CHAPTER XII

Toronto, 12th Oct., 1887.Sir,I have received your circular of Sept. 17th sent to me as a member of the House of Commons, enclosing a copy of a speech delivered by you on Commercial Union and asking an opinion upon it.I must tell you that I am utterly opposed to it, as in my mind Commercial Union simply means annexation, a result to be deplored by every true Canadian, and unlikely to happen without the shedding of a lot of Canadian blood. We are now, despite what the advocates of Commercial Union say, a happy, prosperous, and contented people. I am positive no pecuniary advantage would accrue to Canada from Commercial Union, but even granting all that you say as to the increased prosperity it would bring to us, I would still be opposed to it. We do not in Canada place so high a value upon the “Almighty Dollar” as do the Yankees, and we hope always to be Canadians. Why should we sever our connection with the Mother Country, which has in the past done so much for us, for the sake of throwing in our lot with a people who produce more bank thieves and embezzlers than any other country in the world; who care so little for the sanctity ofthe marriage tie that one hundred divorces a day have been granted in one city? To do so would be national suicide. No pecuniary advantage can ever outweigh our national life, or our national honour. The appeals made in favour of Commercial Union are all addressed to the pocket, but I have confidence in my fellow countrymen that they will place our national honour and our independence above all pecuniary considerations. A man worthy of the name will not sell his own honour, or his wife’s or his daughter’s, for money. Such a proposal could not for a moment be considered from a financial standpoint, and no people worthy of the name would ever sacrifice their national honour for material advantages. There is no sentiment that produces such sacrifices as national sentiment, and you gentlemen who advocate Commercial Union, argue as if my countrymen would sell everything dear to them for money. You entirely misunderstand our people.Believe me,Yours truly,Fred C. Denison.Erastus Wiman, Esq.,New York, U.S.A.

Toronto, 12th Oct., 1887.

Sir,

I have received your circular of Sept. 17th sent to me as a member of the House of Commons, enclosing a copy of a speech delivered by you on Commercial Union and asking an opinion upon it.

I must tell you that I am utterly opposed to it, as in my mind Commercial Union simply means annexation, a result to be deplored by every true Canadian, and unlikely to happen without the shedding of a lot of Canadian blood. We are now, despite what the advocates of Commercial Union say, a happy, prosperous, and contented people. I am positive no pecuniary advantage would accrue to Canada from Commercial Union, but even granting all that you say as to the increased prosperity it would bring to us, I would still be opposed to it. We do not in Canada place so high a value upon the “Almighty Dollar” as do the Yankees, and we hope always to be Canadians. Why should we sever our connection with the Mother Country, which has in the past done so much for us, for the sake of throwing in our lot with a people who produce more bank thieves and embezzlers than any other country in the world; who care so little for the sanctity ofthe marriage tie that one hundred divorces a day have been granted in one city? To do so would be national suicide. No pecuniary advantage can ever outweigh our national life, or our national honour. The appeals made in favour of Commercial Union are all addressed to the pocket, but I have confidence in my fellow countrymen that they will place our national honour and our independence above all pecuniary considerations. A man worthy of the name will not sell his own honour, or his wife’s or his daughter’s, for money. Such a proposal could not for a moment be considered from a financial standpoint, and no people worthy of the name would ever sacrifice their national honour for material advantages. There is no sentiment that produces such sacrifices as national sentiment, and you gentlemen who advocate Commercial Union, argue as if my countrymen would sell everything dear to them for money. You entirely misunderstand our people.

Believe me,

Yours truly,

Fred C. Denison.

Erastus Wiman, Esq.,New York, U.S.A.

The late Mrs. S. A. Curzon paraphrased this letter in the following lines, which appeared in the TorontoWorldof the 18th October, 1887:

Well spoken, Denison! a heart beats thereLoyal to more than selfish minds can grasp;Not gold our nation’s wealth, or lavish ease,Nor sordid aim her rod of destiny.No! Canada hath ends beyond a lifeFed by loose license, luxury, and pelf.She hath inherited through noble siresOf ancient blood, and lineage straight and clean,Great riches. A renown unequalled yet;A liberty hard won on many a field;A country wide and large, and fair and full;A loyalty as self-denying as a vow;An honour high as heaven and pure as light;A heroism that bleeds, but blenches not;An industry of muscle true as steel;A self-restraint that binds a world in bonds;An honesty contented with its own.Shall she sell these for gold? “What can gold giveBetter than she hath?—a nation’s lifeA nation’s liberty, a nation’s self-respect.”Brave words—my Denison—brave words and true!Take thou this tribute from a patriot heart.As thee our legislators ever be;Men whose whole aim is for the nation’s wealAnd for safekeeping of her name intact.

