1900s

Dominion Disallowance of Provincial Legislation in Canada

by

Federal disallowance of Provincial Legislation has been a significant aspect of the Canada’s system of “federalism”, allowing the central government to nullify provincial acts deemed contrary to federal interests. This power, unique to Canada, contrasts with the American federal system, reflecting a “differing approach” to federalism. From 1867 to 1935, the Dominion government disallowed at least 114 provincial acts and territorial ordinances, highlighting its considerable powers over provincial legislation.

The process of disallowance involved the submission of provincial acts to the governor-general, with the governor-general in council having the authority to disallow them, typically based on recommendations from the Ministry of Justice, in the same way colonies previous to Confederation would submit their legislation through Lieutenant Governors to the Crown. Disallowance had to occur within one year of receiving the act. While the British government couldn’t directly interfere with provincial acts after confederation, it could express its concerns to the Dominion government instead, as could other foreign governments.

The reasons for disallowance varied widely, including conflicts with federal legislation, exceeding provincial powers outlined in the British North America Act, violation of treaty rights, or infringement on individual rights and property. The subjects of disallowed acts ranged from immigration and banking to mining and liquor regulation, indicating the Dominion’s broad oversight.

Historically, the frequency of disallowance fluctuated, with peaks in the late 19th and early 20th centuries followed by a decline in recent years. Initially, the crown and its Federal government, themselves involved in a parent-child relationship, viewed a strong central government as necessary, akin to a parent-child relationship with provinces. Where that leaves “the people” is clear.

Evolving interpretations of “Canadian federalism” have more recently emphasized provincial rights and autonomy, more in keeping with the American meaning of the term. Decisions by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and advocacy for provincial rights led to a shift in attitudes toward disallowance. Provinces began to assert their legislative independence, advocating for minimal federal interference. By the early 20th century, calls for disallowance were expected to be justified by clear attempts to infringe on federal jurisdiction. Whether this power is still exercised today, on the down low, with the only outward evidence of such actions being a bill dying on the order paper, is unclear.

“Although there is a federal form of government in both the Dominion of Canada. and the United States, there are striking differences in the two types of federalism. Some of these differences are to be found in fundamentals, such as the basis upon which the powers of government are divided in the two countries. Less striking, but nevertheless significant, are still other points of variance. Among these is the power which the dominion government has to disallow legislative acts of the provinces. Just why the fathers of the Canadian federation thought this power should be given to the central government is not clear. The fact remains, however, that in the years from 1867 to 1935, at least 114 provincial acts and territorial ordinances were set aside. It is important to note that these acts were dis- allowed by executive officers of the dominion government. Executive officers of the national government in the United States do not possess similar powers where state legislation is concerned.”

“A survey of the law-making efforts of provincial legislatures which have been set aside by the dominion government indicates that the central government has interfered with some of the most important fields in which provincial legislation might be enacted.”

“The frequency with which the dominion’s power of disallowance has been used has varied considerably at different periods in Canada’s history. In the years from 1867 through 1895, no less than 72 acts and ordinances were set aside. In the years from 1896 through 1920, a period of almost equal length, 37 provincial acts and ordinances were annulled. From 1920 to 1935, only five acts passed by provincial legislatures fell before the disapproval of the dominion government. In the first period mentioned, the greatest number of acts to be disallowed in one province was 26, in Manitoba. British Columbia, with 20, was a close second. Seven ordinances (as distinct from legislative acts) were set aside in the Northwest Territory, while in Ontario and Nova Scotia six acts in each province were disallowed. The remainder of the 72 can be accounted for by the disallowance of four statutes in Quebec, two in Prince Edward Island, and one in New Brunswick. In the second period, British Columbia headed the list with 22, while Manitoba and Saskatchewan had three each. Ontario and Quebec each had one act annulled. Seven ordinances were set aside, five in the Yukon Territory and two in the Northwest Territory. Since 1920, legislative acts in only three provinces have been disallowed. Three were annulled in Nova Scotia and one each in Alberta and British Columbia.”

