taken : 
 
 (6.) A declaration of readiness to pay some certain sum or rent, as the case may be, 
 
 for such land : 
 
 (c. ) The name of a person to be appointed as the arbitrator of the school trustees if 
 their offer be not accepted, and 
 
 {d.) Such notice shall be accompanied by the affidavit of one or more of the school 
 trustees, setting forth that he knows the land, that the said land is required for school 
 purposes, and that the sum offered is in his opinion a fair compensation. 
 
 (3.) If within ten days after service of the said notice the person owning the said 
 land signifies in writing his readiness to accept the said sum for rent, then the school 
 trustees shall cause the proper agreements and contracts to be made and entered into, 
 and the price of compensation to be paid. 
 
 (4.) If within the time aforesaid, the owner or holder of the land does not signify 
 his readiness to accept the said sum, but gives notice in writing, of the name of his 
 arbitrator, then the two arbitrators shall jointly appoint the third, and if they cannot 
 agree upon a third, the judge of the county court having jurisdiction in the division, in 
 which the land is situate, shall appoint upon application such a third arbitrator. 
 
156 
 
 (5.) If within the time aforesaid the said owner or holder of the hind does not notify 
 the trustees of his acceptance of the sum oflFered nor of the name of a person whom he 
 appoints as arbitrator, tlicn tlie jud,<,'e of the county court shall, upon application appoint 
 one in his stead, and the third arbilratur shall be appointed as aforesaid. 
 
 (6.) Where the person owning or holding the said lands or his agent or representa- 
 tive is unknown, or cannot be found with due diligence, or is incapable of receiving 
 tender, then upon proof thereof to the county court judge, the said judge may dispense 
 with such tender and notice ; and in such case notice of submission to arbitration shall 
 be published in a newspaper in or near the district in which the land lies, and subse- 
 quent proceedings may thereafter be taken as if such tender had been personally made 
 
 and notice given. 
 
 (7.) The said arbitrators duly appointed, or a majority of them, shall value the land 
 and make an award in writing and fix the amount of the costs of the arbitration not to 
 exceed 83 per day for each arbitrator, and 10 cents per mile each way for travelling ex- 
 penses, and thev shall further direct which of the parties should pay the said costs, and 
 if a portion, in what proportion. 
 
 (8.) An appeal to the judge of the county court shall lie upon application filed and 
 served within ten days of the award for the revision of the costs taxed. 
 
 (9.) The compensation money agreed upon by the trustees or awarded by the 
 arbitrators for any such land or property shall stand instead of such land or property, 
 and any claim thereto or encumbrance, upon said lands or property shall be converted 
 into a claim for such compensation money, or to a proportionate amount thereof, and 
 shall be void as respects the land or property which shall by the fact of the making of 
 said tender or award and of the payment of the money, become and be absolutely in- 
 vested in the trustees for the purposes of this Act. 
 
 (10.) If the person owning such land is incapable of conveying the same, or the 
 person to whom the compensation money is payable is incapable of executing or refuses 
 to execute a proper conveyance and transfer of the said lands to said t-ustees or cannot 
 bs found, or is unknown or has no agent or representative, or the trustees have reason 
 to fear any claim or encumbrance, they shall pay the compensation money agreed upon 
 or the money awarded into the office of the clerk or prothonotary of the Court of Queen's 
 Bench with interest thereon for six months at the rate of six per cent per annum, and 
 deliver to the clerk or prothonotary of the court, a copy of the conveyance or agreement 
 or award, or a certified copy of the agreement or award. 
 
 (11.) Notice in such form and for such time as the court appoints shall be forth- 
 with inserted by the prothonotary in a newspaper in or near the district in which the 
 lands are situate and shall state the facts under which such money is paid, and call 
 upon all persons entitled thereto, or claiming the same or any part thereof, to file their 
 claims, and such claims shall be received and adjudged upon by the court and such 
 proceedings shall forever bar all claims to the compensation money or any part thereof, 
 and the court shall make such order for the proper distribution or payment of said 
 monies and for costs incidental to the application as may be proper. 
 