On the 30th December, 1887, the Toronto Board of Trade gave a banquet in honour of the Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain. It was a very large and influential gathering. I then fired my first public shot against Commercial Union. Colonel Otter was put down to respond to the toast of the Army, Navy, and Active Militia, but the Chairman in proposing the toast, added my name also, without having given me any intimation whatever that I would be called upon to speak. I quote the report which appeared in theWorldthe next morning of my three minutes’ speech:

As belonging to the active militia of the country, I am very glad to be here to-night to do honour to so distinguished a statesman as the Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, because that gentleman, above all gentlemen in the Empire, has shown that he places the interests of a United Empire above all others (applause). There is no part of the British Empire where these words, “United Empire,” convey a greater meaning to the hearts of the people than to the people of Canada (applause), and I am certain there is no part of the whole Empire where the Rt. Hon. Mr. Chamberlain is more heartily appreciated than in Toronto, the capital of the Province of Ontario—a Province which owes its origin to the desire on the part of men who, like Mr. Chamberlain, desired a United Empire, and made great sacrifices for it. There is a subject upon which I wish to say a word or two before I sit down, and that is Commercial Union. And in the presence of Mr. Chamberlain I wish to say that the active militia of this country have all been sworn to be faithful, and bear true allegiance to her Majesty, and they intend that Canada shall not be laid at the feet of any foreign country (great applause). I am a Canadian, born in this city, and I hope to live and die a Canadian, to live and die in a country where our people will govern their own affairs, where we will be able to establish our own tariff, and where it will not be fixed and established to suit a foreign people against our Mother Country. I can assure Mr. Chamberlain that when I speak in behalf of the volunteers of the country in this way, I am also voicing the feeling of all the fighting men in this country.

My remarks were received with great applause, and created somewhat of a sensation, for it appeared that there had been an understanding that the subject of Commercial Union was not to be referred to, and all the speakers had been warned except myself. I have had a suspicion since that I was called upon suddenly in the belief that I would speak out plainly.

The TorontoWorldcommenting on the dinner said:

The main result of Mr. Chamberlain’s visit to Toronto and the speeches made at the dinner on Friday night must be a heavy blow and a great discouragement to the Commercial Unionists. On Friday afternoon it was stated to the reporters, on good authority, we believe, that the management of the Board of Trade had arranged to exclude the much disputedquestion of Commercial Union from among the subjects of the speeches. . . . But as Burns wrote—The best laid schemes of mice and menGang aft agley.Colonel Denison’s remarks so heavily charged with the electricity of British connection, “brought down the house,” and after that all other subjects were lame and uninteresting to the company in comparison. Our distinguished visitor soon made it evident that he thought it the question of the day. . . .The event on Friday night, we repeat, must prove the worst blow that the Commercial Unionists have got since they forced their “fad” before the public. After this we fancy there will be a stampede among them to get out from a most unpleasant and ridiculous position.

The best laid schemes of mice and menGang aft agley.

Colonel Denison’s remarks so heavily charged with the electricity of British connection, “brought down the house,” and after that all other subjects were lame and uninteresting to the company in comparison. Our distinguished visitor soon made it evident that he thought it the question of the day. . . .

The event on Friday night, we repeat, must prove the worst blow that the Commercial Unionists have got since they forced their “fad” before the public. After this we fancy there will be a stampede among them to get out from a most unpleasant and ridiculous position.

As early as October, 1887, the late Thomas Macfarlane, one of the ablest and most active members of the Imperial Federation League, wrote to the journal of the League in England a strong article pointing out that Commercial Union would mean annexation, and advocating a uniform rate of duty on all foreign imports in every country of the Empire over and above the ordinary tariff in force then. This was Mr. Hoffmeyer’s suggestion at the Colonial Conference of 1884, one made mainly as a commercial measure which would encourage trade and give a tie of interest to the various parts of the Empire. Mr. Macfarlane had supported this view from the first.

During November and December, 1887, the matter was being considered, and on the 22nd December a preliminary meeting was held in Shaftesbury Hall, and after speeches by D’Alton McCarthy, G. R. R. Cockburn and others, resolutions were passed in favour of forming a Toronto branch, and a number gave intheir names for membership. Mr. McNeill’s magnificent speech at Paris on the 19th January, 1888, was a most eloquent appeal in favour of Imperial Federation, and was printed and widely circulated in Ontario. He argued strongly in favour of discriminating tariffs around the Empire.

On the 1st February the Toronto branch was formally organised, with the Hon. John Beverley Robinson as President, George R. R. Cockburn, M.P., John M. Clark and Col. George T. Denison as Vice-Presidents, and Wm. Hamilton Merritt as Secretary.

It was then arranged that the Annual General Meeting of the Imperial Federation League in Canada should be held on the afternoon of the 24th March, 1888, for the transaction of business, and that in the evening there should be a large public meeting to inaugurate the Toronto branch, and to bring it prominently before the public.