“To many Americans, it is, of course, striking that the central government in a federation should possess this degree of control over certain types of legislation enacted by the member units in that federal organization. In the Canada of 1864-66, however, there were many who, like J. A. Macdonald, wished to see a strong central government created. They believed that the war between the states to the south of them was due, in part, to weakness at the center. That the dominion government should be able to disallow provincial legislation did not seem strange to them.”

Heneman, H. J. (1937). Dominion Disallowance of Provincial Legislation in Canada. The American Political Science Review, 31(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/1948049

Green Lane, Old Ferry Road, Lawrencetown Road

by
old ferry road

Here is one of, if not the earliest plans available showing Old Ferry Road as far as Cole Harbour (at left), which was originally known as the road to Lawrencetown. Now, Old Ferry Road, Portland Street and Cole Harbour Road. A few modern features added at right to give context. More on this road as it traversed through Woodlawn in the 1780s and 1820s.

The initial construction of this road, at least the part beyond the hill according to Martin, is noted in the Halifax Gazette on June 8th, 1754:

Thursday the 16th past, the Settlers of Lawrence Town set out from this Town in order to go by Land for that Place, having a strong Guard of 200 Regular Troops, exclusive of Officers, commanded by Capt. Stone, with a Number of Rangers; which Place they arrived at the Saturday following, having made a Road from Dartmouth Side to the said Town, which is but little more than 11 Miles distance from us…

From The Story of Dartmouth, by John P. Martin:

Old Ferry Inn. Farmers stabled horses here, and sailed to Halifax with produce. Road in foreground extended easterly to the Passage. This sketch was made about 1820.

This is the lower part of Old Ferry Road, once known as “Green Lane” The curve in the foreground leads to the Old Ferry Wharf. The fence on the left encloses the South End Lawn Tennis Courts, and from there to the shore stood Regal willow trees. Two of them were named for King George III and Queen Charlotte, and two others for Mr. and Mrs. James Creighton of “Brooklands” who had them planted perhaps in the late 1700’s. When this picture was taken about 1900, they were of an enormous size. The whole road was a beautiful shady walk from the wharf all the way up to the present Portland Street.

The fence on the right borders Dr. Parker’s fields at “Beechwood”, and ran along near the location of the new house at 71 Newcastle Street.

The route of the obliterated road to the shore is identified by manholes of the sewer pipe running to Parker’s Wharf.

The remains of what used to be the Old Ferry Wharf at the foot of Old Ferry Road still remain visible, particularly at a very low tide – seen here the morning after Hurricane Juan:

Institutionalizing Eugenics: Custody, Class, Gender And Education In Nova Scotia’s Response To The “Feeble-Minded”, 1890-1931

by

It’s obvious to me that the eugenicists didn’t stop after 1931, that it was used in ways that were politically motivated seems just as obvious. It was preceded by a few generations of “stirpiculture“, which just so happened to make an appearance in an institutionalized form in Nova Scotia in time for “confederation” leading to many subsequent expansions, including at the time of Dartmouth’s incorporation. Howe hinted towards this possibility in his speech at Dartmouth, “The lunatic asylum of course we must keep up, because Archibald may want it by-and-by to put Tupper and Henry into at the close of the elections“, by no means the only example of such statements. That 1868-69 featured the highest number of admission to the “Hospital for the insane” since its inception in 1859 adds further context.

I often think of this whenever I hear a member of Canada’s ruling caste — those who we are supposed to believe have the best interests of their subjects at heart — talk about “mental health” within the context of the current political environment, where they’re preparing every avenue, most especially health and education, for the application of philosophical intoxication against those who resist any of their totalitarian actions and inclinations.

It certainly brings clarity as to why we have such a highly political and ideologically focused monopoly health care system devoid of private payments or hospitals, let alone private insurers for primary care. It’s a level of control that wouldn’t have been so easy to achieve with the patchwork of jurisdictions, imbued with some measure of self government, which we enjoyed previous to this current “amalgamated” regime of hyper-centralization in terms of the administrative state.

I’m sure they’re just looking out for all of our best interests, now.

