March 22, 1926


Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)



Stands-for conference.



Mr. O'NEILL moved: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and reports relative to the construction, financing or operation of the Rouyn railway passing between the government or any department or official thereof and: 1. The management of the Canadian National Railways or any officer or official thereof; 2. The government of the province of Quebec or any department or official thereof; 3. The Rouyn Railway Company or any officer or official thereof; 4. Messrs. Dillon, Read and Company or any official thereof; 5. The American Exchange Securities Corporation or any official thereof; 6. The Noranda Mines Limited, or any official thereof. Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): Stand. fMr. C. A. Stewart.]


Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)


I think the mover of

the motion might have a little say whether it stands or not.


Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Railways and Canals)



I make the request

merely as a matter of courtesy. I did not intend to infringe upon the privileges of any member. Just as a matter of courtesy, if the mover would permit, I would ask that the motion stand.

' Mr. O'NEILL: Yes.

Motion stands.



Mr. ANDERSON (Halton) for Mr. James Arthurs moved: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrama or recommendations relating to an embargo upon pulp-wood or to a proposed export duty upon pulpwood shipped from Canada. Such order to apply to correspondence, etc., subsequent to January 1, 1921.


James Alexander Robb (Minister of Trade and Commerce; Minister of Finance and Receiver General)


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):

if this is allowed to go through, it is on the understanding, after consultation with the mover, the hon. member for Parry Sound, that he designates just what he seeks because, this involves a great deal of correspondence which would 'be of no interest to him.


Motion agreed to.



James Shaver Woodsworth


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, Canada should refuse to accept any responsibility for complications arising from the foreign policy of the United Kingdom.

He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a subject which, I clearly recognize, has a great many bearings, and upon which there may be considerable difference of opinion not only as between parties, but as between individuals within the various groups. I fancy there has been in the past somewhat of a tendency to treat rather lightly matters that relate to the foreign policy of this country; but now that the war hysteria has passed and feelings have more or less subsided, it would seem that it is high time that we should give a little more serious consideration to our relationships with the Mother Country with regard to foreign policy.

I know that there is likely to be some opposition to this proposal, but I would point out that nearly all reforms are opposed, dire results are foretold, and very frequently there are fervent appeals to what is known as patriotism. Glancing over a bit of history

Canada's Imperial Relations

the other day, I noticed that during the debate on the Reform Bill of 1832, introduced by Lord John Russell, Lord Macaulay in supporting the measure said:

My hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis) tells us that if we pass this law England will soon be a republic. The reformed House of Commons will, according to him, before it has sat ten years, depose the king and expel the lords from their House.

I do not think I need point out that although nearly one hundred years have passed by, the king has not yet been deposed and the lords still sit in their chamber.

In Canada the tendency is for some of us to be more British than the British. We sometimes neglect the spirit which underlies British action and imagine that loyalty suggests slavish conformity. In terms of psychoanalysis, I suppose we may be said to suffer from an inferiority complex. Some of us imagine that we are not quite big enough or wise enough to consider these things in our own right, and have simply to take secondhand the opinions of someone on the other side of the water. I do not know of a better illustration of this inferiority complex than that which is afforded by a statement credited to one of the Toronto members not very long ago. The Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) has already quoted it this session. I refer the House to page 67 of Hansard, where the member for Northwest Toronto (Mr. Church) in a speech criticizing his leader's new war policy is reported to have said:

Had we had this autonomy in 1914 Canada would not have been represented in the Great war. There would have been no 60,000 soldiers in France from Toronto.

I suppose he might have added: Nor 50,000 Canadian boys in French graves. Frankly, I had thought more of Toronto than would be indicated by this speech of one of__its representatives. Think of itl He says: Had we had autonomy we should not have entered the war. Are we then to be dumb, driven cattle, and simply go into any adtion because we are forced into it? I take it the time has come when if we are to enter upon any such action it should be entirely of our own free will. It is well that we should place our position clearly before the world.

The preliminary question arises as to whether Canada has indeed a foreign policy. No one seems to know. Last year, while we had assurances from the government that we would be able to discuss foreign affairs, as a matter of fact the discussion was postponed until after midnight on the last day of the session; that was the only opportunity that we had during the session to discuss the 14011-112

foreign affairs of Canada. Yet I would point out that Canada must maintain very intimate relations with the United States 365 days of the year, and that we ought to have our foreign policy, so far as the States is concerned, very clearly defined. Fortunately since the union of the two great races in this country there has never been a war between England and France. I would, however, point out that if that contingency ever arose, which God forbid1, we would 'all be placed in an exceedingly delicate position, and therefore we ought not to shut our eyes to what might develop. I would further point out, coming as I do from the west, that we have hundreds of thousands of immigrants who call one or other of the various European countries the fatherland or thie motherland, as the case may be. What would happen in the event of war with some of these European countries in the days to come when the numbers of their nationals in this country are greatly increased? Further than that, within recent years Canada has become keenly interested in the Orient. Personally I am inclined to think that a great many of our trade developments in the days to come will be on the Pacific rather than on the Atlantic, and that more and more we shall have to pay attention to our relations with our trans-Pacific neighbours.

In the last war, though having no im-rhediate concern with European affairs, Canada found1 herself involved, and we are still struggling under the burden of the debt-created by that Great war? What about the next War? Perhaps hon. members will say: It is too early to consider the next war. I am not at all sure about that. I noticed that just the other day Major General J. H. MacBrien was talking to the Anglican Fellowship Club in this city. By the way, I should like to take this -opportunity of protesting against any employee in the public service going around doing propaganda work for any particular policy. We do not permit it in any other of the departments. I would call upon the government to forbid any employee definitely engaging in political propaganda with respect to a question on which there is a wide divergence of opinion in this House. On December 15 last this gentleman said:

It is useless to deceive ourselves into believing that there will not be another war. . . . The cause for this next war to come might well be an adjustment of frontiers in the European countries.