It will be remembered that with those who took the most active part in the organisation of the Toronto branch the moving idea was to agitate for a commercial union of the Empire. There was nothing in the original constitution of the Imperial Federation League that would justify such a policy being advocated. It was therefore necessary to amend or alter the constitution to that extent. Consequently, at the Annual General Meeting our Secretary, Wm. Hamilton Merritt, moved, and D. R. Wilkie seconded, the following resolution:

That the Imperial Federation League in Canada make it one of the objects of their organisation to advocate a trade policy between Great Britain and her Colonies by means of which a discrimination in the exchange of natural and manufactured products will bemade in favour of one another, and against foreign nations; and that our friends in Parliament are hereby called upon to move in support of the policy of this resolution at the earliest possible moment.

This was unanimously carried. In the evening the public meeting was held at the Association Hall, which was crowded to its limit. Mr. Cockburn was in the chair. I moved the first resolution, which was as follows:

Resolved, that this meeting hails with pleasure the establishment of a branch of the Imperial Federation League in this city, and confidently hopes that through its instrumentality the objects of the League may be advanced, and the ties which bind Canada to the Motherland be strengthened and maintained.

In moving this resolution I outlined my reasons for advocating the cause, and pointed out the necessity of doing something to counteract the scheme of Commercial Union with the United States, calling on the patriotic sons of Canada in that crisis in the affairs of the country “to rally round the old flag and frustrate the evil designs of traitors.” I stated that the Commercial Union movement was designed by traitors, that I wished “to be fair to those who believed that the movement would not destroy the national life and sentiment of Canada,” but adhered to the position that the movement originated in treason. “There was no use mincing words in the matter. Commercial Union could only be carried out by severing the ties which bound the Canadian people to the Motherland. Not only that, but it aimed at the destruction of the national life of the country, by subjecting the people to the power and dictation of a foreign country.” The report in theEmpirewent on to say:

He desired to draw the attention of the audience to a few facts in the history of the continent. Canada was a country with a comparatively small population, but an immense territory, rich in every department of mine and forest, lying alongside a country of immense population and great resources. If that country was not an aggressive country the difficulty would be minimised. He held, however, that it was an aggressive and grasping country. They wanted Florida, and they took it; Louisiana and Alaska they annexed; California and Mexico they conquered; and Texas they stole. They wanted half of the State of Maine that belonged to Canada, and they swindled the Canadian people out of it by means of a false map. The war between the North and South was as much for tariff as slavery. It was only after three years that the North decided to emancipate the slaves. They conquered the South and put them under their feet. He asked them to remember their treatment of the Canadian people in dealing with the question of Imperial Federation. In 1775 they attempted to conquer Canada, and again in 1812, but they were beaten ignominiously both times. They left no stone unturned in 1812 to conquer Canada, and gave it up as a hopeless task after a three years’ effort. The population of Ontario at that time was only 100,000, as against their ten millions. They fomented discord which led to the Fenian Raid in 1866. Those benighted warriors came armed with United States muskets. They had never evinced a friendly feeling towards Canada. They sent the British Minister home during the Crimean War when they thought England had her hands full. . . . They gave a reciprocity treaty to Canada a few years ago, and allowed it to remain in force long enough to open up a volume of trade between the two countries, and then they suddenly cut it off in the hope that it would produce annexation. The Commercial Union fad had its birth in treason, he reiterated, and was designed in the hopeof inducing the people of Canada to believe in the fallacy that, by tying themselves hand and foot to a foreign and hostile Power, they would get richer by it. They wanted to make Canadians believe that an extended market would benefit them. Their real desire, however, was to make Canada a slaughter market for their goods, and by crippling Canadian industries eventually drive the people of the Dominion into such a condition that they would be glad to accept annexation as an alternative of absolute ruin. They had conquered and stolen States in the South, and now they desired to betray Canada in the North. The scheme of Imperial Federation was designed to build up Canada and her industries, and absolutely to demolish the delusive theory propounded by the authors of that nefarious scheme Commercial Union. Unrestricted Reciprocity and Commercial Union were one and the same. The prime object of Imperial Federation was to complete an arrangement with the Mother Country, whereby our goods would be admitted free with a discriminating tariff against the importations of all foreign Powers. Such an arrangement he believed would not only benefit the agricultural community, but also the whole population of the Dominion. It would consolidate the Empire, and give the Canadian people greater influence amongst the nations of the world.

Mr. J. M. Clark seconded the resolution in an eloquent speech and it was carried. Mr. Alex McNeill moved the next resolution. He said he had felt a great deal of doubt coming down from Ottawa that day, but when he was face to face with such a glorious meeting all his doubts passed away like mists before the light of the sun. The news of that meeting would be tidings of great joy all over the Empire, for it would proclaim in trumpet tones that the great British Cityof Toronto was up and doing in the glorious work of Imperial Federation.