 107. No person suffering from any contagious or infectious disease, or who resides in 
 a house in which any such disease exists shall be entitled to attend or enter any separate 
 school during the existence of any such disease as aforesaid nor at any time thereafter, 
 until he presents to the trustees of the school he wishes to attend a certificate of a 
 physician that there is no longer danger of contagion or infection from his attendance 
 to the other pupils of the school, provided that in rural school districts the trustees may, 
 in the absence of a physician admit applicants for admission,without such certificate, if 
 they are satisfied that there is no danger of contagion or infection from their doing so. 
 And any parent or guardian of any child who knowingly sends such child to any public 
 school in contravention of these provisions shall be liable, upon conviction before a 
 justice of the peace, upon the complaint of the trustees or of any ratepayer of the 
 school to a fine not exceeding ten dollars for each offence or imprisonment in the 
 <5ommon jail for a period not exceeding thirty days. 
 
 FINES AND PENALTIES. 
 
 108. Any trustees or secretary-treasurer neglecting or refusing to discharge any 
 duty assigned to him or them by this Act, shall be liable to a penalty of ten dollars for 
 
157 
 
 each offence, and the said penalties may be recovered within three months of the time 
 when such offence was committed. 
 
 109. Whenever any school trustee or secretary-treasurer, after his dismissal, 
 resignation or ceasing to hold office, detains any money, book, paper or property belong- 
 ing to the school trustees of any school, he shall thereby incur a penalty of not less 
 than five dollars nor more than twenty dollars for each day during which he shall 
 retain possession of any such monej'^, book, paper or property, after having received a 
 notice from the superintendent of education requiring him to deposit the same in the 
 hands of some person mentioned in such notice. 
 
 110. If any trustee of a school, or other person, knowingly signs a false report, or 
 if any teacher of a common school ke?ps a false school register, or makes a false return 
 with a view of obtaining a larger sum than the just proportion of school moneys comino- 
 to such school, such trustee or teacher shall for each offence forfeit the sum of twenty 
 dollars. 
 
 111. Every farmer^ head of a family or guardian who refuses to give the trustees of 
 any s:-hool district the information required by them to enable them to make up the 
 census of children required by this Act, or who makes a false declaration, shall incur a 
 penalty of not less than five nor more than twenty-five dollars. 
 
 112. Any justice of the peace, assessor, constable, or other officer neglecting or 
 refusing to discharge any duty assigned to him by the provisions of this Act shall be 
 liable to a penalty for each offence of a sum not exceeding fifty dollars. 
 
 113- If any person wilfully makes a false declaration of his right to vote, he shall 
 be liable to a penalty of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars. 
 
 114. The proceedings of every school meeting shall, within eight days thereafter 
 be reported by the chairman of such meeting to the superintendent under a penalty of 
 five dollars. 
 
 115. Any person who wilfully disturbs, interrupts, or disquiets the proceedings 
 of any school meeting, or any one who interrupts or disturbs any school by rude or in- 
 decent behaviour or by making a noise either within the place where school is kppt or 
 held, or so near thereto as to disturb the order or exercises of the school, shall for each 
 offence on conviction thereof before a justice of the peace, foi'feit and pay a sum not 
 exceeding twenty dollars, together with the cost of the conviction as the said justice 
 may think fit. 
 
 116. Any person chosen as trustee who has not refused to accept office, and who 
 at any time refuses or neglects to perform his duties shall forfeit the sum of twenty 
 dollars. 
 
 117. Should the trustees of any school wilfully neglect or refuse to exercise all the 
 corporate powers vested in them by this Act, or any other Act or Acts of this province, 
 or the fulfilment of any contract or agreement made by them, any trustee or trustees so 
 neglecting or refusing to exercise such powers, shall be held to be personally responsible 
 for the fulfilment of such contract or agreement. 
 
 118. All such prosecution for fines and penalties may be instituted by any com- 
 petent person before any justice of the peace who may convict the offender on the oath 
 of one credible witness other than the prosecutor; and if upon conviction the penalty, 
 with costs, is not paid forthwith, the same shall, under warrant of such justic-^, be levied 
 with costs of distress, sale of goods and chattels of the offender ; and such penalties, when so 
 paid and collected, shall, by such justice, be paid over to the school fund of the district 
 to which such delinquent belongs. 
 