Well, here we have our chief of staff definitely preparing us and the country at large for another war that is likely to arise, as he

Canada's Imperial Relations

says, because of the adjustment of frontiers in the European countries. If that is the case, surely it is high time that we took full opportunity of a discussion such as may be initiated by my motion. Almost at the same time we have Viscount Jellicoe suggesting that Canada should contribute $36,000,000 a year for the next few years towards the cost of the Imperial navy, and should provide a squadron of four cruisers within the next four years at an annual cost of approximately $10,000,000, during the four-year period of construction. He also suggests a cruiser in reserve. He estimates the annual cost of the maintenance of the four cruisers at approximately $4,290,000. So here we have not merely our own War men but those from the Motherland urgently pressing upon us the need of preparing for the next war.

I think it unnecessary for me to point out that the question of Canada's relationship to foreign nations is inextricably involved with Canada's relationship to the United Kingdom. Under existing circumstances, we cannot deal with our policies without dealing with our relationship to the United Kingdom, and I am glad to see that there is coming to be somewhat of a changed sentiment with regard to this matter. Hon. gentlemen may recall that in 1922 the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) gave utterance to his famous expression "Ready, aye, ready. We stand by you." Now, three years have passed, not a very long period, but a few weeks or months ago we find the same gentleman saying at Hamilton:

I believe it would be best not only that parliament should be called but that the decision of the government, which of course would have to be given promptly, should be submitted to the judgment of the people at a general election before troops leave our shores. I

I am inclined to think that the right hon. leader of the opposition has gone too far in that. If we are to assure the effectiveness of any war, it would hardly do to call parliament together in order to provide an opportunity for a referendum. But while I am inclined to think he has gone too far, I do not think we are going too far in settling the principle before another war is in sight. Now is the time to decide such a matter. As a further indication of a change in sentiment, I would quote a clause from the constitution of an organization which we have in western Canada, known as the Native Sons of Canada, a patriotic and fraternal society. The plank in their platform or constitution relating to Canada's status reads as follows: .

It is imperative that the parliament of Canada shall have sovereign rights. Our Dominion must acquire the constitutional status of a nation, enjoying absolute

fMr. Woodswortli.] *

equality with any other component part of tile British Commonwealth. The rights hereby demanded should not rest on sentiment, nor the assurances of statesmen, but should be enacted as law by the proper parliaments. Generous safeguards and covenants, protecting the vested rights of provinces, and civil and religious liberties, should be preserved.

It is not my purpose, Mr. Speaker, to enter at any length upon the question of Canada's legal and constitutional status. I hope that before this discussion is over some of the legal gentlemen who are specialists in this matter will take advantage of the opportunity and go into this question more fully. But from my standpoint, as an ordinary layman, I do not know that such discussions help us very much. We are told that if Canada wants her autonomy she' may have it, that no obstacle will be placed in the way by Great Britain. That may be true. Personally I am inclined to think that the greatest obstacle has been the fact that we have never asked for larger autonomy, and have never been determined to gain it. In fact it is only within recent years that there has grown up any considerable sentiment with regard to that question. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we are not to-day attributing blame or casting aspersions upon the authorities of Great Britain; we are not declaring that they refused to give us this, but we are taking the position that it is quite within our rights to discuss whether or not we want it. It will be time enough afterwards for Great Britain to say whether or not she is agreeable to our having it. I would point out that the constitutions which have been drawn more recently than our own go much further than the British North America Act. For example, when the Irish Free State bills were being discussed in the British House of Commons, it was pointed out that there is no phrase in the British North America Act making the Dominion of Canada a co-equal member of the community of nations forming the British commonwealth of nations. Similarly, there is in the Canadian constitution no such declaration as that contained in the Irish Free State constitution, which states that all powers of government and all authority, legislative, executive and judicial, are derived from the people of Ireland. The Irish constitution also provides that save in the case of actual invasion the Irish Free State shall not be committed to participation in any war without the consent of parliament.

At the last Imperial conference it will be remembered that the prime ministers of the dominions refused to attempt to define by resolution the present relationship of their

Canada's Imperial Relations

dominions to the Mother Country, and Mr. Bonar Law welcomed the refusal. He added:

I say without hesitation, that if this parliament were to pass an act which attempted to limit the powers of the dominions, according to statute, it would re-echo all through the dominions, and would be one of the most dangerous things that could happen.

I am not very sure, however, that our powers in Canada are not already limited. For example, during the last few days we had the report of a decision of an appeal to the Privy Council from two judgments of the Supreme Court of Alberta, in which we find that the Lord Chancellor, Viscount Cave, in speaking of the powers of the Canadian parliament, said-:

In their Lordships' opinion, section 1025 of the Canadian Criminal Code if and so far as it is intended to prevent the sovereign in council from giving effective leave to appeal against an order of a Canadian court is repugnant to the Judicial Committee Acts of 1833 and i834 which have been cited and is therefore void and inoperative by virtue of the act of 1865. It is true that the code has received royal assent, but that assent cannot give validity to an act which is void by imperial statute.

I say I am not blaming the imperial authorities, but I would suggest that our legal standing has not kept pace at all with constitutional developments.

In discussing the constitution of Ireland a writer in the Canadian Gazette, which is published in London, under date of November 30, 1922, suggested that the relationship of the various component parts of the British Empire should be that of a partnership by consent. I accept the phrase, Mr. Speaker, and I fancy that if we worked out our relationship somewhat along that line we would get a great deal further. A partnership by consent means by the full consent of each partner. We are, however, frequently told that we should not avoid our imperial responsibilities. This is said to us by some of our militarist advocates, especially with regard to contributions which they think should be made to the Imperial navy. I would like to point out what Lord Milner said several years ago in his little book entitled Questions of the Hour, at page 97:

We could not afford to reduce it-

Speaking of our army.

-even if we had no empire at all. And as for the navy, we need it for the protection of our world-wide commerce and mercantile marine, and we should need not a smaller but a larger navy if we were deprived of the navy bases which the empire contains.

So it would seem that we are under no very great obligation to the Motherland with regard to the maintenance of a navy. I should like to urge the general principle that financial responsibilities are contingent on moral responsibility. The Imperial confer-14011-112i

ence of 1917, on the resolution of Sir Robert L. Borden, stated that we-

-should recognize the right of the dominions and of India to an adequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations, and to provide effective arangements for eontinunous consultation in all important matters of common imperial concern.