Mr. R. C. Weldon, M.P., from Nova Scotia, made an eloquent speech.

The meeting was most enthusiastic and spirited. At its conclusion Mr. D’Alton McCarthy invited about fifteen or twenty of the Committee and speakers to his house to supper. I remember walking over with Mr. R. C. Weldon, whose speech had been very warmly received. He was very much astonished at the enthusiasm and vigour of the audience. He told me he had never seen such a meeting before, and asked how I could account for it. I replied, “Toronto is the most loyal and imperialistic city in the Empire.” It was partly founded, as was St. John, N.B., by United Empire Loyalists, but the difference was that loyalty had come more closely home to Toronto, that since its foundation every generation of the Toronto people had seen the dead bodies of citizens who had died fighting for the cause of the Empire or the Sovereign carried through her streets for burial; that the battle of York had been fought in 1813 within the present limits of the city, the skirmish at Gallows Hill three miles north of the city in 1837; that Toronto men had fought at Detroit, Queenston Heights, and other fields in 1813-14, and at Navy Island in 1837, also in 1866 at Fort Erie; that Toronto men were the first sent from the older Provinces to the North-West Rebellion, and that all this had kept the flame of loyalty brightly burning on her altars.

Four days after this meeting, on the 28th March, 1888, Mr. D’Alton McCarthy, President of the League in Canada, placed on the order paper at Ottawa the following important notice of motion:

That it would be in the best interests of the Dominion that such changes should be sought for in the trade relations between the United Kingdom and Canada as would give to Canada advantages in the markets of the Mother Country not allowed to foreign States, Canada being willing for such privileges to discriminate in her markets in favour of Great Britain and Ireland, due regard being had to the policy adopted in 1879 for the purpose of fostering the various interests and industries of the Dominion, and to the financial necessities of the Dominion.

This was the beginning of the great scheme of preferential tariffs around the Empire, which has since attracted so much attention throughout the British possessions. Mr. McCarthy’s resolution did not carry at that time; it was not intended that it should. It was adjourned after some discussion. It was a new idea in Canadian politics, and the members had not had time to study the question in all its bearings.

TheImperial Federation Journal, representing the League in England, was not favourable to the action of the Canadian branch, and advised the Canadians to approach the other Colonies, and not disturb the Mother Country with the proposal. Within five years this cause of difference had, I believe, much to do with the disruption of the League in Great Britain.

Mr. McNeill’s reference to the importance of Toronto’s accession to the cause was well founded, for after that meeting the movement went on with increased impetus, and subsequent events proved the far-reaching effect upon the affairs of the Empire.

During the next three years a most vigorous campaign was carried on in Ontario. Toronto becamethe headquarters of the League, a large branch was kept up, and efforts were made to educate the public mind and organise branches of the League in other places. An organising committee was appointed, of which I was elected chairman. The movement, which had been started in Montreal three years before, had languished, and it was not until the Commercial Union movement alarmed the people and proved the necessity for prompt action that the cause of Imperial Federation became a strong and effective influence upon the public opinion of Canada.

At the first public meeting of the Imperial Federation League in Toronto I made the charge that the Commercial Union movement was a treasonable conspiracy on the part of a few men in Canada in connection with a number of leading politicians in the United States to entrap the Canadian people into annexation with that country. It will be of interest to trace this phase of the question and its development during the three or four years in which the great struggle took place.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, in conversation with William Allingham in November, 1872, said, “Americans will not take any definite step; they feel that Canada must come into the Confederation, and will of herself. American party in Canada always at work.”—Allingham’s Diary, p. 217 (Macmillan).

It will be remembered that I said that the United States “were an aggressive and grasping people.” “They wanted Florida and they took it, Louisiana and Alaska they acquired, California and Mexico they conquered, and Texas they stole.” I went on to say that “they had conquered and stolen States in the South, and now they desired to betray Canada in theNorth.” This speech was made on the 24th March, 1888. I was criticised by some on the ground that my remarks were extreme in their character, and was caricatured and ridiculed in the comic papers.

Six months later I was vindicated in a remarkable manner.

Senator Sherman, at that time one of the foremost statesmen of the United States, and chairman of the Senate Committee of Foreign Affairs, made a very significant speech before the Senate on the 18th September, 1888. He said:

And now, Mr. President, taking a broader view of the question, I submit if the time has not come when the people of the United States and Canada should take a broader view of their relations to each other than has heretofore seemed practicable. Our whole history since the conquest of Canada by Great Britain in 1763 has been a continuous warning that we cannot be at peace with each other except by political as well as commercial union. The fate of Canada should have followed the fortunes of the Colonies in the American Revolution. It would have been better for all, for the Mother Country as well, if all this continent north of Mexico had participated in the formation, and shared in common the blessings and prosperity, of the American Union.So evidently our fathers thought, for among the earliest military movements by the Continental Congress was the expedition for the occupation of Canada and the capture of the British forces in Montreal and Quebec. The story of the failure of the expedition—the heroism of Arnold and Burr, the death of Montgomery, and the fearful sufferings borne by the Continental forces in the march and retreat—is familiar to every student of American history. . . .Without going into the details so familiar to theSenate, it is sufficient to say that Spain held Florida, France held all west of the Mississippi, Mexico held Texas west to the Pacific, and England held Canada. The United States held, subject to the Indian title, only the region between the Mississippi and the Atlantic. The statesmen of this Government early discerned the fact that it was impossible that Spain, France, and Mexico should hold the territory then held by them without serious detriment to the interests and prosperity of the United States, and without the danger that was always present of conflicts with the European Powers maintaining Governments in contiguous territory. It was a wise policy and a necessity to acquire these vast regions and add them to this country. They were acquired and are now held.Precisely the same considerations apply to Canada, with greater force. The commercial conditions have vastly changed within twenty-five years. Railroads have been built across the continent in our own country and in Canada. The seaboard is of such a character, and its geographical situation is such on both oceans, that perfect freedom as to transportation is absolutely essential, not only to the prosperity of the two countries, but to the entire commerce of the world: and as far as the interests of the two people are concerned, they are divided by a mere imaginary line. They live next-door neighbours to each other, and there should be a perfect freedom of intercourse between them.A denial of that intercourse, or the withholding of it from them, rests simply and wholly upon the accident that a European Power one hundred years ago was able to hold that territory against us; but her interest has practically passed away and Canada has become an independent Government to all intents and purposes, as much so as Texas was after she separated herself from Mexico. So that all the considerations that entered into the acquisition of Florida, Louisiana, and the Pacific coast, and Texas, apply to Canada, greatlystrengthened by the changed condition of commercial relations and matters of transportation. These intensify, not only the propriety, but the absolute necessity of both a commercial and a political union between Canada and the United States. . . .The way to union with Canada is not by hostile legislation; not by acts of retaliation, but by friendly overtures. This union is one of the events that must inevitably come in the future; it will come by the logic of the situation, and no politician or combination of politicians can prevent it. The true policy of this Government is to tender freedom in trade and intercourse, and to make this tender in such a fraternal way that it shall be an overture to the Canadian people to become a part of this Republic. . . .The settlement of the North-West Territory, the Louisiana and Florida purchases, the annexation of Texas, and the acquisition from Mexico are examples of the adaptation of our form of government for expansion, to absorb and unite, to enrich and build up, to ingraft in our body politic adjacent countries, and while strengthening the older States, confer prosperity and development to the new States admitted into this brotherhood of Republican States. . . .With a firm conviction that this consummation most devoutly to be wished is within the womb of destiny, and believing that it is our duty to hasten its coming, I am not willing, for one, to vote for any measure not demanded by national honour that will tend to postpone the good time coming, when the American flag will be the signal and sign of the union of all the English-speaking peoples of the continent from the Rio Grande to the Arctic Ocean.I ask that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

So evidently our fathers thought, for among the earliest military movements by the Continental Congress was the expedition for the occupation of Canada and the capture of the British forces in Montreal and Quebec. The story of the failure of the expedition—the heroism of Arnold and Burr, the death of Montgomery, and the fearful sufferings borne by the Continental forces in the march and retreat—is familiar to every student of American history. . . .

Without going into the details so familiar to theSenate, it is sufficient to say that Spain held Florida, France held all west of the Mississippi, Mexico held Texas west to the Pacific, and England held Canada. The United States held, subject to the Indian title, only the region between the Mississippi and the Atlantic. The statesmen of this Government early discerned the fact that it was impossible that Spain, France, and Mexico should hold the territory then held by them without serious detriment to the interests and prosperity of the United States, and without the danger that was always present of conflicts with the European Powers maintaining Governments in contiguous territory. It was a wise policy and a necessity to acquire these vast regions and add them to this country. They were acquired and are now held.

Precisely the same considerations apply to Canada, with greater force. The commercial conditions have vastly changed within twenty-five years. Railroads have been built across the continent in our own country and in Canada. The seaboard is of such a character, and its geographical situation is such on both oceans, that perfect freedom as to transportation is absolutely essential, not only to the prosperity of the two countries, but to the entire commerce of the world: and as far as the interests of the two people are concerned, they are divided by a mere imaginary line. They live next-door neighbours to each other, and there should be a perfect freedom of intercourse between them.

A denial of that intercourse, or the withholding of it from them, rests simply and wholly upon the accident that a European Power one hundred years ago was able to hold that territory against us; but her interest has practically passed away and Canada has become an independent Government to all intents and purposes, as much so as Texas was after she separated herself from Mexico. So that all the considerations that entered into the acquisition of Florida, Louisiana, and the Pacific coast, and Texas, apply to Canada, greatlystrengthened by the changed condition of commercial relations and matters of transportation. These intensify, not only the propriety, but the absolute necessity of both a commercial and a political union between Canada and the United States. . . .