 119. It shall be the duty of the superintendent in case of the loss of any school 
 money or properties belonging to any school district through default, embezzlement or 
 wilful neglect of any trustee or person connected therewith, to prosecute such trustee or 
 person in his own name as such superintendent for the benefit of the district concerned, 
 and to collect any costs that may be incurred by him in such prosecution from the 
 school district or districts for whose benefit such prosecution was undertaken, by notify- 
 ing the clerk of the municipality in which each such district is wholly or pai'tly situated, 
 and such clerk shall thereupon pay the said costs of the superintendent out of the 
 municipal levy for the said school district, before paying any portion of the same to the 
 trustees, provided that all such prosecutions shall be undertaken only when authorized 
 by a resolution of the Board of Education. 
 
158 
 
 NOUMAL SCHOOLS. 
 
 120. The Board of Education is hereby empowered : 
 
 (a). To establish in connection with any separate schools wliich may be established 
 at St. Boniface, normal scliool departments, with a view to the instruction and train- 
 ing of teachers of public schools in the science of education and the art of teaching, and 
 to establish and provide for the conducting of teachers' institutes at any other schools 
 within the jurisdiction of the board ; 
 
 (6.) To make, from time to time, rules and regulations necessary for tlie management 
 and government of the said departments ; 
 
 (r.) To arrange with the trustees of such public schools all things which may be 
 expedient to promote the objects and interests of the said normal school departments ; 
 
 (d.) To prescribe the terms and conditions on which students and pupils will be 
 respectively received and instructed in tlie said departments ; 
 
 (e.) The determine the number and compensation of teachers, and of all others who 
 may be employed in the said departments; 
 
 (/.) The select'a suitable person as principal of the normal school under its mana- 
 gement ; and the salary of the said principal shall be fixed by the Lieutenant Governor 
 in Council and paid from the legislative grant. 
 
 121. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may direct that a sum not exceeding 
 one-tenth of the amount of the grant for educational purposes be allowed for the main- 
 tenance of normal school departments as hereby established. 
 
 122. All moneys which on the 30th day of April, 1890, were held by the Government 
 of the province of Manitoba for the use and benefit of the Roman Catholic section of 
 the then Board of Education shall be by the said government held for the use and benefit 
 of the Board of Education to be established under the provisions of this Act ; shall be 
 applied and paid out for the same purposes and under the same conditions as are 
 provided by this Act in respect of other moneys which may be held by the said govern- 
 ment for the use and benefit of separate schools. 
 
 123. In case of the establishment of any school district under the provisions of this 
 Act with boundaries substantially similar to those of any Roman Catholic school district 
 which was in existence on the 30th day of April, 1890 ; and in case the property or 
 assets of the Catholic school district have been transferred to or taken by any board of 
 school trustees which has been in existence under or by virtue of the Acts relating to 
 education and public schools since the 1st day of May, 1890, then and in every such 
 case the property and assets shall be transferred and delivered up to the new board of 
 trustees established under the provisions of this Act. 
 
 
 EXHIBIT Q. 
 REPORT ON FRENCH SCHOOLS. 
 (A. L. Young.) 
 
 I have the honour to submit the following report on the French schools of the pro- 
 vince of Manitoba, for the year 1894. 
 
 From the records of the Catholic section of the old school board it appears that 
 there were some ninety-one school districts under their control previous to the time 
 when the present School Act came into force. A number of these districts, however, 
 had been organized where the Catholic population was insuflicient to support them, con- 
 sequently several of them had never been put in operation, while others were maintained 
 for a short time only. 
 
159 
 
 The total number of districts disbanded for various reasons is twenty-four. In the 
 majority of these cases the Catholic children attend the public schools where it is pos- 
 sible for them to do so. 
 
 Twenty-seven of these old districts, together with nine newly formed ones have 
 accepted the public school system ; making a total of thirty-six school districts now 
 under government control. 
 
 Of the newly formed districts several are in mixed settlements, the French and 
 English being about equally divided. In such cases I find that even when the Catholics 
 have full control of the district they generally put in one English trustee. In one case 
 the only Protestant in the district was unanimously elected a member of the school 
 board. 
 