“Between 1890 and 1927 hundreds of Nova Scotian children and adults were identified as either feeble-minded or mentally deficient through investigations conducted by physicians and philanthropists in the province. The earliest of these studies were not commissioned by the provincial government but instead reflected the middle-class internalization of the eugenic discourse. Reformers, drawn often from medical, religious, educational, and philanthropic vocations, sought with ever-increasing alacrity to respond to perceived social problems, such as poverty, prostitution, venereal disease, and alcoholism, with a scientific solution. The scientific solution that they embraced was eugenics.

Eugenic ideology and programs rose to popularity in Europe and North America at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century. Driven by social anxiety and the medicalization of reproduction, eugenic theory expressed the concerns of the middle classes that those they deemed less fit on the basis of socio-economic class, education or heredity, were reproducing at a higher rate than the ‘desirable’ segments of the population. The application of eugenic theory was shaped by cultural assumptions about gender, class and race which resulted in the same principles finding different expression in different areas across the globe.

This dissertation seeks to understand how local circumstances shaped the Nova Scotian understanding of eugenics and its application. It examines the manner in which Nova Scotian physicians and philanthropists, with strong ties to both New England and Britain, participated in the transnational eugenic discourse through both professional and popular publications and organizations. Overall it argues that the expression of eugenics in Nova Scotia culminated in legislation that enforced the inspection, segregation and institutionalization of individuals who were assessed as feeble-minded. In doing so it also calls attention to the need to recognize outcomes other than sexual sterilization as legitimate expressions of eugenic policy. Subsequently the influential role played by regional circumstances in shaping what was considered an acceptable eugenic outcome as well as how eugenic policy was sought and implemented is examined. In investigating what reformers understood to be eugenic, and conversely what they considered dysgenic, a complex discourse surrounding the health of populations and reliant on ideas of gender, race, and class is revealed.”

Baker, Leslie Elaine. Institutionalizing Eugenics: Custody, Class, Gender And Education In Nova Scotia’s Response To The “Feeble-Minded”, 1890-1931. University of Saskatchewan, Feb. 2015. https://harvest.usask.ca/bitstream/handle/10388/ETD-2015-01-1934/BAKER-DISSERTATION.pdf

Expansion has been from the earliest day the policy of our country. The evidence from the fathers of the republic

by

There is a rank due to the United States among the nations of the world which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation for weakness.[WASHINGTON.]

Having practiced the acquisition of territory for nearly 60 years the question of constitutional power to do so is no longer an open one with us. [LINCOLN.]


I am persuaded no Constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire and self government. [THOS. JEFFERSON.]

I tell you, increase and multiply and expand is thelaw of this nation’s existence. [S. A. DOUGLAS.]

I now behold the great American eagle, with her Stars and Stripes, hovering over the Lone Star of Texas, with cheering voice welcoming it into our glorious Union, [ANDREW JACKSON.]

I do not share in the apprehension held by many as to the danger of governments becoming weakened and destroyed by reason of their extension of territory. [GRANT.]

THE ISSUE STATED – “COME BACK,” says Mr. Bryan, “come back to the days of Jefferson, of Washington—to the days of the Fathers, and consider what the founders of our Government thought, and said, and did on this question of expansion.” So speaks Mr. Bryan, asserting and arguing that the great statesmen of our country support his side of the case.

IN PROOF of his assertion Hr. Bryan recites portions of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Washington’s Farewell Address, and quotes, also, sayings of Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln and others. He argues from these general statements that the founders and defenders of our country support his side of the case.

THIS CHALLENGE WE ACCEPT.

WE WILL GO BACK to those early days, and we will show you by the testimony of these great men, by their very words when speaking expressly of expansion, that they are witnesses not for Mr. Bryan but against him ; that their evidence is not for his cause but against it. We will show you that almost without exception the great statesmen of this country, from Jefferson and Washington down to Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, have spoken and argued for expansion.

FOR OUR PROOF we now quote to you the testimony that these great men, the Fathers, gave when dealing in their day with the question of expansion, citing after each statement the occasion when it was made.

WASHINGTON PROGRESSIVE.

HE HOPED THAT CANADA WOULD BECOME A PART OF THE UNION—HIS VALLEY FORGE LETTER.