The way to union with Canada is not by hostile legislation; not by acts of retaliation, but by friendly overtures. This union is one of the events that must inevitably come in the future; it will come by the logic of the situation, and no politician or combination of politicians can prevent it. The true policy of this Government is to tender freedom in trade and intercourse, and to make this tender in such a fraternal way that it shall be an overture to the Canadian people to become a part of this Republic. . . .

The settlement of the North-West Territory, the Louisiana and Florida purchases, the annexation of Texas, and the acquisition from Mexico are examples of the adaptation of our form of government for expansion, to absorb and unite, to enrich and build up, to ingraft in our body politic adjacent countries, and while strengthening the older States, confer prosperity and development to the new States admitted into this brotherhood of Republican States. . . .

With a firm conviction that this consummation most devoutly to be wished is within the womb of destiny, and believing that it is our duty to hasten its coming, I am not willing, for one, to vote for any measure not demanded by national honour that will tend to postpone the good time coming, when the American flag will be the signal and sign of the union of all the English-speaking peoples of the continent from the Rio Grande to the Arctic Ocean.

I ask that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

I drew attention to this speech in a letter to the TorontoGlobeon the 26th September, 1888. After quoting a number of extracts from it, I went on to say,

“This man is honest and outspoken. He is trying to entice us by kindly methods to annexation, which would be the annihilation of Canada as a nation; but does not his whole argument prove the absolute correctness of the view I took of Commercial Union at the Imperial Federation meeting, and does it not prove that his co-worker Wiman, being a Canadian, was acting the part of a traitor, in trying to betray his native country into a course which could only end in placing it absolutely in the hands of a foreign and hostile Power?”

A few days later another incident occurred showing the active interest that was being taken in the annexation movement. Senator Sherman’s speech was delivered on the 18th September, 1888; on the 29th of the same month, Erastus Wiman sent the following telegram to a number of the Canadian newspapers:

New York,29th Sept.I deem it my duty to say that information from Washington reaches me of a reliable character to the effect that the Senate Committee of Foreign Affairs has, during the past few days, in furtherance of the views of its Chairman, Senator Sherman, been discussing the question of inviting the Dominion of Canada to join the United States. So far have matters progressed that it is not at all unlikely that a resolution will be reported for concurrent action of both Houses, declaring it to be the duty of the President to open negotiations with Great Britain, looking to a political union between the English-speaking nations on this continent.The condition attending the invitation of Canada is understood to be that the United States would assume the entire public debt of the Dominion, estimated at $300,000,000.Commercial Union was urged as the basis of the proposed negotiation, on the ground that while a large majority might be secured for it, only a small minority favoured political union, but the sentiment of the Committee was so strong in favour of proposing at first Political Union, that it was impossible to contend with it.Erastus Wiman.

New York,29th Sept.

I deem it my duty to say that information from Washington reaches me of a reliable character to the effect that the Senate Committee of Foreign Affairs has, during the past few days, in furtherance of the views of its Chairman, Senator Sherman, been discussing the question of inviting the Dominion of Canada to join the United States. So far have matters progressed that it is not at all unlikely that a resolution will be reported for concurrent action of both Houses, declaring it to be the duty of the President to open negotiations with Great Britain, looking to a political union between the English-speaking nations on this continent.

The condition attending the invitation of Canada is understood to be that the United States would assume the entire public debt of the Dominion, estimated at $300,000,000.

Commercial Union was urged as the basis of the proposed negotiation, on the ground that while a large majority might be secured for it, only a small minority favoured political union, but the sentiment of the Committee was so strong in favour of proposing at first Political Union, that it was impossible to contend with it.

Erastus Wiman.

An attempt was made by Mr. Wiman to withdraw this message, but it failed, and it was published in two or three papers.

The United States papers were for a year or two filled with articles discussing annexation, sometimes in friendly strains, sometimes in a most hostile spirit. President Cleveland’s retaliation proclamation following closely the refusal of the United States Senate to confirm a treaty which had been agreed upon between Great Britain and the United States, was a direct threat against Canada, issued to the people of the Republic at a time likely to influence the result of the approaching Presidential election.

On the 26th September, 1888, the ChicagoTribuneconcluded a very aggressive article with these words:

There are two ways in which Canada can protect herself from all possibility of a quarrel with this country about fish. One of these is by commercial union with the United States. The other is political union. If she is not ready for either, then her safety lies in not provoking the United States by unfair or unfriendly dealing, for when the provocation comes, Uncle Sam will reach out and take her in, in order to ensure quiet, and neither she nor her venerable old mother can prevent it.

This paper about the same time had a cartoondepicting “The United States in 1900,” showing Uncle Sam bestriding the whole North American continent.