 Convent schools supported by voluntary subscriptions, fees, &c., are in operation at 
 the following places : — Winnipeg, St. Boniface, St. Norbert, St. Jean Baptiste, Ste 
 Anne, St. Pierre-Jolys, St. Francois Xavier and Brandon. In addition to these there, 
 are some thirty-eight schools throughout the province still conducted as separate schools 
 and supported by voluntary subscriptions. The salaries paid in all such cases are 
 very low. 
 
 In visiting the different French settlements throughout the province I find a 
 growing interest in regard to educational matters. 
 
 I visited the Dauphin country for the first time in November last. Here I found a 
 large number of half-breeds and French Canadians settled along the Turtle River. All 
 were extremely anxious to have a school started, and eagerly signed a petition asking for 
 the formation of a district at this point. Another petition was sent in at the same dme 
 by the French settlers in th-3 vicinity of Elliott's stopping place on the Dauphin Road. 
 
 Owing to the lateness of the season I was unable to visit the French settlement on 
 the Mossy River between Lakes Dauphin and Winnipegosis. 
 
 I also visited the French settlements along Lake Manitoba for the first time last 
 fall. The Catholic Mission at St. Laurent is very thickly settled with half-breeds and a 
 few French Canadians. The trustees take considerable interest in regard to school 
 matters, and have engaged Alex. DeLaronde, B.A., who is at present attending the 
 Normal School in Winnipeg, to take charge of the two schools which are located at this 
 point. There are about sixty pupils enrolled in each one of these schools. 
 
 The French settlers in the vicinity of Oak Lake are now fairly well supplied with 
 schools. Several new districts have been formed since my first visit in 1893. 
 
 The old Decorby school district at Fort Ellice was reorganized last fall, but owing 
 to their territory having been encroached upon during the past five years, they are now 
 limited to eleven sections of very poor land. The probabilities are that they will have 
 a hard struggle to maintain a school at this place. 
 
 On my return from Fort Ellice I drove through the Hungarian settlement in Huns 
 Valley. The school here had been closed for some time. Material is now beint^ taken 
 out and preparations are being made to build as soon as possible. I am in hopes that 
 the new school will be opened early next spring. 
 
 The majority of the districts in the eastern part of the province require to be 
 reorganized, as many of them appear to have no definite boundaries which are 
 recognized by the municipalities. 
 
 With the exception of a very good supply of maps, the equipment of these schools 
 leaves very much to be desired. The blackboard space is very limited and would be 
 considered practically useless by any teacher who had taken a course of normal training. 
 
 A great drawback to some of the schools especially in the poorer districts is the 
 lack of school books ; this difficulty is overcome in some cases by the trustees using the 
 school funds for the purchase of books required, and supplying them to the children free 
 of charge. 
 
 As a rule the teachers have the ability and energy to do good work, but they lack 
 the normal school training. The different subjects are taken up and taught in the same 
 manner that was done in the province of Quebec twenty years ago. 
 
 Very good work along a certain line is done in some subjects. For instance I have 
 in my possession quite a number of letters received from French teachers, some of them 
 
160 
 
 written in English, which will compare favourably with correspondence received from 
 English teachers. 
 
 I have seen a number of written engagements with teachers of schools which are in 
 receipt of the Government grant, and in all cases it was agreed that no religious instruc- 
 tion should be given until four o'clock. As the school hours under the old system were 
 from 9 to 11.30 o'clock a.m., and from 1 to 3.30 p.m., it is considered somewhat of a 
 hardship by these teacliers to put in an extra one and a half hours' work. 
 
 The constant agitation which has been kept up during the past five years has cer- 
 tainlv had the efl'ect of creating an increased interest in regard to educational matters ; 
 and I am satisfied that when the school question is finally settled this increased interest 
 will have a very beneficial effect on the French schools of the province of Manitoba. 
 
 From my intercourse witii the French and half-breeds Catholics of the province I 
 have no hesitation in saying that the vast majority of them are prepared to aljideby the 
 final decision of the authorities in regard to the school question. They still cling to the 
 hope that the separate school system will be restored to the province, but should this 
 hope not be realized inHhe near future, it will only be a matter of a short time before 
 the public school system will practically be uui\ ersally adopted throughout the pro- 
 vince. 
 