With regard to this, I should like simply to ask two questions, and urge that they be answered by anyone 'who still maintains that we ought to assume responsibility for actions of the United Kingdom. My first question is: Can anyone say that to-day Canada has an adequate voice in the foreign policy and in the foreign relations of the United Kingdom? My second question is: Can we hope to have an adequate voice, can anyone suggest any plan by which we could possibly have an adequate voice in the very complicated questions which are continually arising in the foreign policy of the great British Empire ?

It is not my purpose, Mr. Speaker, to deal at any length to-day with the question of Locarno. I am of the opinion that this question is of sufficient importance to Canada to be dealt with under a separate order, and I should like to think that the Prime Minister would give us the assurance that we would have a full opportunity of discussing the Locarno treaty. But, incidentally, I should like here to point out that the conference of Locarno has produced a significant and important international declaration affecting the status and obligations of all the dominions of the British commonwealth. Article IX of the Rhineland security pact between Great Britain, France, Belgium, Italy and Germany reads:

The present treaty shall impose no obligations on any of the British dominions or upon India unless the government of such Dominion or of India signifies its acceptance thereof.

Speaking to the journalists assembled at Locarno, Mr. Chamberlain, when asked if he represented and spoke for the whole British Empire said:

You do not appear to know the constitution of the British Empire. The dominions and the other parts of the empire are bound only if they ratify of their own free-will and accord.

I would like to accept that statement of Mr. Chamberlain. However, while I do so I recognize that there is the other side of the question as well. This is pointed out by Lord Parmoor, who is one of the highest authorities on the subject. He is reported by the press as saying: *

The Locarno pact was signed without previous consultation with the dominions. It places upon Britain an obligation to fight on the side of either Franco or

Canada's Imperial Relations

Germany in the case of aggression, and the dominions cannot escape some of the results of these obligations.

It is true that Mr. Chamberlain inserted a clause protecting dominion interests so that the dominions are not obliged to send troops or any form of assistance in the event of war arising from the Locarno treaty, but if Britain goes to war, the rest of the empire automatically goes to war, and no general election in Canada or vote by the Canadian parliament can alter this international fact. All that Canada can do is to refuse to assist, but under international law she still remains the enemy of Britain's enemies.

I would call this to the attention of the right hon. leader of the opposition, with his suggestion that the whole matter should be referred to the people at large before troops leave our shores. Let me repeat it:

No general election in Canada or vote by the Canadian parliament can alter this international fact. All that Canada can do is to refuse to assist but under international law she still remains the enemy of Britain's enemies.

I have been speaking so far of the danger that we experience here in Canada of being dragged into war without having an adequate voice in saying whether or not we desire to go to war, but I would further 4 p.m. point out that even in Great Britain the power of parliament is decidedly limited. I should like to quote a few paragraphs from a little pamphlet entitled Foreign Policy and the People, by Morel and Lees-Smith. It may come somewhat as a surprise to some of the members of this House to know how limited are the powers even of the British parliament with regard to the making of war. The article reads:

The powers now enjoyed by the executive and by individual ministers in matters of foreign policy may, 'hen, be summarized as follows:

(1) Ministers can conclude and ratify a treaty with a foreign power o-r powers, committing the country to go to war under certain contingencies, without the prior consent of (parliament, and without, therefore, any precedent national debate. Parliament is only informed after the act has been committed, and the country has become bound. Theoretically, no doubt, parliament being thus presented with such a treaty can throw out the government that has concluded it, but for a host of reasons 'this is well-nigh an impossible course for parliament to pursue. It never has so acted. Considerations of party politics and of personalities make it virtually impossible that it should so act. A government with a dependable majority behind it can always defeat any such attempt.

Example: the Anglo-Japanese alliance.

(2) Ministers can, wihen presenting to parliament the text of such treaty, withhold from the published text certain clauses either attached to the original treaty itself, or embodied in a separate document. The treaty, as presented to parliament, may do no more than -provide for the settlement of various disputes and for the diplomatic support of the power with whom the treaty is made for certain olvects which that power may -be pursuing. But the secret clauses may be of such a character as to alter entirely the general character of the treaty, and be tantamount to involving the nation, without i-ts knowledge, to go to war under certain contingencies. The danger of

the exercise of this power is the greater in so far as parliament and the country in this way may be entirely misled as to the real character of the agreement entered into.

Example: the secret clauses of the Moroccan-

Egyptian convention in the Anglo-French general settlement of 1904.

(3) Ministers can conclude and ratify a -treaty with a foreign power or powers committing this country to go to war under certain contingencies, or committing it to a vast extension of military and political liabilities without informing parliament for an indefinite period.

Example: the conventions with Italy, France and imperial Russia during the war.

(4) Ministers can authorize joint military and naval co-operation for potential war with another state or states without informing parliament, and without even informing their colleagues in the cabinet.

Example: the Anglo-French military conventions of 1906-1914.

(5) Ministers, sure of their parliamentary majority, can levy direct and indirect war upon another state or states without giving the country the right to pronounce upon their action.

Example: the military and naval operations, directly and indirectly continued, against Soviet Russia in 19191921.

It is, therefore, in the power of the executive to commit the nation without national debate and even without national knowledge to irrevocable decisions.

Further, and this is something that we hardly recognize in Canada, there is in Great Britain what is known as the Committee of Imperial Defence. Arthur Ponsonby, the late Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his recent book, Now is the Time, says, page 42:

This body which is outside parliamentary control and not subject to political change in the same way as a cabinet gives a military and strategic interpretation to all questions of policy, and in a -powerful yet inaccessible position forces the administration of the day, whatever its political colour may be, to modify and, if need be, abandon projects conceived on the lines of international co-operation.

This is the situation which exists with regard to the control of foreign affairs even by the parliament of Great Britain. Much less may we in Canada by the very indirect means provided, hope to exercise any effective control. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I urge that we be honourable, and that we now serve notice that our partnership is one of limited liability. Someone who has been reading my motion has suggested that it may possibly leave itself open to the interpretation that never under any circumstances should we go to the defence of the United Kingdom. Such I think perhaps is rather a far-ifetched interpretation. However, I have no desire at all to insist upon certain phrasing being maintained. I think my resolution is sufficiently clear to enable every member of this House to understand its purport, namely, that without reference to, or decision by this House we assert that we

Canada's Imperial Relations

do not propose to be bound by anything that may be transacted overseas.