The New YorkWorld, in December, 1888, also published a map of North America to show what the United States would look like after Canada came in, and depicted our country divided up into twenty-eight new States and territories, and named to suit the Yankee taste. In connection with this map theWorldpublished an interview with Senator Sherman, in which he advocated strenuously the annexation of Canada to the United States, saying that “the fisheries dispute and the question of the right of free transit of American goods over Canadian railroads are a type of the disputes that have vexed the two nations for a century, and will continue to disturb them as long as the present conditions exist. To get rid of these questions we must get rid of the frontier.”

In the descriptive article on the map everything that could help to excite the cupidity of the people of the United States was said and with great ability, and Professor Goldwin Smith was cited as declaring:

It is my avowed conviction that the union of the English-speaking race upon this continent will some day come to pass. For twenty years I have watched the action of the social and economical forces which are all, as it seems to me, drawing powerfully and steadily in that direction.

The map and the articles accompanying it were evidently published to accustom the minds of the people of the United States to the idea of expansion and aggression:

What a majestic empire the accompanying map suggests; one unbroken line from the Arctic Ocean tothe Torrid Zone. The United States is here shown as embracing nearly the whole of the North American continent. Having conquered the Western wilderness the star of Empire northward points its way. . . . There would be no more trouble about fishing treaties or retaliation measures, and peace with all nations would be assured, by making the United States absolute master of the vast Western continent. The Empire that this nation would embrace under such circumstances is so vast in extent that none other furnishes a parallel.

This is only an illustration of the feeling all over the United States at this period from 1888 to 1890. The newspapers and magazines were filled with articles and cartoons all pointing in the same direction. Mr. Whitney, a member of the United States Cabinet, even went so far as to say that four armies of 25,000 men each could easily conquer Canada, indicating that the question of attacking Canada had been thought of. General Benjamin F. Butler, in theNorth American Review, one of their most respectable magazines, speaking of annexation, said, “Is not this the fate of Canada? Peacefully, we hope; forcefully, if we must,” and in the truculent spirit of a freebooter he suggested that the invading army should be paid by dividing up our land among them. General J. H. Wilson, a prominent railway manager, presented a petition to the United States Senate in which he said:

The best and most thoughtful citizens were coming to look upon the existence of Canada, and the allied British possessions in North America, as a continuous and growing menace to our peace and prosperity, and that they should be brought under the constitution and laws of our country as soon as possible, peacefully if it can be so arranged, but forcibly if it must.

Then came the McKinley Bill especially bearing upon the articles where Canada’s trade could be most seriously injured. It was believed that traitors in our own country assisted in arranging this part of the tariff so as to strike Canada as severely as possible. As another instance of the unprincipled manner in which these conspirators carried on their work, the following Press dispatch was sent to some of the United States papers:

At a meeting called in Stimpson, Ontario, to hear a debate on annexationv.independence or continued dependence, a vote taken after the speakers had finished showed 418 for the annexation to 21 for thestatus quo. It seems almost incredible, but this meeting is a good indication of the rapid strides the annexation sentiment is making among the Canadian people. The Tories cannot keep Canada out of the Union much longer.

As I have never been able to discover any place of that name in Ontario, and as there is no such post office in the official list, it is evident that the dispatch was a pure invention for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States.

Another important indication of the feeling is shown in an article in the New YorkDaily Commercial Bulletinin November, 1888, referring to certain political considerations as between Canada and the States. It states:

What these are may be inferred from the recent utterances of prominent American statesmen like Senator Sherman and Mr. Whitney, Secretary of the Navy, just previous to the recent election, with reference to which theBulletinhas recently had something to say. Both are inimical to commercial union unlessit be also complemented by political union; or, to phrase it more plainly, they insist that annexation of Canada to the United States can afford the only effective guarantee of satisfactory relations between the two countries, if these are to be permanent. These prominent public men, representing each of the great parties that have alternately the administration of this Government in their hands, we are persuaded, did not put forth these views at random, but that they voiced the views of other political leaders, their associates, who are aiming at making Canadian annexation the leading issue at the next Presidential election. As if speaking for the Republicans, Senator Sherman, as has already been shown, thinks the country is now ready for the question; while Secretary Whitney, as if speaking for the other political party, is not less eager to bring the country face to face with it, even at the risk of a war with England, though it is but justice to him to say that he is of the opinion that the Mother Country, if really persuaded that the Canadians themselves were in favour of separating from her, would not fire a gun nor spend a pound sterling to prevent it. . . . The whole drift is unquestionably in that direction (political union), and in the meantime we do not look for positive action on the part of Congress, on either commercial reciprocity or the fisheries, at this session or the next. These questions, in all human probability, will be purposely left open by the party managers in order to force the greater issue, which, as it seems to me, none but a blind man can fail to see is already looming up with unmistakable distinctness in the future.