 
 
 Date receiving Grant as Public Schools. 
 
 Name of District. 
 
 1891. 
 
 1892. 
 
 1893. 
 
 1894. 
 
 
 1st 
 
 2nd 
 
 1st 
 
 2nd 
 
 1st 
 
 2nd 
 
 1st 
 
 2nd 
 
 St. Jean Baptiste North 
 
 Deux Petites Pointes 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 St. Charles 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 St. Prancois Xavier East 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 St. Eustache 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 FairbaD ks 
 
 
 
 
 
 "l ' 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 Rt. Leon Village 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 St. Leon Ea.st 
 
 
 
 
 Theobald 
 
 
 
 
 Decorbv 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 St. Alphonse South 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 St. Laurent Xo. 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 "i" 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 " i" 
 
 
 St. Laurent Xo. 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 l 
 
 St. Boniface West 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 St. Francois Xavier West, Mi 
 St. Ravniond 
 
 irtineau 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 St. Vital East 
 
 
 
 Glengarry 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 "l' 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 Fannj-stelle 
 
 Bernier 
 
 
 "i" 
 "i" 
 
 " l" 
 1 
 
 . . 
 
 Camper 
 
 St. Antoine 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 St. Hyacinthe 1 
 
 Arsenault 
 
 f 
 - formed since 1890 -{ 
 
 
 
 Dt'leau 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Maffam 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Koutledge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 St. LTrbain 
 
 Canadaville 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hamelin 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 St. Felix 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Kinlough 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Huns Valley , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Total 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 I 
 
 10 
 
 12 
 
 20 
 
 26 
 
 
 

 (( 
 
 161 
 
 List of French schools in the Province of Manitoba, which have accepted the public 
 school system : — 
 
 1. St. Jean-Baptiste, North St. Jean Baptiste Post Office. 
 
 2. Deux Petites Pointes Letellier 
 
 3. St. Charles St. Charles 
 
 4. St. Fran9ois Xavier, East St. Frangois Xavier 
 
 5. St. Eustache St. Eustache 
 
 6. Fairbanks Bale St. Paul 
 
 7. St. Leon Village St. Leon 
 
 8. St. Leon, East Manitou " 
 
 9. Theobald Somerset " 
 
 10. Decorby Fort EUice 
 
 11. St. Alphonse, South St. Alphonse " 
 
 12. St. Laurent No. 1 St. Laurent " 
 
 13. St. Laurent No. 2 " " 
 
 14. St. Boniface, West St. Vital 
 
 15. Kinlough Starbuck 
 
 16. Martineau Water Hen River, Indian Reserve. 
 
 17. St. Raymond Giroux Post Office. 
 
 18. St. Vital, East St. Boniface Post Office. 
 
 19. Glengarry Ingleside, Scotch Catholics. 
 
 20. Fannystelle Fannystelle, 
 
 21. Bernier St. Marks. 
 
 22. Camper Minnewakan, Mixed. 
 
 23. St. Antoine Ste. Agathe, 
 
 24. St. Hyacinthe La Salle, 
 
 25. Arsenault ' Oak Lake, 
 
 26. Deleau Deleau, 
 
 27. Maflfam Deleau, 
 
 28. Routledge Routledge, 
 
 29. St. Urbain ■ St. Alphonse (school not yet built). 
 
 30. Canadaville Dauphin Road, " 
 
 31. Hamelin Ste. Rose du Lac. 
 
 32. St. Felix Deloraine. 
 
 33. St. Frangois Xavier, West St. Frangois Xavier 
 
 34. Huns Valley Huns Valley (school building). 
 
 35. Gascon Clarkleigh. 
 
 36. Courchene Oak Lake (organization not complete). 
 
 
 11 
 
162 
 List of French Schools in Manitoba. 
 
 No. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Post Office. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 1 
 
 Wimii]>cg 
 
 Winnipeg 
 
 St. Boniface ... 
 
 do 
 
 Disbanded. 
 
 2 
 
 St. l?onifiice, Ville 
 
 Sejiarate. 
 