In bringing forward a resolution of this kind I am not anti-British, but I am antiimperialistic, which is an altogether different matter. In 'Canada we all know there are a great many different classes of people and different policies. There are advocates of higher tariff and advocates of lower tariff. There are advocates of what has been called the National Policy, and there are those who condemn the "National" policy. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) is not accused of being unpatriotic because he attacks the policy of the present government. The leader of the Progressives (Mr.-Forke) is not accused of being unpatriotic because he attacks what is known as the National Policy, nor might I say am I antiBritish when I oppose the imperialistic designs of a small but powerful group in Great Britain. In fact, in arguing along this line to-day I am in line with the policy of the British Labour party. If certain gentlemen feel that they have a perfect right in this House to support the imperialistic designs of some individuals in Great Britain, I as a Canadian have an equal right to support the ideals and policies of that great party in Great Britain which before Jong will again be the government of that country. In their pamphlet issued several years ago, at the time of the organization of the British Labour party, we find this statement of the position of that party towards foreign affairs:



We desire to maintain the most intimate relations with the Labour party overseas. Like them, we have no sympathy with the projects of "Imperial Federation," in so far as these imply the subjection to a common imperial legislature wielding coercive power (including dangerous facilities for coercive imperial taxation and for enforced military service), either of the existing self-governing dominions, whose autonomy would be thereby invaded; or of the United Kingdom, whose freedom of democratic self-development would be thereby hampered; or of India and the colonial dependencies, which would thereby run the risk of being further exploited for the benefit of a "White Empire," We do not intend, by any such "Imperial Senate," either to bring the plutocracy of Canada and South Africa to the aid of the British aristocracy, or to enable the landlords and financiers of the Mother Country to unite in controlling the growing popular democracies overseas. The autonomy of each self-governing part of the empire must be intact. And as I know there are members of this House who do not keep very closely in touch with affairs in Great Britain, and yet who feel themselves quite competent to speak on any and every occasion as the representatives and protagonists of Great Britain. I should like to read a certain resolution of the National Council of the Independent Labour party passed February 13. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, v'ho is one of the outstanding members of this organization, is now of course well known throughout Canada. This document reads: The I.L.P. declares itself in favour of the ending: of political and economic imperialism by a policy directed to the following ends: 1. The development of systems of full self-government in all countries at the earliest opportunity in accordance with their racial characteristics, and the extension to all non-self-governing countries, in the transition period, of a re-constituted mandate system, instead of the sole control being left to single powers. 2. The creation of world economic organization, with the object of establishing a progressive international standard of labour conditions, the protection of native peoples from capitalist exploitation, the rationing of world supplies according to need, and the regulation of credit. In particular the I.L.P. dpmnnrl* 1. The recognition of the independence of Egypt by the withdrawal of British troops, accompanied by the submission of the issues of the Suez canal and the Sudan to the League of Nations. 2. The immediate withdrawal of all repressive measures in India, the declaration of an amnesty for all political offenders, and the recognition of the right of India to self-government and self-determination, by acceptance of the proposal of the Indian Legislative Assembly that a representative Indian Convention should prepare a constitution for India, and by using British influence to secure the withdrawal of the disabilities from which Indians suffer in the British Empire and other countries. 3. The complete revision of the treaties impo&<fd upon China by the Great Powers, with a view to the restoration of .full self-government. 4. The reversal of the Imperialist naval policy in the east, including the abandonment of the Singapore Dock and the "Indian" Navy. 5. The termination of the British occupation of Irak. Finally, the I.L.P. urges upon the British and international labour movements the necessity of assisting the workers of Asiatic and African countries which are passing through capitalist control to organize industrially and politically for their protection against exploitation and for their ultimate emancipation. It recognises that the interests of the workers throughout the world, of whatever race, colour or creed, are one, and that international socialism cannot be fully realized until the workers of the wmrld have united for their political and economic liberation. If one of us labour men suggested a policy of that kind in Canada he would be liable to be accused of sedition. In England that is the policy of the Independent Labour party of which a former prime minister is a leading member. In regard to the particular issue we are now discussing I came across only the other day, in the little book to which I have referred-Now is the Time-at page 81, this declaration from Mr. Ponsonby: The dominion citizens are, therefore, more completely than we are at the mercy of the false appeal to participate in international war. Their governments, too, are in a position Of disadvantage which has become one of the chief concerns of imperial statesmen. No means has been devised of consulting

