Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-06-29

supporter of separate schools. He gave to
the law of 1863 his vote and his influence.
Mr.. George Brown on the contrary was
most determined opponent OF separate
schools. He attacked the system relent-
lessly; he attacked it in his paper, on the
door of the house of commons and upon
the hustings. He attacked II with all the
vehemence of his S trongly impassioned ma
ture.
Arguments Against Separate Schools
Not New.
THE arguments we hear today against
separate schools are not new; they were
heard fifty years ago. The arguments we
hear today are but the attenuated echo of
the strong denunciations of Mr. Brown,
which were heard by our fathers two gen.
eratons ago. But the views of Mr. Brown
oid not prevail, and, Notwithstanding his
eHorts. ne was not in the house when the
law or 1863 passed, which confirmed to
.ie roman Catholic minority of upper Can
AGA the privilege of separate schools.
History has recorded how iealously how
lenaclously, the thirteen American colonies,
alter their joint efforts had wrought their
Liaepehaence, each clung to its own indi-
Vlcual life. History has recorded how re-
iuctantly each of the thirteen colonies at
last consented to part with those powers
the concession of which was necessary to
form a strong central government Tie
Incentive which proved effective and which
forced a FIR al consent, was the memory of
dangers which they had recently shared
.ogether. and the necessity of guarding
against a possible recurrence of such dam
gers. No such sentiment abode in the Cana
dian colonies. The various Canadian colo
mes were isolated from one another-isolat-
ed by distances and by racial distinctions.
The two groups which were ethnically con-
nected, Ontario and maritime provinces
were separated by long distances The two
groups which were geographically united.
ontario and Quebec, We're separated by the
dee per cleavage of difference of origin In
all there was strong sense of local pride,
IN all there was strong assertion of self
interest and in all there were peculiar in
stitu1ons as to the security of which all
dreaded to be launched into the unknown
rms was particularly true of educa ton in
! lower Canada and in upper Canada. In
lower Canada the Protestant minority had
| long enjoyed their own system of separate
schools. In upper Canada the Roman Cath
olic minority had just secured a similar
| system.
These two minorities feared that in the
| new constitution, under the separation of
| legislative powers which must ensue the
rights of each might be put in jeopardy by
| a hostile majority. The minority of lower
| Canada felt perfectly secure under the then
| existing condition of things because those
| of their own creed and race were in the ma
| jority in united Canada. The Roman Cath
olic minority in upper Canada feared also
| the constitution because 1t would be le-
| prived of the powerful alliance of those of
| their own origin In another province. In
der such circumstances what was to be
done? How could a scheme of cOnfedera-
ton be devised so as to insure the support
of all parties and sections of the commu-
nifty?
| 1T is useless to speculate as to what
might have been done 1t is sufficient to
| say that means were found to insure to the
minority in each province the free exercise
of its rights, and that means was to declare
| that In the provinces of upper and lower
| Canada the rights of the minority which
| were to be intrusted to the respective legis-
| 1atures of these provinces, Were to be above
| the control of the majority.
In Accord With the Constitution.
Il am not here to advocate separa te
| schools an abstract proposition but we
| have introduced into this bill the two prop
| osftions. that the minority shall have the
power to establish their own schools and
| that they shall have the right to share in
| the public moneys 1t is the law today. 1t
| is in accord with the constitution, with
| the British North American act, and COM
mend 1t even to the biased Judgment of my
| honorable friend. However. let me put
| question: If we were in the year 1867 and
| not in the year 1905, and, If we had to IN
| trOduce into this dominion the provinces of
| Alberta and Saskatchewan, would you tell
me that these provinces would not have the
| same rights and privileges in regard to
| separate schools as were granted to On
| tario and Quebec? Would you tell me that
when you say to Ontario and Quebec: You
| shall have your separate schools, Alberta
| and Saskatchewan should be denied that
! privilege? The thing is preposterous. Let
| rise above such considerations.
In everything that l have said l have
refrained from saying a single word upon
the abstract principle OF separate schools.
l approach the question upon another and
broader ground; l approach the question
not from the view of separate schools but
| approach it upon the higher ground of
Canadian duty and Canadian patriotism.
Having obtained the consent of the minor
ty to this form of government, having
obtained their consent to the giving up of
their valued privileges, and their position
of strength. to tell them, now that
confederation is tablished that the prin
cipe upon which they consented to this ar
| rangement is to be laid aside and that
are to ride roughshod over them? l do
not think that is a proposition which will
be maintained in this house, nor do | be-
| iieve it is the intention of the house.
| offer at this moment no opinion at all upon
separate schools as an abstract PROPOSE
| ton, but have no hesitation in saying that
| If [ were to speak my min upon separate
! schools | would say that | never could un-
| derstand what objection there could be 10
| a system of schools wherein, after secular
matters have been attended to, the tenetS
| Of the religion of Christ, even with the d.
visions which exist among His followers,
| are allowed to be taught. We live in a
| country wherein the seven provinces that
constitute nation, either by the Will
| or by the tolerance of the people, in every
| school, Christian morals and Christian dog
| mas are taught to the youth of the country.
Comparison With This Country.
| I'VE live by the side of a nation, great
| nation, a nation for which have the great
| est admiration, but whose example 1 would
! not take in everything, in whose schools
for fear that Christian dognas in which
| all do not believe might be taught, Chris
| tan morals are not taught. When / COM
| pare these two countries, when l compare
| Canada with the United States, when
| compare the status of the two nations,
| when I think upon their future, when l OBJ
serve the social condition of civil society in
| each Of them and when l observe in this
| country of ours. a total absense of lynch
| ings and an almost total absence of d.
vorces and murders, for my part, thank
! heaven that we are living in a country
where the young children of the land are
| taught Christian morals and Christian dog
mas Either the American system Is right
| or the Canadian system is wrong. For my
part l say this and l say 1t without hesi-
tatiOn Time will show that we are In the