The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-10-31
a Canadian Opponent Of Annexation.

\ Canadian Opponent of Annexation.
In tho latest number Of the Forum IN In
l,abitant OF the Dominion. Mr. J. CAsTELL
HoPxIys. gets forth what no overs TO be the
grounds for Canadian hostility to annexa-
/! ton. Some Of these Indicate an extraordl-
| nary mscopceptiou OF our system Of gov
ernmen.. and OF the powers which would be
exercised by tho Canadian provinces. should
they become States of the Union.
For instance. Mr.. HOPKINS says that the
Canadians are deeply attached to the prin-
| ciple OF Ministerial accountability. or, In
other words. to tho Parliamentary as dis
| tinguished from tho Presidential type OF
| polity. He assumes that this principle
would have to be abandoned In case the
Canadians should become American citi-
zeDs. II Is true that annexation would In
volve the displacement OF the Dominion
Government at Ottawa by the Federal Gov
eminent ct Washington. and to that ex-
tent the principle OF Ministerial RESPONSE
billty would have to be surrendered. be-
cause the members OF our Presidents Cab
met have neither seat nor vote In either
branch OF the Federal Congress. But surely
Mr.. HOPKINS Is aware that the interests OF
denizen of.Ontario or Quebec are regu-
lated to a far greater extent by the Pro-
vincial Legislature than by the Dominion
Parliament. He seems. however. to over
look the fact that the State Constitution OF
Ontario or Quebec would be framed by the
Inhabitants Of the province before its ad-
mission to the Union. and that they would
be at perfect liberty to retain the principle
of Ministerial accountability to the Legis-
lature 30 far as their State Government
should be concerned.
Another objection to annexation which
the contributor to the Forum pronounces
important. Is that in most of our States the
judiciary Is elected. instead OF being APP
pointed. as is the case In Canada, and also
with the Judges Of all our Federal courts.
We note in passing that Mr.. HOPKINS seems
to imagine that the method Of appointment
is applied only to the members Of the
United States Supreme Court. 1t is. OF
course. applied equally t. the much
more numerous members Of our Federal
Circuit and District Courts. But what we
would particularly note is that here again
the range Of the powers that would be re-
served to Canadian province. should it be-
come State In the Union. is misconceived.
It would be for the people OF Ontario or
Quebec to determine. when they framed
their State Constitution, whether their
judiciary should be appointed or elected.
When Mr.. HOPKINS speaks Of the COM
parative immunity Of Canada from corrup-
ton at elections. one is provoked TO smile
and to suspect that he attributes to US as
little knowledge Of the state Of things in the
Dominion as he exhibits with regard to our
system Of government. 1t Is notorious on
both sides Of the border. that almost every
engine Of seduction and intimidation
was habltually employed by the late Sir
JOHN MACDONALD in the Dominion gen.
eral elections. and that the Canadian
Pacific Railway was mis- jealous coad- |
jutor. Besides. we may relieve the ap-
prehensions expressed by Mr.. HOPKINS |
on this score. by assuring him that the |
Federal Elections bill now before the United |
States Senate is certain to be passed. and |
Federal interference is not likely ever
again to find place on the statute book, so |
that all elections. whether State or Federal.
will be In the hands Of the Canadians them
selves. after their admission to the Union.
AS for Mr.. HOPKINs's assertion that the
Of the Dominion are actually
more prosperous than the citizens OF the
United States. we shall leave this statement
to be dealt with by the owners Of hundreds
OF vacant warehouses and dwellings, In
Toronto. by the ruined farmers OF Ontario.
and by the thousands OF French Canadians
who are fleeing from their homes. or
desiring to flee.