Canada's Imperial Relations dominion governments on foreign podicy. Indeed the intricate tangle of European relationship and intercourse from which at any time questions of moment may arise would seem to make continuous consultations with the component parts of our extensive but loosely knit empire impossible. Moreover the interests of the various dominions necessarily differ. The problem has assumed an acute form since the conclusion of peace, and there is a growing feeling even among the dominion governments that they cannot be dragged at the heels of the Mother Country, unless they have full knowledge and have expressed approval of the policy in question. I would call the attention of the House to this very significant statement. Any disposition on the part of our dominions to refuse to join in these wars of European origin will be all to the good. The deadweight of a reasonable pacifism from that quarter might have a moderating effect on the home government. Thus we have leading members of the British House of Commons welcoming such a declaration as that which is contained in my resolution now before the House. I said that I was against imperialism. I recognize that there are various imperialisms in the world to-day. There is a German imperialism, not at the moment dangerous, having been ruined by its own ambition. There is a French imperialism that since the war has threatened Europe. There is an Italian imperialism that struts in the person of Mussolini and. there is an American imperialism which is perhaps more dangerous to us in Canada than is British imperialism. I should like to read, as giving my idea in this regard, a short quotation as reproduced in the Western Producer of November 19, entitled "American Bankers Enslave the world." This is the quotation: During the last year Americans have loaned to and in foreign countries an average of $115,000,000 per month. The foreign loans and investments of Americans now amount to $9,500,000,000 in addition to the $10,500,000,000 owed to the United States government with accrued interest of $1,500,000,000, making a total of $21,500,000,000 of loans and investments of Americans to and in foreign countries. Five per cent on this amounts to $1,075,000,000 annually. The article goes on later to say: The net income of the exploiting class in America amounts to at least twenty-five billions annually. There is a situation in which we find a new economic imperialism developing on this continent. I should like to say very frankly that I prize our British connection because of the possibilities it holds in respect to resistance to American imperialism. As I look forward to the next few years I sometimes wonder what will happen when labour and socialistic ideals prevail in Great Britain. I wonder then whether our flag-waggers in Canada will follow as loyally the British lead as they advocate that we should do to-day. At this time, as a Labour representative in the House of Commons of one of the British nations, my special duty is to deal, not with German imperialism, or French imperialism, or Italian imperialism, or American imperialism. I hope we shall have an opportunity at some later date of dealing with the latter in connection *with the discussion on the exploitation of our natural resources. But to-day I wish to deal with what has been termed British imperialism, and in this connection I should like to quote from a little treatise used as a textbook by labour groups in Great Britain. I do so because it affords a convenient summary and also because it gives the point of view of the workers of Great Britain, which is, I think, altogether too little understood by the rank and file of the people of Canada. I intend to trespass upon the patience of the House while I read a page or so which gives an outline of what is meant by modern or economic imperialism: Modern European history and its wars easily and naturally divide themselves into three main epochs- the periods of mercantilism, nationalism and imperialism. The mercantile period was that in which the western European countries were striving to gain trading markets and monopolies in the other continents. It was one long period of wars small and great; and it necessitated military activity, so also it found appropriate political expression in such policies as (a) the balance of trade, which "estimated the worth of a nation's intercourse with another by the excess of the export over the import trade, which brought a quantity of bullion into the exporting country"; (b) the Navigation Acts, "designed to secure for English vessels a monopoly of the carrying trade between England and all other countries which sent goods to English or to colonial shores"; (c) the fostering of home manufactures. Its triumphs furnished both the stimulant and the necessary capital for an extension of manufacture, and thus brought about the inseparable but conflicting interests of the industrial capitalist class and the modern proletariat. Next is nationalism: Nationalism. With the development of capitalism the nations became absorbed in the effort to achieve geographical boundaries which would at the same time render them economic units. In order to accomplish this the rising manufacturing class sought political power and cleared away the old barriers to production and trade which the feudal system and the mercantile policy had created. It was the politics of industrialism which liberated the great (productive forces that were so quickly and so completely to change the face of the earth. It is easy to see now-for everyone can be wise after the event!-that this struggle is the real, although for the most part unconscious, meaning of the passionate appeal for nationality which so stirred Europe, and not infrequently plunged her into war, during the nineteenth century. I should like to suggest that we in Canada are perhaps passing through the period of nationalism although we are still dominated by the ideals and policies of the earlier mercantile period. In the meantime, the world Canada's Imperial Relations has come to their third period, that of imperialism : Imperialism. External policy under the mercantilist regime had provided at once the dynamic and the necessary means for the internal industrial transformation of the west European countries. Now that internal development in turn stimulates a new period of inter-nationaJ relations. The evolution of capitalism consists in the ever more rapid accumulation of capital in a few hands, and especially in the constant revolutionising of machinery and the methods of production. The value of these changes lies in their "labour-saving" quality. Living labour-power is replaced by machinery, the flesh and blood man by the "iron man." Thus masses of workers are from time to time thrown out of work, and a relative over-population is caused: there are more men than there are jobs for. The presence of this army of unemployed is one of the most powerful factors in keeping down the wages of the employed workers to mere subsistence level. Yet at the same time, the productivity of labour increases by leaps and bounds. Thus the masses are less and less capable of buying and consuming the ever-greater amount of commodities they produce. Capitalism presents the paradoxical spectacle of an always-growing power to produce wealth, together with widespread want and misery among the masses. Moreover, precisely at the moment when the wealth actually produced ig most plentiful, workers are thrown out of employment because they have already produced more than their -masters can profitably dispose of. With unemployment comes a stoppage of wages also, and thus a further closing of the markets-i.e., the market represented by the expenditure of the wages of the workers; and this dn turn intensifies the great problem of capitalism: how to dispose of its surplus product. The treatise goes on to show how capitalism is forever changing customers into competitors. Let me read: Exploitation of the masses at home, the destruction of the home market by the lowering of the standard of life among the masses to the level of mere subsistence-such is the original cause of the necessity for seeking spheres of remunerative investment abroad. In creating these spheres of investment, the latter are themselves transformed into capitalist nations, or at least are set on their way to becoming capitalist nations. And here is the point: This creation of new spheres of influence and investment, and the political control of backward countries constitutes the essence of modern imperialism. Its motives are primarily economic; it enters into the political life of the native country as a means to that economic end. I suppose we are now far enough away from the South African war to view it somewhat dispassionately; hence I venture to cite it as an illustration of the development of this modern imperialism. Mr. J. A. Hobson in his Evolution of Modern Capitalism says: Nowhere in the world has there ever existed so concentrated a form of capitalism as that represented by the financial power of the mining houses in South Africa, and nowhere else does that power so completely realize and enforce the need of controlling politics. . .Recognizing that the success of their financial operations and of their political adjuncts was dependent upon the movement of public opinion and public sentiment in South Africa in Great Britain, they bought the leading organs of the South African press, subsidized political parties in South Africa and Great Britain, and organized a moral propaganda among the churches and philanthropic bodies. . .By a concentrated exertion of all their moral and intellectual influence they engineered a catastrophe, from the ruin of which they have emerged with a firmer grip than ever upon the substantial resources of the country and its government. Think of it, Mr. Speaker: Within the short space of a little over a hundred years Great Britain has fought with the French and the Russians, with Arabs and Afghans and Zulus, with Boers and Ashantis and Burmese and Chinese, with Germans and Austrians, with Turks and Bulgarians, and with a host of smaller peoples. Are we forever to continue this game, and are we in this fair country of ours to be dragged in at any time that some of our commercial adventurers undertake to exploit some still unexploited part of the world? Think of the history of imperialism even since 1882, a date which is within the memory of most of us in this House. I would simply glance over some of the events. In 1882 Egypt, in which country the foreign control encouraged the nationalist movement, Great Britain crushed the revolt and there followed the so-called " temporary " occupation which still continues. Then there was the Venezuela boundary dispute of 1895 and 1896, closely connected with the gold fields, and the trouble in Persia in 1896 indirectly connected with the growing tobacco trade at that time and later on certain loans. In 1895 came the trouble in South Africa to which I have already referred, and concerning which Mr. Brailsford has summed up the cause in a couple of sentences: What the mine owners really at bottom desired was cheaper labour, and their effort to acquire political power through the franchise had no other object. "Good government," as one of them reckoned, would mean two and a half million a year in dividends- War of steel and gold, pp. 55-8. This war resulted in the establishment of Kaffir and Chinese cheap labour and compound slavery in the Rand mines, and in the reduction of white men's wages. I need not refer to the Anglo-Japanese alliance into which Britain was practically forced because of her growing isolation in other quarters, nor to the Fashoda incident after the settlement of which the Associated Chambers of British Commerce passed a resolution in favour of an entente between England and France for the mutual commercial benefit of the two countries. Nor need I go into the question of the Moroccan crisis, nor of the Anglo-Russians relations of 1906-7, concerning which we have not yet heard the last and because of which we have had so much trouble Canada's Imperial Relations