“Wanting scarcely anything but the free navigation of the Mississippi, which we must have and as certainly shall have as we remain a nation, I have supposed that, with the undeviating exercise of a just, steady and prudent national policy, we shall be the gainers, whether the Powers of the Old World may be in peace or war, but more especially in the latter case.” George Washington, in a letter to Lafayette, August 11th, 1790.

“I see no objection to our indulging a hope that this country (Canada), of such importance in the present controversy, may yet be added to and complete our Union.” —George Washington, in a letter to General Sullivan, June 16th, 1776.

” The accounts which you had received of the accession of Canada to the Union were premature. It is a measure much to be wished, and I believe would not be displeasing to the body of that people. Your ideas of its importance to our political union coincide exactly with mine. If that country is not with us, it will, from its proximity to the Eastern States, its intercourse and connection with the numerous tribes of Western Indians, its communion with them by water and other local advantages, be at least a troublesome if not a dangerous neighbor to us ; and ought, at all events, to be in the same interests and politics of the other States.” George Washington, in a letter from Valley Forge to Landon Carter, May 30th, 1778.

“And lastly, another Province (Nova Scotia), which some time ago was very desirous of it, would be added to the Federal Union. It may not be amiss to give Bermuda some consideration, as circumstances in the course of the campaign may lead to the conquest of this island, without incur- ring much expense, or interfering with other plans. Policy in this case may invite the measure whether it is adopted with a view of retaining or ceding the island by way of composition at a general pacification. Some good and no bad consequences can result from an attempt to take this island by surprise. The island might be carried without much, if any, opposition ; for it is presumed very little would come from the inhabitants, who have often expressed a wish to be united with America and enjoy the benefit of its support.” George Washington in his Plan of Campaign for the year 1782, in the Revolutionary War, drawn up by him at Newburgh, May 1st, 1782

” The United States ought not to indulge a persuasion that, contrary to the order of human events, they will forever keep at a distance those painful appeals to arms with which the history of every nation abounds. There is a rank due to the United States among the nations of the world which will be withheld if not absolutely lost, by the reputation for weakness.” George Washington, in a speech to Congress, Dec. 3d, 1793.

JEFFERSON AN EXPANSIONIST

HIS DREAM OF AN EMPIRE FOR LIBERTY THE CONSTITUTION WELL ADAPTED FOR IT.

” We should then have only to include the North in our Confederacy, which would be of course in the first war, and we should have such an empire for liberty as she has never surveyed since the creation ; and I am persuaded no constitution was ever be- fore so well calculated as ours for extensive empire and self-government.” Thomas Jefferson, in a letter from Monticello to James Madison, April 21th, 1809.

“Although it is acknowledged that our new fellow citizens (of Louisiana) are as yet incapable of self-government as children, yet some cannot bring themselves to suspend its principles for a single moment.” Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to De Witt Clinton, Dec. 2d, 1803.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN’S VIEWS.

THE QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO ACQUIRE TERRITORY NO LONGER OPEN.

” Having practiced the acquisition of territory for nearly sixty years, the question of constitutional power to do so is no longer an open one with us. The power was questioned at first by Mr. Jefferson, who, however, in the purchase of Louisiana, yielded his scruples on the plea of great expediency. Mr. Jefferson placed the importance of procuring Louisiana more on political and commercial grounds than on providing room for population.” —Abraham Lincoln, in his first Annual Message to Congress, Dec. 3d, 1861.

” I am not generally opposed to honest acquisition of territory ; and in any given case I would or would not oppose such acquisition, according as I might think such acquisition would or would not aggravate the slavery question among ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln, in a speech at Freeport, Illinois, August 2.1th, 1858.

” To carry out the plan of colonization (of the negroes who had been liberated) may involve the acquiring of territory, and also the appropriation of money beyond that to be expended in the territorial acquisition.” Abraham Lincoln, in his First Annual Message to Congress, Dec. 3d, 1861

JACKSON AND THE EAGLE.

HIS CONGRATULATIONS TO GEN. HOUSTON ON ACQUIRING TEXAS—MUST ADD TO, NOT CEDE FROM, REPUBLIC.