 3 
 
 St. Honiface, South 
 
 St. Vital 
 
 St. Norbert No. 1 
 
 do 2 
 
 do 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 St. Vital 
 
 St. Norbert 
 
 do 
 do 
 
 6 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 7 
 
 do 3 
 
 do 4 
 
 St. Agathe 
 
 Proveiicher 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 8 
 
 do 
 
 Convent. 
 
 9 
 10 
 
 St. Agathe 
 
 do 
 
 Separate, 
 do 
 
 11 
 
 St. .Tean-Baptiste Centre 
 
 do North 
 
 Deux Petites Pointi^s ..• 
 
 St. Pie 
 
 St. Jean-Baptiste 
 
 Convent. 
 
 12 
 13 
 
 do 
 
 Letellier 
 
 Public, 
 do 
 
 14 
 
 St. Pie ... 
 
 Separate, 
 do 
 
 15 
 
 Tache 
 
 St.Joseph 
 
 St. Joseph 
 
 16 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 17 
 
 Lorette East 
 
 Lorette 
 
 do 
 
 18 
 
 do West 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 19 
 
 do Centre 
 
 Ste. Anne West 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 20 
 
 Ste. Anne 
 
 do 
 
 21 
 
 do Centre 
 
 do 
 
 Convent. 
 
 22 
 
 do East 
 
 St. Joachim 
 
 St. Charles 
 
 St. Francois-Xavier, East 
 
 do 
 
 Separate, 
 do 
 
 Public, 
 do 
 
 23 
 24 
 
 25 
 
 St. Malo 
 
 St. Charles 
 
 St. Francois-Xavier 
 
 27 
 
 do Centre 
 
 do West 
 
 Baie St. Paul 
 
 Convent. 
 
 2.S 
 
 do 
 
 Public. 
 
 29 
 
 Baie St. Paul . . . 
 
 Disbanded. 
 
 30 
 
 St. Eustache 
 
 Fairbanks 
 
 St. Eustache 
 
 Public. 
 
 31 
 
 Baie St. Paul .. 
 
 Jolys 
 
 do 
 
 3:^ 
 
 St. Pierre, South 
 
 Separate, 
 do 
 
 33 
 
 do Centre 
 
 do . 
 
 34 
 
 do North 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 35 
 
 Iberville 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 3fi 
 
 St. Leon Village 
 
 St. Leon 
 
 Public. 
 
 37 
 
 do East 
 
 Manitou 
 
 do 
 
 38 
 
 Theobald 
 
 Somerset 
 
 do 
 
 39 
 
 Decorby 
 
 Fort Ellice . 
 
 do 
 
 40 
 
 Brandon 
 
 Brandon . . . . 
 
 Convent. 
 
 41 
 
 Selkirk 
 
 Selkirk, West. 
 
 Disbanded. 
 
 42 
 
 St. Alphonse 
 
 St. Alphonse ... 
 
 Separate . 
 Public 
 
 43 
 
 do South 
 
 do 
 
 44 
 
 Marion 
 
 Oak Lake 
 
 Disbanded. 
 
 45 
 
 
 Carman . ... 
 
 do 
 
 46 
 
 P. La Prairie 
 
 P. La Prairie 
 
 do 
 
 47 
 
 Dufferin 
 
 Emerson .... 
 
 do 
 
 48 
 49 
 
 Youville 
 
 St. Jean Baptiste.. . 
 
 Separate, 
 do 
 
 50 
 
 St. Jean Baptiste, East 
 
 do . . ... ... 
 
 51 
 
 St. Laurent 
 
 St. Laurent. 
 
 Public 
 
 52 
 
 LaRiviere 
 
 Deloraine 
 
 Disbanded 
 
 53 
 
 Lacombe 
 
 Cross Lake. 
 
 do 
 
 54 
 55 
 
 Maurepas 
 
 Fort Alexander 
 
 do 
 
 56 
 
 Darveau 
 
 
 do 
 
 57 
 
 Chenail 
 
 
 do 
 
 58 
 
 Brisbois 
 
 Minnedosa . . 
 
 do 
 
 59 
 
 Lac Plat 
 
 Shoal Lake 
 
 do 
 
 60 
 
 Caledonia 
 
 Huns Valley 
 
 Campeau 
 
 Ste. Anne 
 
 Separate. 
 