TheNew York Worldin the early part of 1890 “instructed its correspondents in Montreal, Toronto, and Quebec to describe impartially the political situation in Canada in regard to annexation to the United States.” The report charges Premier Mercier with being “a firm believer in annexation as the ultimatedestiny of the Dominion of Canada,” but he “is too shrewd a politician to openly preach annexation to his fellow countrymen under existing circumstances.” The report also quotes the TorontoGlobeas saying that the Canadian people “find the Colonial yoke a galling one,” and that “the time when Canadian patriotism was synonymous with loyalty to the British connection has long since gone by.”

The concluding paragraph of theWorld’sarticle is the most suggestive and insolent:

Nobody who has studied the peculiar methods by which elections are won in Canada will deny the fact, that five or six million dollars, judiciously expended in this country, would secure the return to Parliament of a majority pledged to the annexation of Canada to the United States.

The leading men in this conspiracy in Canada were Edward Farrer, Solomon White, Elgin Myers, E. A. Macdonald, Goldwin Smith, and John Charlton, the two latter being the only men of any prominent status or position in the movement, and after a time Charlton left it. These men were avowed annexationists, while there were a great many in favour of commercial union who did not believe that it would result in annexation, or did not care, and there were numbers who were ready to float with the stream, and quite willing to advocate annexation if they thought the movement was likely to succeed. When the Continental Union Association was formed in 1892, Goldwin Smith accepted the Honorary Presidency in Canada, for the organisation had its principal strength in New York, where a large number of prominent and wealthy men joined its ranks, Francis Wayland Glenbeing the Secretary. Glen became angry at the defection of some Liberal leaders after they obtained office, and gave the names of the organisers in a letter to the OttawaEvening Journalof the 13th September, 1904, as follows:

Charles A. Dana, Andrew Carnegie, John Jacob Astor, Ethan Allen, Warner Miller, Edward Lauterbach, Wm. C. Whitney, Orlando B. Potter, Horace Porter, John Hay, Theodore Roosevelt, Elihu Root, Oswald Ottendorfer, Cornelius N. Bliss, John D. Long, Jno. B. Foraker, Knute Nelson, Jacob Gallinger, Roswell P. Flower, Joseph Jno. O’Donohue, Chauncey M. Depew, John P. Jones, Wm. Walter Phelps, General Butterfield, General Henry W. Slocum, General James H. Wilson, General Granville W. Dodge, Charles Francis Adams, Oliver Ames, Seth Low, Bourke Cochrane, John C. McGuire, Dennis O’Brien, Charles L. Tiffany, John Clafflin, Nathan Straus, and Samuel Spencer.

In the list we received in addition to these there were others, nearly 500 in all.

Afterwards, in 1893, I was able to get some further information as to the treasonable nature of the movement as far as the Canadian side of it was concerned. The intention of those interested in the United States was to endeavour to extend the power of that country to the Arctic Ocean, as it had been extended to Mexico and the Pacific.

The Continental Union League in New York was in close connection with the Continental Union Association of Ontario. Mr. Goldwin Smith, as I have said, accepted the position of Honorary President, John Morrison was the President, and T. M. White Secretary. The headquarters were in Toronto. We had information at the time that Mr. Goldwin Smith subscribed$500 to the funds, and that this was intended to be an annual subscription.

There were two members of our League with whom I was constantly conferring on the private matters connected with our work. Upon them, more than on any others, did I depend for advice, for consultation, and for assistance, and I can never forget the obligations I am under to them. We three accidentally saw an opportunity of getting some knowledge of the working of the Continental Union League in New York. By great good fortune we were able to perfect arrangements by which one who was in the confidence of the movement in New York was induced to send us any information that could be obtained. For a considerable time we were in receipt of most interesting information, much of which was verified by independent evidence. We often heard from our agent beforehand of what was going to take place, and every time matters came to pass just as we had been forewarned. In many instances we had independent corroborative evidence that the statements were reliable.

We were informed of a written agreement, signed by a Canadian Liberal leader, to have legislation carried to handicap the Canadian Pacific Railway if the Liberal party came into power. Our agent even obtained knowledge of where and by whom it was signed, and who at the time had custody of it. We received copies of many of Glen’s letters to Mercier, Fairer, Bourke Cochrane, and others. One letter to Colonel John Hay at Washington informed him that the New York League was working in conjunction with the Ontario League. A letter to Farrer told him of a meeting held in November, 1893, in the New YorkSunoffice, at which Honore Mercier, John Morrison, Tarte, and Robidoux were present, that money was asked to aid the Liberals, but Glen objected. This information we received some months after this meeting had been held. Eleven years later, in the letter already referred to, which Glen in his anger wrote to the OttawaJournalof the 13th September, 1904, I find the following paragraph:

Back to Index Next