in re-establishing relations between Great Britain and the Soviet republic. The treaty between Great Britain and Russia had reference to their relations in Persia, Tibet and Afghanistan. Then there was the Triple Entente of 1907. Great Britain about this time became involved in financial complications in China. The republican reformers were led by Sun Yap Sen. Their powerful backers, the Shanghai Chamber of Commerce and the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, were representative of British economic interests in China. With regard to all these imperialistic ventures I do not know that we have any clearer statement than that made by Sir Edward Grey in the British House of Commons on July 10, 1914, just before the outbreak of the war, when he said: I regard it as our duty wherever British capital is forthcoming in any part of the world, and is applying for concessions to which there are no valid political objections, that we should give it the utmost support that we can, and endeavour to convince the foreign government concerned that it is to its interest as well as our own to give the concessions for railways and so forth to British firms who carry them out at reasonable prices and in the best possible way. I think it is nearly twenty years ago since personally I became aware of some of the evils of imperialism. In the Evangelical school in which I was brought up, people were in the habit of referring to some particular time and place as the time and place of their conversion. Well, I can date my conversion so far as imperialism is concerned. I was converted as the result of a visit some twenty years ago to the Army and Navy museum in Whitehall, where, as I went through chamber after chamber, I saw flags that had been picked up on various battlefields, stained with the blood of British soldiers. I saw tattered garments that had been stripped from the bodies of poor natives in almost every part of the world, and I saw engines of war, ancient and modern. It was then that it began to dawn upon me what imperialism really meant and what militarism involved, and from that time on I have tried to do what little I could to keep this country at least out of the imperialistic game. My convictions arrived at in Whitehall were confirmed a few months after by a visit to Egypt, where I learned something of what was going on at that time on the upper Nile, and how the British had been sending in punitive expeditions whenever it was necessary to quell the justifiable ambitions of some of the native tribes who were fighting for their very lives. To-day I do not intend to discuss in any detail the causes of the Great war, although I feel that we have there the very best ex- emplification that we can find of a great struggle brought on by what were fundamentally economic causes. In this connection, I should like to refer the House to our distinguished fellow-citizen, John S. Ewart, whose very painstaking work on the Roots and Causes of Wars is well worth perusal by every hon. member. With regard to modem wars, may I give the opinion of the late President Wilson. In a speech delivered at St. Louis he said: Is there in this audience any man or any woman, nay, is there any child, who does not know that the seeds of war are sown in hot, successful, commercial and industrial rivalry? There are some people in Canada, it would appear, who have not yet learned that, even after the years that have elasped since that utterance was made and since so many books have been published on the question. Without fully going into the references on this question, with the consent of the House, I should like simply to place upon Hansard particulars of about a dozen books in .which the sources, at least so far as the British writers are concerned, are given in detail. They are: Itoch:-Lloyd George and the War. (Ohatto & Windus). Repington:-The First World War (Chapter 1). (Constable 2 vols. 21/ each). Lord Fisher:-Memories. (Hodder & Stoughton. 21/-). Lord Haldane:-Before the War. (Cassell, 7/6). Lord French:-1914. (Constable, 21/-). Peter Wright:-At the Supreme Council. (Nash, 7/6). Sir Julian Corbett:-Naval Operations. Miss Durham:-Twenty Years of Balkan Tangle. (Allen & Unwin 16/-). Nielson:-How Diplomats Make War. (Huebsch, New York, $1.50). E. D. Morel:-Truth and the War. (N.L.P., 2/-). E. D. Morel:-Pre-War Diplomacy. (U.D.C., 6d.). E. D. Morel:-The Poison that Destroys. (U.D.C. pamphlet). E. D. Morel:-Military Preparations for the Great War. Siebert:-Entente Diplomacy. (Putnam of New York). Rene Marchand:-Un Livre Noir. (Paris). Mr. G. P. Gooch, the eminent British historian, in the Contemporary Review of August, 1921, at page 181, said: We have now discovered that the Great War was caused by the bungling of a handful of highly placed individuals in different countries. That is the historians have now come to the point where they frankly recognize that much that was told us during the war consisted of fairy stories, and that many of the appeals made during the war were absolutely without any true foundation. But, Mr. Speaker, I am not so much concerned about the last war as I am about the next war. Now, what about the next war? Canada's Imperial Relations Within the last few days we have had a statement that I think ought to give any thoughtful man pause. According to the report in the Montreal Gazette of March 18 of a speech delivered by Sir Esme Howard, British Ambassador, before the Chicago Association of Commerce, he said1: The next war will be a struggle for markets, and will be waged as bitterly as any that has ever sprung from traditional hatreds, national jealousies or territorial ambitions. And again: The whole energies of governments will be bent toward the all-important, all-absorbing object of finding markets in other countries for the surplus production of their own, and of preventing their own from being swamped by the surplus production of the others. AVe have clear revelations of the designs of the imperialists all through the carrying on of the last war. In passing, I would refer to the secret treaties, of which we in Canada were given no information whatever, and to the best of my knowledge have never yet been published in any of our leading Canadian papers. There was the treaty dealing with the partition of Persia in 1915; the treaty with Russia respecting Constantinople in 1915; the secret treaty-and I think the most disgraceful-with Italy of 1915; the treaty for the partition of Asiatic Turkey in 1916; the treaty between Russia and Japan in 1916. Had I time I should like to have referred to the economic clauses of the Peace treaty of AYrsailles where, from every one of those clauses there sticks out the imperialist ambitions of certain great groups in the United Kingdom. But I must content myself by referring hon. members to Keynes' Economic Consequences of the Peace, or to any other book in which those clauses are set forth and explained. I should like also to have referred to the system of mandates which has grown up in the period following the war, a system which, it seems to me, is absolutely unjustifiable in its character, since through it the more backward countries are placed under the arbitrary control of certain "advanced" nations. I should like to refer to the imperialism that is manifested in the Dawes report, a report concerning which no less an authority than Lloyd George said a few years ago that it was not the work of the statesmen of Great Britain and of France, but was essentially the work of the international financiers. This Dawes report has had the effect of threatening to reduce the workers of Germany to industrial serfdom. Already its reactions have been so keenly felt in Great Britain that she is being forced to safeguard the standards of life in Germany in order that there will not be unfair competition from German workers in the products that are also manufactured in Great Britain-and so, as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) suggests to me, lowering the standard of life in Great Britain. Thus so intimately is one country to-day connected with the other that in order to maintain the prevailing standard of life in Great Britain the British government to-day is forced to consider the maintenance of proper standard of living in Germany. As I said a little while ago, I do not propose to discuss the bearing of the Locarno treaty on the subject matter of my resolution. Someone has said that it is the political supplement, as the Dawes report is the financial supplement, of the Versailles treaty. It may seem to be taking a good deal of the time of the House to go into these matters even in so cursory a way; still it is eminently fitting that we should do so. We are now at peace, and when we are at peace we have the only opportunity which is ever given to a people to discuss the question of international relations; when we are at war there is no opportunity whatever. I want to read a paragraph or two from an authority whom I have already quoted to-day, Mr. Arthur Ponsonby, Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs in Ramsay MacDonald's government. Mr. Ponsonby is not by any means an alien; he comes from one of the oldest and most respected families of Great Britain; he is not in any sense irresponsible; he is not even a member of any communist organization. Yet what does he say? In a letter published in the Nation and Athenaeum of September 14, 1925, I find the following: Our government denied 'having made any agreement with France before the war. Yet an agreement not only existed but turned out to be a binding "obligation of honour." Our government knew that Germany alone was not solely responsible for the war, and although this fiction had to be put into the Treaty of Versailles there is no responsible minister who would maintain it now. But at the time it had to be declared. Our government knew that France and Russia had been expecting and preparing for Avar (as the disclosed communications between their ministers have since proved to be the case). But they represented the outbreak of wrar as coming from the enemy on innocent and unprepared nations. Our government knew that if Germany had not violated Belgian neutrality France (would have done so; and a French general has recently admitted this in an article in "l'Ere Nouvelle." It was only the common sense of military strategy, of which wre were fully aware. But the popular indignation which could be roused by the invasion of Belgium was an immense asset. Our government knew during the course of the war that the Serbian government were directly responsible for the murder of the Arch-Duke at Serajevo. But they neA-er fold us. Canada's Imperial Relations