 61 
 
 Huns Valley 
 
 Public. 
 
 62 
 
 St. Alphonse.. 
 
 Separate. 
 Public. 
 
 63 
 
 St. Boniface, West 
 
 St. Vital ' . 
 
 64 
 
 Kinlough 
 
 Starbuck 
 
 do 
 
 65 
 
 St. Boniface, North 
 
 Dupont 
 
 St. Boniface 
 
 Disbanded. 
 
 66 
 
 Lake Winuipegosis 
 
 do 
 
 67 
 
 Martineau 
 
 Water Hen River 
 
 Public. 
 
 68 
 
 St. Jean Baptiste du Lac 
 
 Stony Mountain 
 
 St. Jean Baptiste 
 
 Separate. 
 Disbanded. 
 
 69 
 
 Stony Mountain 
 
 70 
 
 Ste. Anne 
 
 Ste. Anne 
 
 Separate. 
 
163 
 
 List of French Schools in Manitoba — Continued. 
 
 No. 
 
 71 
 
 72 
 73 
 74 
 75 
 76 
 77 
 78 
 79 
 80 
 81 
 82 
 83 
 84 
 85 
 86 
 87 
 88 
 89 
 90 
 91 
 
 Name. 
 
 St. 
 St. 
 He 
 St. 
 
 Post Office. 
 
 Raymond Giroux 
 
 Vital, East St. Boniface 
 
 des Chenes . 
 
 Norbert, No. 5 
 
 do No. 6 
 
 Kiel 
 
 Glengarry 
 
 Ste. Marie 
 
 Fannystelle 
 
 St. Cuthbert 
 
 Varennes 
 
 St. Nicholas 
 
 Grande Clairi^re 
 
 Bernier. . . 
 
 Camper 
 
 Gascon 
 
 St. Joseph, No. 2 
 
 Courchene 
 
 Vachon 
 
 St. Antoine 
 
 La Broquerie 
 
 St. Agathe, No. 2 
 
 St. Hyacinthe 
 
 Notre-Dame de Lourdes . 
 
 Arsenault 
 
 Routledge 
 
 Deleau 
 
 St. Urbain 
 
 Maffam. ... 
 
 Canada ville , 
 
 Hamelin 
 
 He des Chenes . . . 
 
 St. Norbert 
 
 do 
 
 Grande Pointe . . . 
 
 Ingleside.. 
 
 St. Alphonse 
 
 Fannystelle .... 
 
 Lorette 
 
 Whitemouth 
 
 St. Agathe 
 
 Grande Clairiere. 
 
 St. Marks 
 
 Minnewakan 
 
 Clarkleigh 
 
 St. Joseph 
 
 Oak Lake 
 
 St. Agathe.. 
 
 La Broquerie . . . . 
 
 St. Agathe 
 
 La Salle 
 
 Lourdes 
 
 Oak Lake 
 
 Routledge 
 
 Deleau 
 
 St. Alphonse 
 
 Oak Lake 
 
 Glen Smith 
 
 Ste Rose du Lac. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Public. 
 
 do 
 Separate. 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 Public. 
 Separate. 
 Public. 
 Separate. 
 Disbanded. 
 Separate. 
 
 do 
 Public. 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 Disbanded. 
 Public. 
 Disbanded. 
 Public. 
 Separate. 
 
 do 
 Public. 
 Separate. 
 Public. 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 French school districts under Government control 35 
 
 do disbanded 22 
 
 Separate schools 
 
 57 
 44 
 
 101 
 
\ 
 
RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 IQwm^ 202 A Aoin Library 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 
 HOME USE 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 1 -month loans may be renewed by callmg 642-3405 
 
 6-month loons may be recharged by bringing books to Circulation Desk 
 
 Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due date 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 ] 
 
 
 
 
 INTERLfBRA?^ 
 
 "^ LOAN 
 
 
 v^AY 2 \[ 
 
 177 
 
 
 UNIV. OF CAL/J 
 
 •,. Q^RK 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 FORM NO. DD 6, 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF 
 BERKEl 
 
 CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
 .EY, CA 94720 
 
 I 
 
YD 13734 
 
b