“On such a subject (the surrender of Texas to Spain in 1810), 1 thought with the ancient Romans, that it was right never to cede any land or boundary of the Republic, but always to add to it by honorable treaty, thus extending the area of freedom ; and it was in accordance with this feeling that I gave our Minister to Mexico instruction to enter upon a negotiation for the retrocession of Texas to the United States. This negotiation failed, and I shall ever regret it as a misfortune to both Mexico and the United States.” Andrew Jackson, in a letter from the Hermitage to A. V. Brown, Feb. 12th. 1843.

“I congratulate you, I congratulate Texas and the United States, on this glorious result (the annexation of Texas) on which depended the safety and prosperity of both Texas and the United States. ” I now behold the great American eagle, with her stars and stripes, hovering over the lone star of Texas, with cheering voice welcoming it into our glorious Union, and proclaiming to Mexico and all foreign Governments, ‘ You must not attempt to tread upon Texas,’ that ‘ the United Stars and Stripes now defend her.’ Glorious result ! in which you, General, have acted a noble part ; and your name is now recorded among the heroes, the patriots and philanthropists.” Andrew Jackson, in a letter from the Hermitage to General Sam. Houston, March 12th, 1845.

” I must say that, in all respects, the annexation of Texas to the United States promises to enlarge the circle of free institutions, and is essential to the United States, particularly as lessening the probabilities of future collision with foreign Powers and giving them greater efficiency in spreading the blessings of peace.” Andrew Jackson, in a letter from the Hermitage to A. V. Brown, Feb. 12th, 1843.

GENERAL GRANT HAD NO FEAR

AS TO WEAKENING THE GOVERMENT BY ADDITIONS OF NEW TERRITORY.

” I do not share in the apprehension held by many as to the danger of governments becoming weakened and destroyed by rea- son of their extension of territory. Commerce, education and rapid transit of thought and matter by telegraph and steam have changed all this. Rather do I believe that our Great Maker is preparing the world, in His own good time, to become one great nation, speaking one language, and when armies and navies will be no longer required.” General Grant, in his Second Inaugural Address. March 4th, 1873.

” The acquisition of San Domingo is desirable because of its geographical position. It commands the entrance to the Caribbean Sea and the Isthmus transit of commerce. Its possession by us will in a few years build up a coastwise commerce of immense magnitude, which wal go far toward restoring to us our lost merchant marine. In case of foreign war it will give us command of all the islands referred to (the West India Islands), and thus pre-vent an enemy from ever again possessing himself of rendezvous upon our very coast. The acquisition of San Domingo is an adherence to the Monroe Doctrine ; it is a measure of national protection ; it is asserting our just claim to a controlling influence over the great commercial traffic soon to flow from West to East by way of the Isthmus of Darien. It is, in fine, a rapid stride toward that greatness which the intelligence, industry, and enterprise of the citizens of the United States entitle this country to assume among nations.” General Grant, in his Second Annual Message to Congress, Dec. 5th, 1870.

UNITY OF EMPIRE.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S IDEAS CONCERNING THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES

” Besides the eventual security against invasion, we ought certainly to look to the possession of the Floridas and Louisiana, and we ought to squint at South America. —Alexander Hamilton in a letter to James McHenry, June 21th, 1799.

” I have been long in the habit of considering the acquisition of those countries (Louisiana and Florida) as essential to the permanency of the Union.” Alexander Hamilton, in a letter to H. G. Otis, Jan. 26th, 1799.

” The Farmer, I am inclined to hope, builds too much upon the present disunion of Canada, Georgia, the Floridas, the Mississippi and Nova Scotia from other Colonies. I please myself with the flattering prospect that they will, ere long, unite in one indissoluble chain with the rest of the Colonies.” Alexander Hamilton, in his ” Vindication of the Measures of Congress” in 1774.

“The whole (the attitude of the United States toward France when France got Louisiana from Spain ) is then a question of expediency. Two courses only present: First, to negotiate, and endeavor to purchase ; and if this fails, to go to war. Secondly, to seize at once on the Floridas and New Orleans, and then negotiate.-” Alexander Hamilton, in an article written for the Evening Post in 1803.

” You know my general theory as to our Western affairs. I have always held that the unity of the empire, and the best interests of the United States require that we should annex to the United States all the territory east of the Mississippi, New Orleans included.” Alexander Hamilton, in a letter to General C. V. Pinckney, Dec.29th, 1802.