Our government knew that the Russian general mobilization preceded and caused the German mobilization, but we only discovered the documents to prove this towards the end of the war. Our government knew there were no Russian troops in this country. But it was a rumour of strategic value, and they carefully abstained from ever denying it. Our government knew that there were no corpse factories in Germany, but they framed their answers in parliament to this ridiculous supposition by suggesting, although never affirming, that there were. I could multiply instances had I the space. But these may suffice to show how -war makes it necessary to suppress the truth, which is the most insidious method of spreading falsehood. I said a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, that during a time of peace we have our only opportunity of discussing war, and to prove this I should like to read from an order in council passed in Canada in April, 1918. It is well that in peace times we remember how during war times our freedom is taken from us. The order in council is as follows: Whereas the mind of the entire people should be centered upon the proper carrying out in the most effective manner of that final decision, and that all questioning in the press or otherwise of the causes of that war, the motives of Canada, of Great Britain, or the Allies, in entering upon and carrying out the same and the policies of them adopted for its prosecution must necessarily divert attention .from the one great object on which it should be so centered, and tend to defeat or impede the effective carrying out of that decision, .... It shall be an offence to print, publish, or publicly express an adverse or unfavourable statement, report, or opinion concerning the causes of the present war, or the motives or purposes for which Canada, or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or any of the allied nations entered upon, or are prosecuting the same, which may tend to arouse hostile feeling, create unrest, or unsettle, or inflame public opinion This, I may say, was under penalty of a maximum fine of $5,000 or imprisonment for five years, or both. In harmony with this order in council, the houses of parliament authorized their Speakers to delete from the official reports of the debates any adverse statetaent, report, or opinion concerning the causes of the war, or the motives -or purposes for which Canada and Great Britain, or any of the allied nations, had entered upon the struggle. During war, then, it becomes treason to talk peace. Surely, now that we aTe between wars, it may be permitted to us to speak. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am firmly convinced that the common people of Canada do not want another war. If we want war we must prepare for war, but I say it is equally true that if we want peace we must prepare for peace. That is the great truth this House must learn. While we have had war policies for a number of years in this country, and while the war (psychology has dominated even this house of parliament, I believe the time is rapidly approaching when peace policies may be freely discussed upon the floor of this House, and when the general sentiment which is growing throughout the country wiil.1 enable us to adopt steadily and definitely those policies which will make for peace. The war lords, the imperialists, the great financial and commercial and industrial kings, have largely captured the machinery of the government of the empire. Perhaps I cannot prove that; I think you have but to read many of the official records of the war and many of the books written since the war to have that statement fully borne out. Let me repeat it-and I give it here simply as a statement, because it affords the reason for the introduction of this resolution at this time: The war lords, the imperialists, the great financial and commercial and industrial kings, have largely captured the machinery of the government of the empire. It is for us to join hands with those of the other parts of the empire who are striving for peace. Surely we should at least assert our right to protect the lives of our children. In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that we are too prone to think of the triumphs of the past, and too little given to consider what our action ought to be with regard to the problems presenting themselves to us now? In the age-long conflict between the forces of advance and the forces of reaction, the tide of battle goes backward and forward. Sometimes we are apt to say, "Well, our fathers carried the field; our fathers took this trench, and we are proud of what our fathers have done". Yes, then what shall we do? There are those who would sit down in the trench and fly their little flag and say, "My father took this trench, and from now on I dedicate my life to singing the praises of my father". In the meantime the battlefront has swept five miles ahead. I suggest that true patriotism consists not so much in looking to the past or in singing the praises of the past as in getting out of that trench and forward into the firing line. We have had wars in the past, all through history; we all know that. We have made advances in freedom in times past-I will not say whether because of wars or in spite of them-but we are proud of the advances which have been made in liberating peoples in times past. To-day, however, we face a greater problem, that of securing for the people of this country and of the world complete economic freedom. The battle is sweeping on ahead, and the problems are new. Our fathers never had Canada's Imperial Relations to face such problems, and I would suggest that we show true loyalty to the spirit of our fathers if we leave the trenches which they have taken and press on to more advanced ground. I would even venture to suggest that we are most truly loyal to the principles of our British forefathers if we do not rest on the precedents or institutions which they have created, but rather ourselves advance to create new precedents and new forms of government by which we may work out our common life in this new age.