FOUR OF OUR PRESIDENTS

WHO EARLY RECOGNIZED THAT THIS WASTO BE A GROWING NATION.

PRESIDENT JAMES MADISON said : ” The purchase of Louisiana to its fullest extent, though not contemplated, is received with warm, and, in a manner, universal approbation. The uses to which it may be turned render it a highly noble acquisition.” President James Madison, in a letter to James Monroe, July 30th, 1804.

PRESIDENT JAMES K. POLK said ” In the earlier stages of our national experience, the opinion prevailed with some that our system of confederate States could not operate successfully over an extended territory, and serious objections have at times been made to the enlargement of our boundaries. These objections were earnestly urged when we acquired Louisiana. Experience has shown that they were not well founded.” President James K. Polk, in his Inaugural Address, March 4th, 1845.

PRESIDENT FRANKLIN PIERCE said : ” The United States have continued gradually and steadily to expand through acquisitions of territory, which, how much soever some of them may have been questioned, are now universally seen and ad-mitted to have been wise in policy, just in character, and a great element in the advancement of our country, and with it of the human race, in freedom, in prosperity and in happiness.” President Franklin Pierce, in his First Annual Message to Congress, Dec. 5th, 1853.

PRESIDENT JAMES BUCHANAN said: ” Expansion’ is in future the policy of our country, and only cowards fear and oppose it.” President James Buchanan in, a speech at the White House in 1801.

” All the territory which we have ac-quired since the origin of the Government has been by fair purchase from France, Spain and Mexico, or by the free and voluntary act of the independent State of Texas in blending her destinies with our own. This course we shall ever pursue unless circumstances should occur which we do not now anticipate, rendering a departure from it clearly justifiable under the imperative and overruling law of self-preservation.” President James Buchanan in his Second Annual Message to Congress, December 6, 1858.

FRANKLIN HINTED

THAT ENGLAND MIGHT HAVE TO GIVE UP CANADA.

” Britain possesses Canada. It might be humiliating to her to give it up on the demand of America. Perhaps America will not demand it. But on the mind of the people in general would it not have an excellent effect if Britain should voluntarily offer to give up this province? And I hinted that, if England should make us a voluntary offer of Canada expressly for the purpose of effecting durable peace and sweet reconciliation, it might have a good effect.” Benjamin Franklin in 1782 in negotiating with Richard Oswald, the British Envoy, the Treaty of Peace at the close of the Revolutionary War.

” If the United States should think fit to attempt the reduction of the British power in the northern parts of America, or the islands of Bermudas, those countries or islands, in case of success, shall be con- federated or dependent upon the said United States.” Benjamin Franklin in Treaty with France in 1778, written by him.

LEGAL AUTHORITY.

CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL ON THE POWER OF THE CONSTITUTION.

” The Constitution confers absolutely upon the Government of the Union the power of making war and of making treaties ; consequently, that Government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty. The usage of’ the world is, if a nation is not entirely subdued, to consider the holding of conquered territories as a mere military occupation until its fate shall be deter- mined at the treaty of peace. If it be ‘ ceded by the treaty the acquisition is confirmed, and the ceded territory becomes part of the nation to which it is annexed, either on the terms stipulated in the treaty ‘of cession or on such terms as its new master shall impose.” Chief Justice John Marshall in his opinion in the case of the American Insurance Co. vs. Canter, decided in the United States Supreme Court in 1828.

“They (the inhabitants of Florida, which was then a Territory) do not, however, participate in political power—they do not share in the Government until Florida shall become a State. In the meantime Florida continues to be a Territory of the United States, guarded by virtue of the clause in the Constitution (Section 3, Article 4) which empowers Congress ‘to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.’ ” —Chief Justice John Marshall in his opinion in the case of the American Insurance Co. vs. Canter, decided in the United States Supreme Court in 1828.

STRONG WORDS OF DOUGLAS.

HE SAYS THE LAW OF NATIONS IS TO MULTIPLY AND EXPAND.

” When it becomes necessary in our growth and progress to acquire more territory I am in favor of it. It is idle to tell me or you that we have territory enough. Our fathers supposed that we had enough when our territory extended to the Mississippi River, but a few years’ growth and expansion satisfied them that we needed more, and the Louisiana territory, from the west branch of the Mississippi to the British possessions, was acquired. Then we acquired Oregon, then California and New Mexico. We have enough for the present, but this is a young and growing nation. I tell you increase and multiply and expand is the law of this nation’s existence. You cannot limit this great Republic by mere boundary lines, saying, ‘ Thus far shalt thou go and no further.’ Just as fast as our interests and our destiny require additional territory in the north, in the south, or in the islands of the sea, I am for it.” Stephen A. Douglas in a speech at Freeport, III., August 27, 1858.

A NEW YORK STATESMAN.

WILLIAM H. SEWARD’S IDEAS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OP CANADA.

” Standing here and looking far off into the Northwest I see the Russian as he busily occupies himself in establishing seaports’, and towns, and fortifications, on the verge of this continent, as the outposts of St. Petersburg, and I can say, ‘ Go on and build up your outposts all along the coast, even up to the Arctic Ocean—they will yet become the. outposts of my own country—monuments of the civilization of the United States in the Northwest.’ So I look off on Prince Rupert’s Land and Canada and see there an ingenious, enterprising and ambitious people occupied with bridging rivers and constructing canals, railroads and telegraphs to organize and preserve British provinces north of the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence and around the shores of the Hudson Bay, and I am able to say : ‘. It is very well ; you are building excellent States to be hereafter admitted into the American Union.’ ” William H. Seward in a speech at St. Paul .September 18, 1850.

” A war about these fisheries ( the British fisheries in North America) would be a war which would result either in the in- dependence of the British provinces or in their annexation to the United States. I devoutly pray God that that consummation may come, the sooner the better; but I do not desire it at the cost of war, or in- justice. I am content to wait for the ripened fruit which must fall.” William H. Seward in a speech in the Senate August 14, 1852.

TESTIMONY OF PUBLIC MEN

WHO AGREED ON THE SUBJECT OF TERRITORIAL EXPANSION YEARS AOO.

HENRY CLAY said : ” I have, however, no hesitation in saying that, far from having any personal objection to the annexation of Texas, I should be glad to see it, without dishonor, without war, with the common consent of the Union, and upon just and fair terms. It would be unwise to refuse a permanent acquisition, which will exist as long as the globe remains, on account of a temporary institution (slavery). Henry Clay in a letter to Stephen Miller, July 27, 1844.

ALBERT GALLATIN said : ” To me it would appear: That the United States as a nation have an inherent right to acquire territory. That whenever the territory has been acquired Congress have the power either of admitting it into the Union as anew State, or of annexing it to a State with the consent of that State, or of making regulation for the government of such territory-” Albert Gallatin in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, January 13, 1803.

GOUYERNEUR MORRIS said: “I always thought when we should acquire Canada and Louisiana it would be proper to govern them as provinces, and allow them no voice in our councils. In wording the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution I went as far as circumstances would permit, to establish the exclusion.’ Gouverneur Morris of New York, who wrote the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution, in a letter to Henry W. Livingston, December 4, 1803.

“The Congress shall have power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting territory or other property belonging to the United States.” Section 3, Article 4, of the Constitution. “I knew then, as well as I do now, that all North America must at length be annexed to us.” Gouverneur Morris in a letter to Henry W. Livingston, November 25th, 1803.

MR. BRYAN thinks he knows what these men, the Fathers, would do to-day. WE KNOW what they did and said in their day.

We recall that Abraham Lincoln in 1860 said : ” I do not mean to say that we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so would be to discard all the lights of current experience—to reject all progress, all improvement. What I do say is that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and arguments so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand.” Abraham Lincoln in a speech at Cooper Union, February 27th, 1860.

Who is right: MR. BRYAN or THE FATHERS?

Walker, Albert H. Expansion has been from the earliest day the policy of our country. The evidence from the fathers of the republic. [New York: Republican National Committee, ?, 1900] Pdf. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, www.loc.gov/item/ca25000646/

Page 1 of 6
1 2 3 4 … 6