William Walker Kennedy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. W. KENNEDY (Winnipeg South Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members the reason for this resolution. What is there behind this resolution brought forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth)? What purpose does this resolution serve? What purpose can this resolution serve? I submit, Sir, that this

resolution deserves nothing better than to be buried by this House without the aid of bell, book or candle. It is a resolution which, in my humble opinion, does not deserve anything but very short shrift at the hands of this House.

Why is it brought here? I do not purpose to go into any detailed discussion as to the position of Canada within the empire; I do not think such detailed discussion is called for by this resolution. I do take this opportunity, however, to say to this House and to the people of Canada, that the sentiments as enunciated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre do not in any appreciable degree represent the ideas or thoughts or the people of the great city of Winnipeg.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):

I may tell

my hon. friend that when I am finished, if he cares to ask me any questions, I shall be glad to answer any and all questions that he

sees fit to ask.

Mr. Speaker, I say it is not only my privilege but my duty to rise upon this occasion because, representing, as I do, a constituency of the city of Winnipeg, I feel that I have a very personal and a somewhat local interest in what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says. Let me read the resolution:

That, in the opinion of this House, Canada should refuse to accept any responsibility for complications arising from the foreign policy of the United Kingdom

" Canada should refuse to accept any responsibility." Mr. Speaker, a refusal predicates a demand, an insistence, or at the least a request. When has it ever been demanded of Canada by the United Kingdom

that Canada should, in the words of the hon. member, be dragged into any of the empire's wars? Never since Canada was, has Canada by the demand of the United Kingdom been dragged into her wars? Never has she been requested to enter into them, nor is she requested at this time.

Under what conditions has Canada entered into the empire wars? By her own choice, by the choice of the people of Canada, and by that choice alone. I agree to this extent, that Canada recognizes no compulsion. Canada is impelled by no compulsion other than by the free-will choice of a loyal people, other than by the call of blood, other than by the call of kin calling to kin, other than by the desire of one nation in the great British commonwealth of nations to answer some great call of national or imperial need, answering some great call to fight for the right. Under such conditions in the past Canada has willingly entered. May I here and now express the hope that under such conditions in the future Canada again will enter, if need be.

Now why this resolution? Is there some imminent, pressing peril of the day from which we would escape? Has some call come over to Canada to send men again for the empire's need? If the ears of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre have caught it, I doubt if those of any other hon. member have heard it. If it be true, and it is true, that Canada to-day decides of her own volition whether or not she will enter into empire wars, if the Mother Country never has demanded, and does not demand to-day, that Canada take part in her wars, if we are under no compulsion to take part therein, then why this resolution? Why the need?

5 p.m. Is it to sever some link, to cast off some bond that binds us to the Mother Country? Is that the purpose? Does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre think that by this parliament passing such a resolution, by declaring here and now to the world at large that Canada under no conditions will accept any responsibility for the needs of the empire-does he think that by such a declaration to the world Canada as a nation is going to increase in stature? Does he think that will make Canadians prouder to be Canadians than they are today? Why declare that we will not do something which we are not bound to do?

Let me give an illustration. The law does not require any hon. member of this House to give succor in time of stress to his own mother. The law impels no such duty; it imposes no duty upon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or upon any other

Canada's Imperial Relations

member to provide such succor; but will any hon. member increase his stature by one cubit, will any hon. member improve his standing in the community, will he rise in stature as a man, by declaring to the public that he will not be responsible under any conditions for the needs of his own mother? Let us then not do something at this time which will not add to the stature of Canada or of Canadians, but rather will make us walk through the streets of our cities, not with upright head and buoyant step, but ashamed of the fact that we are Canadians, ashamed of the fact that some have thought it necessary to advertise to the world that under no conditions will we be responsible for assistance to the empire-and that at a time when we are enjoying many, many of the benefits of membership in that empire.

While it cannot add to our stature, may it not do harm to pass a resolution such as this? Envisage the passing of this resolution by the elder daughter, so-called, of this British commonwealth of nations. What will the citizens of the empire treading the streets of London say? What will the citizens of the city of Melbourne say? What will the people say in Capetown and India? What will the people throughout Canada say? I say that if we pass this resolution we shall be going out of our way to place ourselves as Canadians in a position which I feel sure few hon. membera of this House would care to occupy.

Again I ask, why, then, this resolution? What is behind it? I ask this House, is it a sincere desire on the part of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to help Canada? Is that his purpose? I say no. I say his purpose is simply to gain a little kudos with a certain little coterie of agitators in this country of whom we as Canadians ought to be ashamed. That may be a hard thing to say of a member. I was pleased to learn when I came to this House that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had acquired something of a reputation in this House for sincerity. I call now into question the sincerity of the hon. member.


James Shaver Woodsworth



Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. My motives in introducing this motion to-day were questioned a moment ago, and now my sincerity is questioned. I think it is not in keeping with the rules of the House that that should be done.


March 22, 1926